Is the Jackson biopic really that bad? We went to the first showing at Liffey Valley to find out
TheJournal.ie
Overall Assessment
The article functions as a critical review rather than straight news, emphasizing the film’s avoidance of controversy and formulaic structure. It adopts a skeptical, at times dismissive tone, framing the biopic as a sanitized, estate-approved narrative. While it raises valid concerns about completeness, it leans into subjective judgment over balanced reporting.
"I caught myself checking my watch several times during the back half of the film."
Editorializing
Headline & Lead 75/100
Headline uses engaging but slightly sensational framing; lead establishes a subjective, observational tone with atmospheric details.
✕ Narrative Framing: The headline uses a question format that invites curiosity but also frames the review around audience perception rather than objective assessment, potentially drawing clicks.
"Is the Jackson biopic really that bad? We went to the first showing at Liffey Valley to find out"
✕ Framing By Emphasis: The lead emphasizes the sparse audience and quirky details (e.g., themed cup), setting a tone of skepticism and surrealism that shapes reader expectations before the review begins.
"IT’S HALF NINE in the morning, and I’m at the first commercial screening of Michael in Ireland at a cinema in Liffey Valley. There are seven other people in the room."
Language & Tone 60/100
Tone leans into critique with subjective, emotionally charged language that borders on opinion writing rather than detached review.
✕ Loaded Language: Phrases like 'Bohemian Jackson-dy' and 'tick, tick, tick' convey dismissiveness and fatigue, undermining neutrality.
"Call it Bohemian Jackson-dy (we can work on that). Tick, tick, tick."
✕ Editorializing: The reviewer inserts personal judgment about the film’s emotional impact and pacing, such as checking their watch, which reflects opinion over reporting.
"I caught myself checking my watch several times during the back half of the film."
✕ Appeal To Emotion: The description of the film avoiding discomfort and being 'fundamentally dishonest' evokes moral judgment rather than critical analysis.
"The result is a film that feels incomplete. Not only that, it feels fundamentally dishonest."
Balance 70/100
Sources are properly attributed and some balance is given to the film’s strengths, though no dissenting viewer perspectives are included.
✓ Proper Attribution: The article attributes the production context to known entities (Antoine Fuqua, Michael Jackson estate) and references external reporting (The Guardian) with clear sourcing.
"Directed by Antoine Fuqua (who previously directed Training Day) and heavily backed by the Michael Jackson estate"
✓ Balanced Reporting: The review acknowledges the film’s technical competence and Jaafar Jackson’s performance, offering some credit despite overall criticism.
"Jaafar Jackson, the singer’s nephew, does an uncanny impersonation. He looks like him, dances like him, moves like him."
Completeness 65/100
Provides important context about the film’s timeline and omissions but lacks exploration of justifications for those choices.
✕ Omission: The article critiques the film’s exclusion of abuse allegations but does not explore counterarguments from supporters or producers about narrative focus or artistic intent.
✕ Cherry Picking: Focuses heavily on symbolic absences (e.g., elephant in the room) without discussing broader biopic conventions that often limit scope.
"As The Guardian cleverly noted, everything, really, except the elephant in the room."
✓ Comprehensive Sourcing: References The Guardian’s observation, adding external critical context, which enriches the discussion.
"As The Guardian cleverly noted, everything, really, except the elephant in the room."
Media portrayed as untrustworthy due to sanitization and avoidance of controversy
The article uses loaded language and moral judgment to frame the film as 'fundamentally dishonest' for omitting key aspects of Jackson's life, suggesting the media product is corrupt or misleading.
"The result is a film that feels incomplete. Not only that, it feels fundamentally dishonest."
Media production framed as failing due to formulaic and uninspired execution
Editorializing and loaded language depict the film as mechanically ticking boxes without emotional or artistic impact, suggesting incompetence or creative failure.
"Call it Bohemian Jackson-dy (we can work on that). Tick, tick, tick."
Omission of abuse allegations framed as harmful to truth and accountability
The critique centers on the absence of abuse allegations and the tone-deaf inclusion of Neverland and sick children scenes, implying a harmful disregard for victims and human rights concerns.
"The film ends in 1988, five years before the first allegations of child sexual abuse emerged. It never mentions them. Not once."
Cultural narrative presented in crisis due to unresolved tensions and avoidance
Cherry-picking symbolic absences (e.g., 'elephant in the room') amplifies a sense of societal unease and unresolved public reckoning around celebrity and accountability.
"As The Guardian cleverly noted, everything, really, except the elephant in the room."
Michael Jackson's complex legacy excluded in favor of sanitized, marketable image
Framing by emphasis and omission highlight how the film avoids uncomfortable truths, effectively excluding the full identity of Jackson in favor of a curated, childlike persona.
"It doesn’t grapple with contradiction, it avoids discomfort."
The article functions as a critical review rather than straight news, emphasizing the film’s avoidance of controversy and formulaic structure. It adopts a skeptical, at times dismissive tone, framing the biopic as a sanitized, estate-approved narrative. While it raises valid concerns about completeness, it leans into subjective judgment over balanced reporting.
The new Michael Jackson biopic 'Michael', directed by Antoine Fuqua and supported by the Jackson estate, covers the artist’s rise to fame up to 1988. It features Jaafar Jackson in the lead role and recreates key musical moments, but does not address allegations of abuse that emerged later. The film has received mixed reactions for its narrative scope and artistic choices.
TheJournal.ie — Culture - Other
Based on the last 60 days of articles
TheJournal.ie
