I didn't expect to walk into a biopic of Michael Jackson and be in the company of a crowd, in a packed hall, that's as enthusiastic as the kind you'd always find for a South Indian superstar-driven event movie. We Indians can connect to Antoine Fuqua's treatment of the material. It's right there, from the opening sequence that teases a grand heroic entry similar to what we often see in those mass masala entertainers from the 1980s-1990s, when such entries used to be far simpler and not over-the-top.
"Michael", too, is a reminder of simpler times, a strongly nostalgia-inducing time-travel experience of a movie. The strength of the crowd and their reactions simply tell you this: they didn't let that low Rotten Tomatoes score deter them. They came here to find out for themselves. For scores of Indians, the 'King of Pop' continues to remain an iconic figure.
I must add, however, how I feel about celebrities in general. There was a time when I used to put them on a pedestal, but that's when I didn't yet know how the entertainment industry worked up close. After a point, you find yourself slowly keeping a distance from the glitz and glamour, and see every celebrity as just another... human being. Because that's what they are, not some being from another planet. I only knew the Michael from the music videos, the short films, and the concerts. Will the film give me at least some sense of the man behind the celebrity? I was curious.
I knew Michael's music because the bug caught me in college when my knowledge of his music was just surface-level. A friend who happened to be a hardcore Michael Jackson fan introduced me to every music video and every iconic stage performance, and I slowly began to understand, back then, the allure of a one-of-a-kind artist who never had — and will never have — an equal. But then there were also all those stories, those allegations...
How much was it true? How much do we know? Was Michael really what most of the media portrayed him to be for decades? Or was he being attacked for being a... successful black man? We all have to remember one thing, though: being 'weird' or 'quirky' or 'eccentric' doesn't necessarily mean somebody is a criminal. Nobody is perfect. Let's not put ourselves on a high horse. Some people are so sure that he did something BAD. Yes, Michael made a music album with that name, but how can somebody be so sure that he did something "bad"? Have they seen it? Have they done enough research? We all know the official verdict.
"Michael" comes from writer John Logan, who also wrote one of my favourite biopics, "The Aviator", that Martin Scorsese movie which wasn't interested in telling a cradle-to-grave story. It just portrayed some sections and pivotal moments of Howard Hughes' life, portrayed with superb conviction by Leonardo DiCaprio. In comparison, "Michael" doesn't come close to its inventiveness — or that of the greatest (for me) biopic of all time, "All that Jazz". But one thing both films share is that they are not interested in telling the whole story. So, if you're looking for the entirety of Michael's life condensed into a two-hour movie, that's not happening here. That leaves us to think about what this movie offers, not what somebody else wants it to offer.
The film covers significant events from Michael's life from his father's abusive mentoring of his and his brothers, collectively the 'Jackson 5', in their childhood, their rise to fame, breaking out with OFF THE WALL, Michael's well-documented obsession with Peter Pan and Neverland (the escapism it offered him was understandable), his love for pets, his vitiligo, meeting Quincy Jones, the making of THRILLER, the trauma-inducing Pepsi incident, and every recorded musical event that leads up the BAD tour in 1988. This entire film is primarily driven by Michael's conflict with his father, Joseph Jackson (Colman Domingo).
Jaafar Jackson is incredibly convincing as Michael — and it's not just in the electrifying musical setpieces shot with extraordinary precision and kinetic energy by Dion Beebe ("Collateral", "Chicago") — that it feels like Michael came back with Jaafar's face (or possessed his body). The film is at its strongest in the Michael-Joseph portions, because Jaafar superbly conveys the claustrophobia that Michael feels while living in the same house as his father — even after becoming a superstar!
And Domingo is so astounding playing a man who feels like a combination of Ebenezer Scrooge, The Grinch, and J.K. Simmons from "Whiplash" all at once — someone who moves like the Boogeyman, breathing down Michael's neck. How could we Indians possibly not relate to that feeling? How could we not root for Michael to free himself from his clutches?
Having said that, I couldn't help but feel a rushed quality to the film. There's the nagging sense that it wants to try to fit in a lot of things, and had to shorten some, like the THRILLER portions, which I wished had gone on longer. At the same time, I have to give credit to Fuqua for allowing some of the most intimate moments enough breathing space, like when Michael is trying to find inspiration for the next song, his quiet, adorable moments with his pet chimpanzee, and his casual, unbothered stroll with his pet Llama.
There are little hints planted here and there to suggest that maybe Michael was the way he is because he didn't have a normal childhood, and that he is trying to make up for whatever he lost once he got rich and famous. There is also a piece of dialogue, about "being mysterious", which suggests that this could be the reason why the press behaved the way they did for the longest time. "Michael" doesn't cover everything and doesn't give all the answers. This is simply an origin story.
Film: Michael
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Cast: Jaafar Jackson, Nia Long, Laura Harrier, Juliano Krue Valdi, Miles Teller, Colman Domingo
Rating: 3.5/5
