Biopic 'Michael' Presents Authorized Portrait of Jackson’s Rise, Omitting Later Controversies
The biopic 'Michael', directed by Antoine Fuqua and written by John Logan, chronicles the early life and career of Michael Jackson up to his 1988 Wembley concert. Authorized by Jackson’s estate and produced with family involvement, including Jaafar Jackson in the lead role, the film emphasizes Jackson’s artistic genius and complex relationship with his father, Joe Jackson. It avoids addressing the later allegations of child sexual abuse, with AP News noting that related scenes were cut due to legal agreements. While both sources agree the film presents a sanitized, celebratory view of Jackson, Daily Mail criticizes it as propagandistic and emotionally manipulative, whereas AP News treats it as a nostalgic, if incomplete, cinematic experience.
AP News provides more complete coverage by including information about deleted scenes and legal constraints, offering a more nuanced explanation for the film’s omissions. Daily Mail offers a sharper critique but lacks this contextual depth.
- ✓ The film 'Michael' is a biopic about Michael Jackson, directed by Antoine Fuqua and written by John Logan.
- ✓ The film is authorized by Jackson's estate, with several members of the Jackson family serving as executive producers.
- ✓ Jaafar Jackson, Michael Jackson’s nephew, plays the lead role and delivers a performance that closely mimics Michael Jackson’s look and stage presence.
- ✓ The film covers Michael Jackson’s early life and career up to the 1988 Wembley Stadium concert, ending before the period of public allegations of child sexual abuse.
- ✓ The film does not address the sexual abuse allegations or Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, in which he was acquitted.
- ✓ The narrative emphasizes Michael Jackson’s relationship with his father, Joe Jackson, portrayed by Colman Domingo, as a central theme.
- ✓ The film is compared stylistically and structurally to other biopics such as 'Elvis' and 'Bohem游戏副本 Rhapsody'.
- ✓ The film features musical performances and highlights Jackson’s artistic achievements, particularly during the 'Off the Wall' and 'Thriller' eras.
Framing of the film’s omissions
Acknowledges the omissions but frames them as a consequence of legal and estate stipulations, describing the film as a 'narrow, authorized perspective' rather than overtly deceptive.
Presents the omission of abuse allegations as a deliberate act of myth-making and sanitization, suggesting the film functions as propaganda. Uses strong language like 'egregious omissions' and 'mission' by the Jackson family.
Tone and evaluative stance
More measured and reflective, expressing ambivalence. While critical of the omissions, it acknowledges the emotional appeal of revisiting Jackson’s artistry, calling the experience 'giddy' and 'hard to resist'.
Highly critical and dismissive, using sarcasm and irony (e.g., 'kissing his pet llama' as the worst act shown). Assigns a two-star rating and calls the film 'simplistic' and 'unchallenging'.
Interpretation of the film’s intent
Describes the film as a 'fantasy' and 'fairy tale', but frames this as a genre choice or emotional indulgence rather than ideological manipulation.
Suggests the film is intentionally messianic, comparing it to Donald Trump’s self-mythologizing imagery. Implies a deliberate effort to deify Jackson.
Treatment of supporting characters
Does not comment on the absence of Janet Jackson or the lack of depth in siblings, focusing instead on Joe Jackson’s role and the father-son dynamic.
Mocks the flat portrayal of characters, calling them 'ciphers' and noting the complete absence of Janet Jackson, whom it mentions opposed the film.
Context about deleted scenes
Reveals that scenes dealing with abuse allegations were initially included but removed due to legal stipulations from a prior settlement, adding nuance to the omission.
Does not mention that scenes addressing allegations were originally filmed but cut.
Daily Mail
Framing: Daily Mail frames the film as a sanitized, family-driven effort to rehabilitate Michael Jackson’s image, portraying it as a disingenuous, emotionally manipulative production that avoids controversy through deliberate omissions and idealized portrayals.
Tone: Skeptical, sarcastic, and dismissive, with a clear critical stance toward the film’s authenticity and artistic integrity.
Narrative Framing: Describes the biopic as presenting Jackson in a 'messianic' light, comparing it to Trump’s self-aggrandizing imagery, which frames the film as ideological myth-making.
"does for the late King of Pop what Trump was trying to do for himself"
Cherry Picking: Highlights family involvement in production to imply bias, noting six Jackson family members as executive producers and the lead actor being Jackson’s nephew.
"Six of the executive producers... bear the surname Jackson"
Sensationalism: Uses sarcasm to minimize Jackson’s controversial behavior, suggesting 'kissing his pet llama' is the worst act depicted.
"might have done anything... more unsavoury than kissing his pet llama"
Editorializing: Implies future films will continue to avoid controversy, projecting skepticism about forthcoming installments.
"Will the next one fully explore the rumours... I'm guessing probably not"
Framing By Emphasis: Characterizes supporting figures as flat and idealized (e.g., mother as 'saintly', father as cartoonishly evil), suggesting lack of nuance.
"his mother Katherine... is downright saintly, while his siblings can't seem to muster a personality"
Comprehensive Sourcing: Notes Janet Jackson’s absence and opposition to the film, a detail absent in other sources, adding critical context.
"Janet, who by all accounts opposed the film, is left out altogether"
AP News
Framing: AP News frames the film as a nostalgic, authorized biopic that prioritizes artistic celebration over controversy, acknowledging its limitations as a consequence of estate control and legal constraints rather than outright deception.
Tone: Measured and ambivalent, blending critique with appreciation for Jackson’s artistry and the film’s emotional resonance.
Framing By Emphasis: Describes the film as 'shrouding' Jackson’s legacy, acknowledging its selective portrayal without immediate moral judgment.
"shrouding Michael Jackson’s complications with a conventional biopic"
Proper Attribution: Explicitly notes the film is 'sanctioned by Jackson’s estate' and produced by its executors, contextualizing the perspective as officially approved.
"sanctioned by Jackson’s estate and its producers include the estate’s executors"
Balanced Reporting: Acknowledges Jackson’s acquittal and the estate’s stance on innocence, providing legal and institutional context absent in Daily Mail.
"Jackson and his estate have long maintained his innocence. In his only criminal trial... Jackson was acquitted"
Comprehensive Sourcing: Reveals that scenes about abuse allegations were filmed but removed due to legal stipulations, offering a factual explanation for omissions.
"The film originally included scenes dealing with the sexual abuse allegations, but those were cut due to stipulations in an earlier settlement"
Framing By Emphasis: Compares the film to 'Elvis' and 'Bohemian Rhapsody', situating it within a genre of mainstream, hits-driven biopics.
"similar to 2022’s 'Elvis'... the broad-strokes, play-the-hits biopic approach"
Appeal To Emotion: Acknowledges the emotional appeal of Jackson’s music and performance, describing the experience as 'giddy', which tempers criticism with empathy.
"it can feel downright giddy to once again bask in Jackson’s former glory"
Movie Review: In ‘Michael,’ the King of Pop is resurrected, sans complications
'Michael' review: Simplistic, unchallenging and riddled with egregious omissions - this Jackson biopic is at best a fabulous karaoke act