This film is an authorized biography, made with endorsement of the Jackson estate in order to obtain approval to use Jackson's music. It was never going to be anything but a glowing hagiography. The sequel (and there certainly will be one) won't be allowed to delve into the child molestation accusations in anything but the most superficial terms, shrugging them off as, "Of course he didn't do it. Those are all lies by terrible blackmailers. Michael was a perfectly innocent angel."
Excellent essay. I have no desire to see this movie, yet I am rather consistently asked about it, since it seems to be very popular right now among young folks (and I work in education). The kids are fascinated when they are about to drop the truth on me — that he was abused! — and I tell them I know, because that was common knowledge about Joe Jackson, and it was already covered in other things, like an old TV miniseries about the Jacksons. This seems to be so bizarre to them, that this is not some unearthed never-before-seen info. No one before them ever even heard of Michael Jackson, and this movie shows he was the greatest performer of all time! I’ll give them this — the propaganda machine in this movie seems to be real slick, to rope a younger generation into buying a whole bunch of plastic bullshit.
What's interesting to me is there's this whole new generation that don't have any of MJ's historic baggage. So they're going to have some wonderful experiences listening to the music and watching the film, but that'll erode. Slowly...but it'll come...and they'll have to reflect and deal with the energy that we all have about the man.
Man — that is it, right there. This isn’t going to be the typical rockstar revelation thing — the drugs, the groupies, the non-murder-or-dismemberment-Caligula-orgy-themed-30th-birthday-party (this last one is ONLY Freddie Mercury, but it needs to be included, because the man LIVED).
This is an excellent and much needed article, Lloyd. But the problem isn't just with "Michael," it's with almost all music biography films. Even in the old days of Hollywood, studios were white-washing (aka sanitizing) the lives of famous musicians/composers of the era for their music biographical films. However, with "Michael" the "cover up" is even more extreme because almost everyone over 40 knows what really is alleged (or did) happen. Yet, younger viewers, especially kids today, may not know the truth and thus will be more apt to believe what they see on the screen. And, like you, I think this is a serious issue. Even more recent music biographies like "The Doors," "Bohemian Rhapsody," or even "A Complete Unknown" have altered and/or changed important details in their subjects' lives to make them look more positive for viewers. But what really gets me going is that when I bring this up to others, they say, "if you want the facts, go watch a documentary." No, filmmakers have a duty to show the truth. And if they can't do with with their films, due to the rights holders having final say about the project (which is what happened with "The Doors" movie) and/or threatening to withhold the rights to use the artist's music (which is what happened to director Todd Haynes with "Velvet Goldmine" which originally was to be about David Bowie), then they shouldn't make the movie. Or, do what Haynes did which was create fictional characters that represented Bowie, Iggy Pop, and Lou Reed, and use other music.
The same people who say "Go watch a documentary" will then instinctively and immediately proclaim Leaving Neverland to be a smear job and a bunch of lies.
I agree. There’s a lot of dogmatic folk out there.
I think, for some, opinions can be tightly bound to their sense of identity. Admitting uncomfortable truths (or even owning that a grey area exists) can seem like a threat. Attack is the only option.
Here, I try to acknowledge my own dissonance exists.
Your comment about white-washing is so true and I like how you’re phrased “Michael” as being more extreme because how much more "evidence” do we all really need?
But I think you also touch on something I was feeling when writing this. Why am I triggered by MJ and not other artists? For me, it was the total disregard to tell any truths or at least lean into MJ as a person. The film felt like a playlist with a few nice video scenes. There’s been some great commentary on the film ( @Thehumangaze’s is one of my favourites) but there’s also been large amounts of giddiness in some “criticism” that isn’t prepared to interrogate the obvious.
If this is what we’re going to accept then this is what we’ll continue to get in future biopics.
I went to see this movie with friends the other day and felt similarly. The movie lacked any substance and felt like a slapdash playlist of his greatest hits. Jaafar had a great performance though.
This film is an authorized biography, made with endorsement of the Jackson estate in order to obtain approval to use Jackson's music. It was never going to be anything but a glowing hagiography. The sequel (and there certainly will be one) won't be allowed to delve into the child molestation accusations in anything but the most superficial terms, shrugging them off as, "Of course he didn't do it. Those are all lies by terrible blackmailers. Michael was a perfectly innocent angel."
I agree. And no doubt they will continue to avoid offering any form on insight into who MJ really was - the good, the bad and the grey.
What really got to me, on reflection, was the hubris in their approach. There was a total disregard for any authentic storytelling.
Excellent essay. I have no desire to see this movie, yet I am rather consistently asked about it, since it seems to be very popular right now among young folks (and I work in education). The kids are fascinated when they are about to drop the truth on me — that he was abused! — and I tell them I know, because that was common knowledge about Joe Jackson, and it was already covered in other things, like an old TV miniseries about the Jacksons. This seems to be so bizarre to them, that this is not some unearthed never-before-seen info. No one before them ever even heard of Michael Jackson, and this movie shows he was the greatest performer of all time! I’ll give them this — the propaganda machine in this movie seems to be real slick, to rope a younger generation into buying a whole bunch of plastic bullshit.
What's interesting to me is there's this whole new generation that don't have any of MJ's historic baggage. So they're going to have some wonderful experiences listening to the music and watching the film, but that'll erode. Slowly...but it'll come...and they'll have to reflect and deal with the energy that we all have about the man.
Man — that is it, right there. This isn’t going to be the typical rockstar revelation thing — the drugs, the groupies, the non-murder-or-dismemberment-Caligula-orgy-themed-30th-birthday-party (this last one is ONLY Freddie Mercury, but it needs to be included, because the man LIVED).
This is an excellent and much needed article, Lloyd. But the problem isn't just with "Michael," it's with almost all music biography films. Even in the old days of Hollywood, studios were white-washing (aka sanitizing) the lives of famous musicians/composers of the era for their music biographical films. However, with "Michael" the "cover up" is even more extreme because almost everyone over 40 knows what really is alleged (or did) happen. Yet, younger viewers, especially kids today, may not know the truth and thus will be more apt to believe what they see on the screen. And, like you, I think this is a serious issue. Even more recent music biographies like "The Doors," "Bohemian Rhapsody," or even "A Complete Unknown" have altered and/or changed important details in their subjects' lives to make them look more positive for viewers. But what really gets me going is that when I bring this up to others, they say, "if you want the facts, go watch a documentary." No, filmmakers have a duty to show the truth. And if they can't do with with their films, due to the rights holders having final say about the project (which is what happened with "The Doors" movie) and/or threatening to withhold the rights to use the artist's music (which is what happened to director Todd Haynes with "Velvet Goldmine" which originally was to be about David Bowie), then they shouldn't make the movie. Or, do what Haynes did which was create fictional characters that represented Bowie, Iggy Pop, and Lou Reed, and use other music.
The same people who say "Go watch a documentary" will then instinctively and immediately proclaim Leaving Neverland to be a smear job and a bunch of lies.
I agree. There’s a lot of dogmatic folk out there.
I think, for some, opinions can be tightly bound to their sense of identity. Admitting uncomfortable truths (or even owning that a grey area exists) can seem like a threat. Attack is the only option.
Here, I try to acknowledge my own dissonance exists.
Yes! Very well said.
Your comment about white-washing is so true and I like how you’re phrased “Michael” as being more extreme because how much more "evidence” do we all really need?
But I think you also touch on something I was feeling when writing this. Why am I triggered by MJ and not other artists? For me, it was the total disregard to tell any truths or at least lean into MJ as a person. The film felt like a playlist with a few nice video scenes. There’s been some great commentary on the film ( @Thehumangaze’s is one of my favourites) but there’s also been large amounts of giddiness in some “criticism” that isn’t prepared to interrogate the obvious.
If this is what we’re going to accept then this is what we’ll continue to get in future biopics.
Excellent post. I won't be seeing the movie, but I very much appreciate your take on it.
Thank you 🙏
Beautifully expressed, Lloyd.
I tried something a bit different with this post. I appreciate the comment, Paul.
This was excellent, Lloyd!
Thank you. I've been wrestling with a feeling for some days now and tried to capture it as best I could.
I went to see this movie with friends the other day and felt similarly. The movie lacked any substance and felt like a slapdash playlist of his greatest hits. Jaafar had a great performance though.