The “King of Pop” Michael Jackson is given the biopic treatment in Michael, a predictably uninspired example of filmmaking-by-committee that reaches near propaganda storytelling that is shallow in depth, void in creativity, and a waste of a fine lead performance by Jaafar Jackson.
The music biopic is the least creative of the film genres, yet one that studios love to make since it caters to an already established fanbase and can result in awards-glory for whoever portrays the films’ subject. It all makes sense then that a biopic on Michael Jackson – the biggest and most controversial music superstar of all time – be made, with the music sequences alone sure to thrill audiences.
Yet with news of a Michael Jackson biopic came the question: will it be a layered exploration of a creative genius who left behind a complicated legacy, or will it be a polished puff-piece of little depth? The Antoine Fuqua directed Michael alas firmly belongs to the latter.
Told in a chronological patchwork of the King of Pop’s greatest hits, Michael begins in Gary, India,1966 where young Michael Jackson (Juliano Krue Valdi) and his brothers are (literally) whipped into musical shape by their domineering father Joseph (Colman Domingo) into becoming the renowned R’n’B musical group The Jackson 5. As Michael’s popularity grows over the years and Joseph’s grip on the Jackson 5 tightens, a now adult Michael (Jaafar Jackson) must break free to truly express himself through what would become an extraordinary solo career.
Although directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) and written by John Logan (Gladiator), Michael is less movie and more a patchwork of selected highlights sewn together to create a wiki-style film with each chapter introduced in big, bold text declaring the where and when.
Numerous reports have stated that an hour’s worth of material that portrayed Michael Jackson’s more tawdry aspects of his life (if child-abuse allegations can be described as such) was removed, and Michael most definitely feels like a feature-length sizzle reel shaped and packaged by a conglomerate of handlers and managers looking to relaunch the Michael Jackson brand to a generation of film-goers who don’t know better and a legion of fans who will swallow whatever Michael Jaclson Co. feeds them.
Keeping it further in the family in the casting of Jaafar Jackson – nephew of Michael – in the title role, and it’s a decision that works brilliantly with Jaafar replicating the movements and mannerisms of his uncle with almost eerie perfection. Great too is Colman Domingo who brings weight and intimidation to what is a one-note character in Joseph Jackson.
Memorable too are the films’ numerous music numbers in which Jackson’s biggest hits – “Billie Jean”, “Human Nature”, “Thriller” – are replicated on the big screen. But this also represents the lowest-common-denominator filmmaking that Michael (and others like it) subscribes to. There was a time when the music biopic was just as invested in the psychology and motivations of its protagonist as it was the artistry. Michael never dares to venture into the complexities of just who Michael Jackson was and how such a troubled mind and soul could create music that inspired generations.
No, Michael is all about nostalgia bait and replication over reality; a movie made for a world that now finds artistic highs in watching an AI Hannibal Lector do the Dirty Dancing shuffle and cheering for B-grade celebs on The Masked Singer, and made by family and business interests who refuse to acknowledge Jackson’s flaws as long as the money keeps rolling in.
