Film Review: ‘Michael’ — An Uninteresting Capture of the Most Interesting Artist to Exist

 

Much like Michael Jackson’s shaky reputation in the public eye – Lionsgate’s tent pole film adaptation,  Michael, of Jackson’s life was an unprecedented production disaster. From production delays to trade publications breaking news about a potential 4 hour cut amidst legal disputes, this film has been Frankenstein’d together with millions of dollars worth of reshoots and CGI animals.

Now, crowdpleaser Antoine Fuqua’s (Training Day, The Equalizer) vision of Michael Jackson has arrived. Unfortunately, it is just that — a no risk taken, unmitigated bore tale of a seemingly impossible person.

Michael follows a young Michael Jackson growing up in Gary, Indiana, alongside his four brothers, his supportive mother, and his domineering father (played by Colman Domingo). Michael is portrayed by his real-life nephew, Jaafar Jackson, who delivers an uncanny performance that captures the singer’s soft-spoken demeanor and artistic genius.

The film hits many familiar beats of the music biopic genre, weaving together energetic concert sequences with the central conflict of Michael’s struggle against his father’s overbearing control over both his career and individual expression.

As the Jackson 5 rises to international fame, Michael quickly emerges as the undeniable standout talent. The story then jumps ahead to the period just before the production of his debut solo album, Off the Wall. From there, the film moves through the era of Thriller, offering a brief glimpse of Bad before concluding with a somewhat Marvel-esque finale.

Countering my cynicism about the film, my audience ate up every second of this. Moviegoers had their phones out recording many of the stage performances like they were at one of the King’s concerts. Moments of applause would frequent just about every scene and it was clear to me that this was going to be a clear discrepancy between middle America and more serious moviegoers.

This observation had me wonder about the point of movies like these. When done right with a true auteur filmmaking vision, we get an Elvis or A Complete Unknown – two films that were given grace in terms of an artist’s portrayal and what the filmmaker wanted to convey. Michael just feels like something made in a lab that will impress your coworker and make a billion dollars.

If the goal is to “event-ize” moviegoing, wouldn’t a restored version of a Michael Jackson concert formatted for IMAX screens and speakers be more appropriate? I take the recent Baz Luhrmann headed lost-footage Elvis concert as a prime example of something that works. An audience gets to learn so much about a person that is out of reach in the little moments rather than a poorly made recreation that reads like a Wikipedia article. It’s a freshly poured pint of Guinness versus a bottle of Diet Coke you leave in your car for a few days.

Michael ends up feeling flat because the film avoids confronting Michael Jackson’s flaws. He’s portrayed almost as a flawless, God-like figure, which doesn’t reflect the reality that he was a complex person with a complicated life. Given his controversial and often scrutinized reputation, it’s striking that the film instead leans heavily on scenes – several of them – showing him visiting children in hospitals, signing autographs, and watching cartoons, rather than engaging with the more difficult aspects of his story. This is a morally complex person – why must we feed the audience with something that doesn’t criticize?

Michael is the exact kind of movie that your coworker will insist is the best thing they’ve seen in years. When in reality – it’s a safe, spoon-fed collection of greatest hits that avoids any sort of conflict that is solely Michael Jackson’s doing. For an artist of this magnitude and whose music has reached every nook of the world – it’s a major disappointment. But hey, if the goal was to get me to bump “Bad” on the way home, they succeeded.

---