Michael (2026)
We're surprised as anybody else to end up reviewing this.
Honestly we had no intention of bothering to see this film, even for the purpose of covering it for this blog. We were content to forget all about the strange, weird and sordid life of pop star Michael Jackson.
And we were already well aware that the film covered only the glory years of his young career, with beautifully rendered recreations of the concerts and an uncanny rendition of Jackson by one of his nephews, Jaafar Jackson.
Then last week, it became available to BQ through a free streaming sampling of movies on STARZ.
So we watched it. Entertained? Sure thing... for the good stuff we just mentioned. Yes, the concert sequences rocked (taking up the bulk of the film's running time) and we doubt any actor could have duplicated Michael Jackson with such precision and fierce dedication as his nephew accomplished. Let's put it this way.....he's far better than AI, 'cause you know he's real......
The rest of it? Actually kind of antiquated in its construction. Director Antoine Fuqua and screenwriter John Logan assemble the film much like a glowing 1940's movie biography. It's filled with the innocent naif Michael rising to the top as he confounds corporate execs and delights thousands with his electrified singing and dancing. There's "....and then he wrote.." montages and scenes of Michael articulating his gentle, benevolent dreams of spreading joy, love and peace to the world. The filmmaking, in its worship of its subject, resembles how old Hollywood handled biographies of famous beloved celebrities.
But there is a wild card running loose through the film.....Coleman Domingo's terrifying, nightmare inducing portrayal of the infamous, abusive Jackson patriarch, Joe. Physically and verbally intimidating, Joe's scarier than any of the zombies in Jackson's "Thriller" video or even Inde Navarrette in "Obsession". Like a quaking young Michael, you flinch right alongside him when Joe gets in his son's face, enraged at the boy's effort to forge his own separate career.
Coleman's Joe, who's like a pop music Bond villain, clearly functions as the engine that keeps the film going somewhere other than just showing you a Vegas-style variety show. (And the film only ends when he's finally and publicly thwarted by the son whose gifts he chose to exploit rather than cherish.)
The one amusing moment we remember......an almost unrecognizable Mike Myers as CBS music executive Walter Yetnikoff, ripping into MTV for not considering to play Jackson's videos. (Gen Xers may watch this scene muttering...."What? Did MTV play actual music way back then?"
Now let's get down to the problematic question.....is it okay for fans of Jackson's iconic music and performances to enjoy this movie purely for its ability to accurately reproduce them?
Of course it is and in no way do we begrudge anyone who spent a couple hours with this film, clapping, dancing and toe-tapping along. Much in the same way that Roman Polanski's vile sexual assault of a child doesn't stop us from sometimes re-watching "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby". They still remain superb films and Jackson's music still remains as catchy and beloved as ever.
Yes, the art can be separated from the artist but then the millions of moviegoers who made "Michael" a huge box office hit already proved that.
But let's keep in mind that doesn't improve our overall opinion of Jackson and Polanski as human beings. Which is why "Michael" ends its storytelling well before Jackson's slide into freakish behavior, ruinous surgeries and and charges of pedophilia.
As far as the artistry of its filmmaking (but not the barely there script), "Michael" earns at least 3 stars (***). But for those coming to it solely for the music and Jaafar Jackson's remarkable work, well then it's a 4 star feast. (****). For those who under no circumstance will divorce the art from the artist.....you shouldn't have even wasted time reading this review.
No comments:
Post a Comment