A few weeks have passed since the release of Michael, the biographical tribute to the late Michael Jackson – a man who could stand on stage in a “power stance” for two minutes and achieve everything he needed to. The crowd was euphoric. Women fainted. That is power.
I don’t believe there will ever be another Michael Jackson. In fact, I don’t believe there has been a Michael Jackson-level of stardom since he entered this world. There are shouts for Beyoncé, but even those are drowned out by debates over her unspoken rivalry with Taylor Swift, who undoubtedly launched a world tour that earned billions.
My point is that the “legendarium” of Michael Jackson makes the film Michael impossible to review objectively. Audiences, who turned up in droves, did not head to the cinema to view a biography that alluded to his alleged crimes. They went for a good time. They went to hear his music and to see an uncanny impression, which, to Jaafar Jackson’s credit, is truly uncanny. It is as if the singer returned from the grave to entertain us one last time.
The movie is a perfect storm: audiences have a good time, unburdened by any agenda apart from pure enjoyment, while film critics fall into the trap of viewing the film through the optics of outside narratives, creating an inevitable space for rage-baiting.
“Was Michael Jackson guilty or innocent?” “Was his acquittal fair?” “Did the families attempt to exploit him?”
“Who cares? I want to see some dancing—hee-hee!”
There is a large camp among the many tribes of social media where everyone is guilty, regardless of a judge’s decision. In that sense, Michael Jackson is guilty by default. Social media is the trial. Yet, given the love for the deceased entertainer, he is also innocent by default. It is a double-edged sword that makes this box-office release equally fascinating to onlookers.
This is why reviewing Michael is impossible. There is no conceivable way that any opinion of the film will change its trajectory. Let’s say I decided to compare it to the well-loved Bohemian Rhapsody, which shares many similarities in storyboarding and direction. I would say that Michael is an overlong music video designed to celebrate the singer’s success and nothing else. If anything, the film is average. Did it need to be better? Well, no. It achieved exactly what it set out to do. People paid for their tickets. Not every film is made to be viewed as high art; like Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame, some films are simply cinematic events.
Critics and readers demand a level of depth from reviews that would be utterly pointless here; they want pitchforks and fire. We feel the need to be angry about something. But the fact of the matter is: he’s dead. His passing isn’t going to stop a fan from singing “Thriller” in the concourse or screaming “hee-hee” as I walk by, an experience I had several times before and after my viewing. I knew then that the social media reactions would be hellfire.
This brings up the possibility of a sequel. Michael 2 would undoubtedly have to address the areas of his life that troubled him and many others. But will critics expect the second film to show the singer in a bad light? Will it lean toward guilt rather than innocence? Will they fall for the trap again, where social media rage-bait becomes the primary goal? I imagine they will. We can’t help ourselves, after all. I am expecting no common sense whatsoever when Michael 2 is released.
Inevitably, the second film will frame his controversies in a manner that supports the view that he was misunderstood and set up. Why would the Jackson Estate accept anything else? Would the Tolkien Estate suddenly make Sauron a “good guy” in The Rings of Power? Absolutely not.
This is not me defending Michael Jackson, by the way. Though I lean toward “Team Innocence,” I do find it a great shame that major questions remain unanswered. But I did enjoy the very average Michael, and I went in only to be entertained. If that makes me a terrible person, then so be it.
