The recently released biopic Michael is drawing sharp criticism for its reluctance to engage with contentious aspects of the pop icon's life, instead presenting a sanitized narrative that reviewers say fails to capture the complexities of Michael Jackson. The film, starring Jaafar Jackson (the singer's nephew) as the adult Michael, has been widely panned for omitting significant personal details and controversies, leaving a void where a deeper exploration of the man behind the music should be.
The film has been described as a "daytime TV movie" and a "cliched, bland, and bowdlerised" portrayal, with critics pointing to its decision to stop its narrative in the mid-1980s, before accusations of child abuse surfaced. This chronological approach, combined with the removal of potentially controversial elements, has left a film that feels incomplete and overly focused on the "brand" rather than the individual.
Read More: Golmaal 5 filming in Ooty with old cast, Akshay Kumar missing
Reviewers highlight the omission of key figures, such as Janet Jackson, and the simplistic portrayal of his demanding father, Joe Jackson (played by Colman Domingo), as examples of the film's superficial treatment. Instead of delving into the private Jackson, the movie presents scenes of him smiling while watching television, visiting sick children, or tending to his menagerie, painting a picture that many find unconvincing and lacking depth. The film's budget, estimated at $150 million, and reports of behind-the-scenes issues, including release date postponements, further underscore the troubled production.
Jaafar Jackson's performance as his uncle has received some acknowledgment for his intuitive flair in mimicking Michael's onstage persona. However, this technical prowess does little to compensate for what many perceive as a narrative void. The film includes amusing moments, such as the making of the "Thriller" video, but these are overshadowed by the overall blandness and a lack of substance regarding Jackson's off-stage life. The focus on his "Peter Pan syndrome" and obsessions, like his animal collection, is presented without the deeper context or acknowledgment of the controversies that defined much of his public life.
Read More: Ellen DeGeneres Returns as Dory in New Pixar Short
Critics have also noted factual inaccuracies within the film, including details surrounding his vitiligo diagnosis and plastic surgeries, as well as the absence of certain family members. These deviations, even those acknowledged in the film itself, are seen as further evidence of the biopic's failure to provide an honest account. The overarching sentiment is that ‘Michael’ was never intended to be a comprehensive or revealing look at the artist, but rather a carefully curated presentation designed to celebrate his fame while carefully avoiding the more uncomfortable aspects of his story.
Read More: 'Michael' Biopic: CGI Bubbles and Missing Siblings Spark Debate
