Many stories from the late pop legend’s life are still waiting to be told, but director Antoine Fuqua and writer John Logan deliver a fine tribute film, one that will be cherished by both old and new fans. Jaafar Jackson beautifully brings his uncle’s stagecraft to the silver screen.
Rating: 
(3/ 5)
By Mayur Lookhar
Commenting on the state of Bollywood biopics, filmmaker and actor Anurag Kashyap argued that the core problem is the tendency to make biopics about living people, while rarely exploring the grey areas of a person’s character. Western cinema, and Hollywood in particular, is often held up as a benchmark, but truth be told, it too has its share of hagiographies. Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper, for instance, is steeped in reverence, yet many Iraqis held a very different view of Chris Kyle.
Presently, the world awaits the release of Michael, a biographical film on the life of pop legend Michael Jackson – a man who revolutionised pop music but also courted controversy. The critical response in the US has largely been negative, with a 27% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Americans are best positioned to judge a film about an American star, but this widespread criticism also weighed in on the minds of desi critics. Unwanted yet unavoidable pre‑screening conversations only intensified the debate. So, what is the American critic’s beef with Michael? The common criticism appears to be that this is a sanitized biopic, steeped in reverence and ignoring the late pop legend’s alleged acts of indiscretion.
127 minutes later, it appears that American critics may be jumping the gun here, because Antoine Fuqua’s directorial covers the singer’s life only from 1966 to 1988. The alleged child sexual‑abuse accusations did not surface until 1993, when a 13‑year‑old boy, Jordan Chandler, accused Jackson of sexual abuse. The case made global headlines, but an out‑of‑court settlement was reached for about 20–25 million dollars, with Jackson strongly insisting that this was no admission of guilt; he simply wanted to end the litigation. The pop icon faced similar accusations again in 2005, levelled by another 13‑year‑old, but Jackson was found not guilty and the charges were ultimately dropped.
The singer would then remain relatively low‑key, and four years later, his sudden death became a major topic of public discussion. Now, if the second film does not show these controversies and the drama surrounding his death, critics in America and around the world will feel vindicated. It’s reportedly said that the settlement with Jordan Chandler was bound by an NDA, preventing the details from being disclosed or portrayed in any film or media. The dead cannot return to defend themselves, but the recent release of the Epstein Files, where the late pop star is pictured with the convicted sex offender and trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, will naturally invite suspicion. Though one must remember that the declassified documents have not uncovered any criminal conduct on Jackson’s part.
Are American critics being too harsh on Michael, the film? Over the years, there has been a recurring criticism that American reviewers disapprove when Black artists are cast as characters who were traditionally portrayed as white in classic fantasy stories. Is that bias now extending to the biopic of an African American pop legend? Well, just as Michael says in the film, “He doesn’t make music for black or white; his music is for all.” In the same spirit, it would be unfair to accuse all such critics of bias. Enough of American critics, what does your desi reviewer think of Michael?
Story
In the period that it is set, Michael offers a glimpse into Michael Jackson’s life from the age of 7 to 29. It traces how this precocious boy from Gary, Indiana, rose to become the biggest singing superstar of his time. The music speaks for itself; the emotional core of this story is the fractured relationship between Jackson and his father, Joseph, aka Joe Jackson.
Screenplay & Direction
In the last decade, Hollywood has invested heavily in biopics of music superstars and reaped rich dividends – Bruce Springsteen, Sir Elton John, Amy Winehouse, Elvis Presley, to name a few. The music of these legends was celebrated in their respective films, but most of them are also said to have unearthed the inner human behind the icon. Is that missing in Michael, as many American critics have pointed out? But if your protagonist is a man who perhaps had more affinity for animals than for people, how do you dive into character depth? Instead, Fuqua and writer John Logan opt to celebrate the pop legend’s music on the silver screen. Many of Jackson’s great hits and concerts are readily available on YouTube, so the question remains: was there space to explore more of the man behind the superstar? Maybe, yes – but for this generation, Fuqua and Logan deliver a thrilling, near‑front‑row experience of a Michael Jackson concert. Naturally, they retain the original artist’s voice, but the magical enactment of Jackson’s concerts and his stage artistry help bring the legend vividly alive on the silver screen. You might not dance, but you couldn’t help but literally lip‑sync and tap your feet while still seated.
On the personal front, the fractious father‑son relationship, and to a certain extent the mother‑son relationship, is covered, but Jackson’s relationships with his siblings are barely explored. As a child, the siblings were close; the Jackson 5, as their father promoted them, but things changed as they grew older. The youngest son felt overburdened by his father, but was creative freedom the sole reason to separate from his brothers? All through the different phases, the Jacksons still lived under one roof, even though Michael had his new manager, John Branca, fire his father. With barely any meaningful conversations with his family, Michael drew closer to his beloved furry friends at home, including dogs, a giraffe, python, and later even a llama. From childhood, Michael was deeply influenced by fantasy stories, particularly Peter Pan and Neverland, and that fascination stayed with him for a long time. What we have is a pop icon, but at home, a childlike man who dearly loved his furry companions. Who could Michael share that love with him, if not children – as evident from his conversation with a cancer‑afflicted boy in the hospital. Is this whitewashing? The only person to claim to know him up closely would be his bodyguard Bill Bray (KeiLyn Durrel Jones), who became his good friend. There, too, their conversations are limited.
Jackson’s life and, later, the change in his skin tone remain a topic that polarized views. It is likely to surface more in the second part, but Fuqua sensitizes viewers to the late singer’s vitiligo condition. But what about the nose job? That, perhaps, is more driven by Jackson’s unspoken desire to distinguish himself from his father, who sported a broad nose.
For a man who was childlike in his personal life, where did he acquire that competitive edge? Maybe it was the moment when he was introduced to John Branca (Miles Teller). Though young, Michael Jackson is impressed by Branca’s confidence and shared goal of making the biggest superstar in the world. The career‑ and business‑driven conversations shed light on the “brand Jackson,” but they also partly justify the criticism that this is a film curated by the Jackson estate – comprising his family and loyal business and legal associates, including co-producer John Branca. Jackson’s other siblings, too, have opened up about their father’s violent conduct. In the film, Michael is shown as the only child who bore the brunt of his father’s temper. Neither Michael nor Joe Jackson are around, but one wonders: if they were alive, would these men have been comfortable with certain uncomfortable family tensions being exploited on screen?
Acting
Child actor Juliano Krue Valdi, who makes his debut, is simply brilliant in his portrayal of the young Michael. From that first home gig to finding his feet in the Indiana music circuit, that first studio experience, and then being told to lie in his first press conference that he is 8 years old when he was actually younger – through it all, you are simply enamored by young Valdi and you don’t want him to leave the screen, yet Valdi paves the way for Jaafar Jackson to take over and do his magic.
Jaafar’s early scenes, in which he tries hard with the accent, initially appear as a poor imitation, but once he hits the big stage, he brilliantly lip‑syncs and aces his uncle’s famous dance moves, with the moonwalk naturally taking the cake and him being particularly indistinguishable in the Thriller recreation. Jaafar beautifully brings his uncle’s stagecraft to the silver screen.
Through the course of these musical highs, Fuqua reveals the humble man behind the creations, not shying away from showing Jackson’s inspiration for the choreography and the character look, John Landis’ An American Werewolf in London (1981) – and the fact that he got Landis himself to direct it. Then there was Bad, directed by Martin Scorsese.
His uncle believed in Peter Pan and Neverland, and, rather surprisingly, it is a Jaafar who gets to play Michael Jackson. Nevertheless, Jaafar is remarkably competent in his debut role, taking on what is arguably one of the most difficult voices and characters to portray on screen.
Colman Domingo and Nia Long are equally compelling as Michael Jackson’s parents – Joe and Katherine. Deon Cole also leaves his mark in a cameo role as the controversial Don King.
Final Word
For all the frustration and noise in the US, Michael should still appeal to Indian fans. After all, the global superstar once rocked Mumbai during his first and only visit to India. Given how live events have boomed in the country, the film presents an opportunity for Indian fans, particularly Gen Z, to experience what it’s like to attend a Michael Jackson concert on the big screen.
Video review below.
By
