The King of Pop’s Legacy on Screen: Why ‘Michael’ Divides Critics and Fans Alike
When a biopic about Michael Jackson hits the big screen, it’s bound to stir emotions. But Michael, directed by Antoine Fuqua, has done more than that—it’s sparked a full-blown debate. With a dismal 26% Rotten Tomatoes score at the time of writing, the film has left critics and audiences polarized. Personally, I think this reaction says less about the film’s quality and more about the impossible task of capturing Jackson’s legacy in two hours.
The Casting: A Double-Edged Sword
One thing that immediately stands out is the casting of Jaafar Jackson, Michael’s nephew, in the titular role. On paper, it’s a genius move—a familial connection that adds authenticity. But here’s the catch: while Jaafar nails the physicality, from the megawatt smile to the iconic dance moves, some critics argue it’s all surface-level. In my opinion, this highlights a broader issue with biopics: they often prioritize mimicry over depth. What many people don’t realize is that Jaafar’s performance, while impressive, is a symptom of the film’s larger struggle to humanize its subject.
The Sanitized Narrative: A Missed Opportunity?
Critics like Derek Smith of Slant Magazine have slammed the film for turning Jackson’s ‘tragic, deeply complicated life’ into a ‘sanitized popcorn film.’ From my perspective, this is where Michael falters most. Jackson’s life was a tapestry of triumph and turmoil, yet the film seems to gloss over the darker threads. If you take a step back and think about it, this isn’t just a creative choice—it’s a strategic one. The Jackson estate’s involvement likely ensured a polished, estate-approved version of events. But what this really suggests is that Michael isn’t a biopic; it’s a carefully curated tribute.
The Music vs. The Story
Robert Daniels of RogerEbert.com called Michael a ‘filmed playlist in search of a story,’ and I couldn’t agree more. The film’s strongest moments are undeniably its musical sequences, which transport viewers back to Jackson’s heyday. But here’s the irony: while the music soars, the narrative falters. What makes this particularly fascinating is how the film seems to acknowledge its own limitations. It’s as if the filmmakers knew the music would carry the weight, so they didn’t bother digging deeper.
The Nostalgia Factor: A Double-Edged Sword
David Rooney of The Hollywood Reporter praised the film for its ‘warm rush of transporting pleasure,’ and I get it. There’s something undeniably powerful about hearing Jackson’s hits on the big screen. But this raises a deeper question: is nostalgia enough to carry a film? In my opinion, it’s not. While the music evokes memories, the lack of emotional depth leaves a void. What many people don’t realize is that nostalgia can be a crutch, masking the absence of a compelling narrative.
The Broader Implications: Biopics in the Age of Cancel Culture
Michael arrives at a time when society is reevaluating its icons. Jackson’s legacy is complicated, to say the least, and the film’s reluctance to address this feels like a missed opportunity. From my perspective, this isn’t just about one biopic—it’s about the genre itself. In an era of heightened scrutiny, how do we tell the stories of flawed geniuses? Michael seems to suggest the answer is to avoid the flaws altogether. But if you take a step back and think about it, that’s not just a creative choice; it’s a cultural one.
Final Thoughts: A Tribute, Not a Biography
Michael isn’t a bad film—it’s just not the film many of us wanted. It’s a love letter to Jackson’s artistry, but it stops short of exploring the man behind the music. Personally, I think that’s a shame. Jackson’s story deserved more than a sanitized retelling. But perhaps that’s the point: some stories are too complex, too controversial, to be confined to a single narrative. What this really suggests is that Michael isn’t a failure—it’s a reflection of our inability to grapple with the messy legacies of our icons.
And maybe, just maybe, that’s the most honest thing about it.
