Ron’s Review

🌕🌕🌕🌕🌗

There were two kinds of people who went to watch Michael: those who were already going to hate it, and those who wanted to love it. I wanted to be an impartial viewer, but I grew up on Michael Jackson’s music and videos. He shaped so much of my understanding of how art could be used for protest. When he was accused of sexual misconduct, I followed the trials into the abuse allegations against him. I believe the survivors, and I understand that the pain Jackson caused affects the music he made. 

But this film isn’t about that part of Jackson’s life. This has been a very sore point for many critics. Why didn’t this film tell his entire story? Why stop at 1988 instead of exploring the more awful aspects of the singer’s life and the harm he caused? Turns out there were legal reasons—there can be no depictions of the survivors—and hence the film stopped before those events. You know which other biopic stopped in the 80s before the singer’s career took shape? Rocketman, the Elton John biopic. I don’t remember people complaining about that film not showing his entire life. Why is that a criticism of Michael?

I went into this film with trepidation, assuming the pushback from critics was also because it was a bad film. No, it’s not. I enjoyed this film. I was probably going to enjoy it, in any case, but I was completely immersed in it. Is it ground-breaking? Probably not. It isn’t doing anything that different from the aforementioned Rocketman, Bohemian Rhapsody, or Elvis! But it’s a solid film about striving for more, searching for creativity, and breaking free from the control of an overbearing and abusive parent.

This film is essentially Michael Jackson (Jaafar Jackson, his nephew) versus his father, Joseph Jackson (Colman Domingo). Michael wants to go solo; Joseph wants the Jacksons to be a band forever. I didn’t expect that to be the thrust of the story, but it’s well-executed and impactful. All the highs of Jackson’s early career are ruined by Joseph until he finally gets the courage to stand up for himself.

Jaafar, in his debut role, is astonishing. He gets his uncle’s voice down to a T. His mannerisms, facial expressions; there were so many times that I didn’t know if I was watching the real man. For any other subject, Jaafar would be in the running for the Oscars. Does playing a bad person disqualify an actor from award shows? Let’s take back the Oscars for actors playing serial killers, then. 

Jaafar is ably assisted by excellent prosthetics, recreations of his uncle’s iconic suits, and stunning stage sets. This film is a feast for the eyes, as the music that I grew up listening to is a treat for my ears. The final act is a long concert and I can’t complain. I enjoyed the feeling of being immersed in a Michael Jackson concert, a feeling I never got to enjoy in real life (and one that I may have avoided once the accusations came to life).

The supporting cast do an excellent job recreating their real life characters. Colman Domingo is a powerhouse in every film—he’s terrifying as Joseph, and irredeemable. I loved Kendrick Sampson as Quincy Jones. Miles Teller looked a bit off with his hair and prosthetics but it wasn’t as distracting as I was led to believe. It looked like everyone involved in the film had a wonderful time, even though the film itself is harrowing and quite stressful.

The one area where this film could have been better is in showing how Jackson created his music and lyrics. His video concepts are made clear, but the songs themselves, less so. I’m also surprised at the complete erasure of Janet Jackson, a megastar in her own right. She wasn’t involved in the film but why erase her?

Despite that, I loved this film. I loved the music. I think it was very well-made. Jaafar is incredible. I don’t care that the story stops in 1988. I hope there are sequels that dive into Jackson’s later music and the allegations and court cases. And I hope they handle it fairly and with respect to the survivors. Jackson’s family is involved in this film but I hope that doesn’t stop them from being honest. But if there isn’t more, then Michael works well as an introduction to a singer who changed the game, and who we now know, was deeply flawed and caused harm.

Mon’s Review

🌕🌕🌕🌕🌗

Am I getting old or do I just like things more nowadays? I’m hard-to-please and overly critical. Of everything. And yet, I was dying to see Michael. I couldn’t believe we’d missed catching it in theatres—but we have to balance out time and money. Michael lost that battle. 

Now that it’s out on digital, we were champing at the bit to watch the film. I was holding my breath expecting trollop. Would it be a hagiography like the Elton John biopic? Or a dog’s breakfast of bad direction like Bohemian Rhapsody? Or worse, would it, like most biopics before it, make me utterly hate the man at the centre of the story? No. No. And not yet. 

I have complicated feelings about Michael Jackson. Who doesn’t? He was a large part of our childhood, and then once we learnt about abuse allegations, we had to deal with our love of his art and the reality of him as a problematic figure. 

The era that Michael covers is about Jackson at his most innocent and vulnerable. He’s a literal child for the whole first act—under the control and whims of his overbearing father Joseph, played with such smarmy panache by the inimitable Colman Domingo. 

I was surprised that the film openly dealt with Joseph’s abuse of Michael Jackson. Jackson had hinted at this during his lifetime, but to see it, however little we were shown, is horrifying and angering. 

Beyond the abuse though, the film deconstructs just how isolating Jackson’s existence was. He was an international sensation even before he was a teenager. He was also propping up his entire family’s lifestyle and finances. His life was never going to be like anyone else’s. 

I didn’t expect to enjoy the film, let alone like it. But it was wonderful. It was a heart-wrenching experience of watching someone be great at what they love doing and still having to fight a deeply personal, painful, and uphill battle. Michael also shows us that Jackson had his flaws starting from a young age. The film finds a balance between showing an outwardly kind-hearted person, and yet one with dreams of grandeur. And why not? We see mediocre white men get venerated in media all the time? Why not an actual genius whose name and legend surpassed borders globally?

What works in this film is that it never drags. The pacing is on point, interweaving pitch-perfect concert sequences and music videos with the story of Jackson’s rise and personal battles. The songs are not substitutes for the story (looking at you A Complete Unknown) nor are they so intrusive that you lose the thread of the story. 

But none of this would matter if it wasn’t for the absolutely stellar performances. Juliano Valdi plays young Michael and he is a find. My word, what a performance! He’s almost better at playing the role when he’s not singing. This kid is amazing and he can emote to break your heart. 

Jaafar Jackson plays his uncle in his first ever role. He doesn’t look like Jackson, and the prosthetics can only do so much, but man, does he sound and move exactly like his uncle. There are several moments in the film when I couldn’t disassociate Jaafar from Michael. Utter perfection. 

Domingo, of course, is just stupendous. You will actively hate him every time he speaks or appears on screen. It is uncanny how he’s able to get lost in every role. 

The rest of the cast give it their all despite their curtailed screentime. You are enmeshed in this era and in Michael’s world, for better or worse. 

If I have any criticisms it’s that they should have gone for an all unknown cast. My brain broke every time I recognized an actor playing a figure I knew of well, and who had a huge part to play in Jackson’s life. I’ve never had this issue before, but then again, I’ve never been so invested in a figure who is central to a biopic I’m watching. 

The other criticism is that I wish we’d got to see more of Jackson’s creative process. How did he come up with the dance moves, the choreography, the songs, the lyrics, the ideas for his videos? They touch on all that but race through it because it’s a lot to get through. I wanted to spend more time on that. Also, how did Jackson and Quincy Jones meet and begin such a game-changing partnership? Those are important facets of the story that are missing. Jackson was great at what he loved, but he didn’t do it on his own. We needed to see the village around him build him up. 

I am floored by this film. It’s not groundbreaking or out-of-the-box, but it’s a tight story and feeds into what anyone watching a film about Michael Jackson would want—his story, his talent, his music, his dancing, and his costumes. It’s a fabulous celebration of a legend. 

I’m convinced were this any other figure, we’d be hearing nothing but the Oscar campaign for a year. But this is Michael Jackson, so there’s been nothing but lukewarm responses and hate. This despite audiences piling into the box office and now on digital. 

Which brings me to wondering why this film had absolutely no fanfare around it. People were up in arms about the film not referencing the child abuse allegations against Jackson. That’s all they talked about, nothing about the actual film. This film is set in a particular time, before the revelations.

Jackson was known for being eccentric and odd. But where others in media found a subject to mock, some of us with a modicum of heart could see a person desperately holding on to a life he hadn’t lived and attempting to create a better world through the one thing he had control over—his music. This film elucidates on that. It breaks your heart with Michael’s reality. There was a real person, no matter how rich, who existed. 

Admittedly, Michael Jackson was our childhood, so my beatific views of what he hoped to achieve with his life have shaped how I view him. But I was also horrified to learn about the abuse allegations levied against Jackson. 

When the court ruled in his favour—on all counts—I remember my mum asking me how I felt. I told her the truth. I didn’t believe that he was innocent on every count. Hence, I didn’t believe the court’s decision. 

We may never learn the real truth, but young people were affected by Jackson and we cannot forget that. And yet, however problematic a figure he may have been, I don’t understand why there has been such a vendetta against supporting or publicizing this film. 

Michael is telling part of a story about Jackson. It hasn’t got to the part about the allegations, but my hope is that a creative team that didn’t shy away from showing familial abuse will not shy away from exploring the realities of its problematic protagonist. 

The filmmakers have said they will address the abuses as the story continues. So why did Michael still get pilloried for not addressing it? I don’t get it. And it upsets me because the creatives working on this film are being penalized for what the central figure did. It seems like an outsized reaction considering all the other horrible people the world loves to venerate. 

I thought this film was brilliantly put together with emotional heft and plenty of nostalgic nods to the great music and performances that made Jackson the legend he is. However problematic he was, the story that was told in the film needs to be considered on its own merits. It pulls it off with aplomb.