The music biopic has gradually turned into a space for elevating artists into legends, often leaning on a fair amount of myth-making. While many films in the subgenre bend facts for dramatic effect, “Michael” stands apart as a project seemingly built to avoid anything remotely controversial. Even if the press for “Michael” didn’t make it abundantly clear that the film had been oriented around the narrative spin designed by the Jackson estate, it’s a portrayal that proclaims the late pop star to be a messianic figure who fulfilled a destiny of greatness.
It might be impossible to assess “Michael” as a standalone film without considering it as a work of propaganda. Still, it’s also hard to deny its effectiveness at capturing the aura of its subject. Frustrating and fascinating in equal parts, “Michael” is a terrific theatrical experience that comes with fairly significant reservations.
The story of Michael Jackson is likely known to everyone watching the film, but “Michael” is focused on a select portion of the singer’s life. It’s within the opening portion of the film that Juliano Krue Valdi stars as a child version of Michael, who is subjected to physical and emotional abuse at the hands of his father, Joe (Colmon Domingo). Michael grows up desperately seeking independence, forced to recover bits of his childhood in the rare moments given to himself. Although his father has imposed a strict schedule that involves working with his brothers to keep playing their established hits, Michael is compelled to break out as a solo artist.
Given the tremendous complications involved with every aspect of Jackson’s career, “Michael” has a smart framing device. By focusing on the friction between Michael and his father, the film becomes a story about breaking out of a cozy, familiar model for the sake of fulfilling one’s complete potential. The scenes with the young Jackson family are affecting, with Valdi’s performance resonating as the type of innocent child who spends a lifetime searching for the happiness that he was denied for the sake of a professional career.
The transition to the adult version is astonishing, and Jafaar Jackson gives a remarkable performance as his uncle. Whether Jackson would be capable of any other role remains to be seen, but his personal family connection allowed for a performance that feels authentic in its mannerisms and musicianship. That the film is able to be so entertaining amidst its pasteurized screenplay is a credit to just how strong he is in the role.
Domingo leans into a truly venomous portrayal of the late Joe Jackson that is lacking in real depth, but is nonetheless successful in achieving its goals. Domingo is perhaps one of the greatest living actors, and he understands the assignment given to him. That he’s able to become genuinely menacing within a sterilized, PG-13 biopic is a testament to his acting prowess. Despite the literally imposing figure that Joe is and the power he has over his children’s careers, “Michael” does not articulate the threat he poses to Michael’s artistry.
The only striking difference between them is that Michael seems to genuinely believe in kindness and music bringing people together, and Joe sees it as purely a means to an end. However, it’s not shown why Michael’s songs are supposed to be an expression of his viewpoint, even if the film dedicates a nearly gratuitous amount of time to cramming as many iconic numbers in as possible.
The other glaring issue is that “Michael” doesn’t identify the stakes for what its subject is up against. Although there are moments where his loneliness is expressed through his childlike manner, Michael’s solo efforts aren’t seen as a major threat to the livelihood of his brothers, who aren’t given even a single line in which to distinguish themselves.
While Nia Long is effective at conveying the maternal affection that kept Michael sane, Katherine Jackson is used as a means by which the film can spout inspirational quotes. It’s disappointing that there isn’t more of Long and Domingo together, as the dimensionality of their relationship would have made for compelling drama.
While a considerable amount of “Michael” feels reworked, specifically because the ending directly teases a sequel, what Antoine Fuqua achieved on an aesthetic level is to be admired. Fuqua is often not given enough credit for his success at crafting down-the-middle, well-done versions of familiar stories, and “Michael” almost seems to take pride in hitting every cliche on its checklist.
That doesn’t diminish how successful the recreations are, particularly when it comes to breaking down the multi-faceted levels of each production. The observations made about these songs vary in their effectiveness. While the importance of Jackson appearing on MTV is well-explained, the story of how “Beat It” was made as a response to gang violence is laughably cheesy.
A basic familiarity with Michael’s story does improve the film in certain instances, with the disastrous production of a 1984 Pepsi commercial (which left him with several life-threatening injuries) is handled with razor-sharp tension. The recreation of Jackson’s most famous performances, specifically the 1988 Wembley show, is brought to life with the detail of a cutting-edge concert film. While these are obviously included for the sake of fan service, it’s also not something that every biopic nails. Look no further than “Back to Black” or “Bob Marley: One Love” to see how a film can feel completely at odds with the inherent appeal of its subject.
As a work of pure pop spectacle, “Michael” fulfills its goals, even if it does essentially feel like a cushion used by the Jackson estate to shield itself from any legitimate criticism. However, the film doesn’t convey a complete artist for Michael as an individual, a fact that is only solidified by it clearly being the first half of a larger story. Even if viewed as a completely standalone film that bears no faults of any parties involved, “Michael” is presented too cleanly and is unable to work dramatically.
