‘Michael’ Is Only Offensive Due To Its Omissions

If there’s one even remotely positive thing one could say about Michael, it’s that it was ambitious to even attempt to create it in the first place. Though Michael Jackson is one of the most beloved musical acts of all time, his reputation has been sullied by continuous allegations of child sexual abuse since 1993. 

So how exactly does a film square Jackson’s legacy of incredible musicianship with his numerous controversies? The answer, as found in Antoine Fuqua’s shockingly standard music biopic Michael, is to not even try. 

That’s not for lack of trying – it’s been well-reported that Michael was initially supposed to be depict the first of Jackson’s many child sexual abuse cases, until the producers realised that doing so would violate a clause in the initial settlement. The final product belies this troubled production, resulting in Michael being a totally sterile and clinical affair. 

A film that reeks of obligation, not passion

As such, it’s a film that is only offensive by what it omits, not what it includes. It follows all the beasts of a big studio biopic about a famous musical artist, starting with the early life and tremendous success of Jackson as he moves from member of the Jackson Five to the defining voice behind Thriller, before the inevitable second-act low point and victory lap in the final 30 minutes. 

Michael technically hits all the points that one of these movies needs to, but does so with a shocking lack of technical ability or storytelling. It all reeks of obligation, and the passion for music that’s rendered on-screen feels deeply inauthentic in its depiction of Jackson’s life – likely thanks to the Jackson estate’s reputation for attempting to keep the late singer’s reputation squeaky clean. 

Even so, Fuqua’s film does nothing to evoke the colour and life that made Jackson such a singular performer, which is especially noticeable in the scenes that recreate real-life footage and music videos. Watch this movie’s recreation of the iconic Thriller music video next to the original, and I guarantee that you’ll be hanging your head and wondering how we forgot to light nighttime scenes. 

That’s what all of Michael feels like – hollow recreation. Rather than seriously attempt to tell the story of a person, it assumes a base knowledge of Jackson’s stardom and it portrays his success less as the result of hard work, but simply fate playing out. Nothing in the film is constructed to challenge the audience’s perception of Jackson; it simply serves to reheat what you love about him without the difficult stuff. 

Even by propaganda standards, Michael should be better

Jafaar Jackson, the nephew of the King of Pop in real life, plays a perfectly acceptable simulacrum of his uncle, and perhaps the sole impressive element of this film is his ability to emulate the moves with absurd efficiency. His actual moment-to-moment acting struggles much more, but being able to replicate Jackson’s ability to move is still no easy feat. 

Still, it’s in service of a particularly sinister effort to actively launder the late star’s reputation. Considering its choice to only tell the story up until 1988, it never has to address the massive elephant in the room or grapple with the difficult parts of his history. Like so many terrible music biopics, Jackson isn’t a person or even a character in this film – he is a brand. 

Say what you will about Jackson and his legacy (though there are a LOT of allegations against him, just saying), but even a propagandistically positive spin on it deserves a much better film than Michael. This is slop to the highest degree, a real pop cultural nadir that’s deliberately unwilling to capture either what made him so unique, or what compromised his reputation forever. As the credits roll, there’s really only one question to ask: what was the point? 

★

Michael is in cinemas now.