Michael Jackson movie

[Karin]

Hi Everyone,

I was wondering if anyone is planning to watch the new Michael Jackson movie that just came out?

Apparently his nephew portrays Michael. I just checked out the trailer and there seems to be some resemblance.

Take care,
Best wishes,
Karin

 

[Angela Channing]

I'll wait until it's available to stream and then I'll watch it.

I recently saw the play MJ The Musical in London's West End and I think the play covers the same time period as the film. It was very good so I'm hoping I'll enjoy the film just as much.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Now his family members are making allegations about him. When that much money is involved, you just can't tell what the truth was.

 

[James from London]

I love Tom Breihan's review in Stereogum. I've posted a few quotes, but it's worth reading in full if you can spare the time.

I Didn't Hate 'Michael'

I did the “whoo.” You know the “whoo.” It’s the climax of Michael Jackson’s 1979 song “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough,” a pop masterpiece if ever there was one. It’s the big crescendo. The guitars scream. The horns blare. In the incredibly low-budget video, three Michael Jacksons dance together...

stereogum.com

Parts of Michael are so good that I couldn't believe what I was seeing, just as parts of Michael are so bad that I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

The whole time that Michael was playing in front of me, I knew that I was being manipulated for nefarious purposes. Most of that time, I did not care. If you don't care about Michael Jackson's music or iconography, there is absolutely no reason to go see Michael. On its own merits, it's barely a movie. But if you do love his music — if you grew up with it, if it's part of your being — then Michael is pure and effective fan service. I had a great time.

Why are you reading this review? You know how you feel. If you detest Michael Jackson, if you see him as an Epstein-esque avatar of unaccountable abuse and corruption, then this film will horrify you. If you are a Jackson defender who truly believes he was innocent, then this movie was made for you, and you are probably already going crazy in the mentions of all the critics who didn't like it. Congratulations to you.

I don't represent either of those groups. I'm among the masses who love Michael Jackson's music and who think he was probably a monster. I can't let the music go. It's part of me. I also can't pretend, as the film does, that the person who made this music was a pure, blameless force of light in the universe. Michael is not the Michael Jackson biopic that gives a full, unvarnished view of a human being who lived a life of great and tragic and consequential contradiction. That biopic will never exist. Instead, Michael is a cursed cultural object, and it's also a fun night out at the movies. Make your decisions accordingly.

This is the best, most fascinating, most comprehensive thing I've ever watched/listened to about Michael Jackson. It's the closest I've found to a Jacko equivalent of the mind-blowing O.J.: Made in America documentary, but it's a podcast series not a movie so it's a different, more time-consuming thang:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...with-emily-lordi/id1556457357?i=1000661876665

 

[Willie Oleson]

I think the combination of the Neverland controversy and the commercial appeal of the music is simply too paradoxical for a commercial, satisfying piece of entertainment.
Defenders would be appalled by the allegations and detesters would be appalled by the display of Michael's artistic success that sort of "evens things out".

Too bad Michael Jackson is not a fictional character.
In the early 90s we had house hits with titles like "James Brown Is Dead" and "Michael Jackson Is In Heaven Now" so maybe it would be interesting to tell the story from an afterlife point of view. A semi-fictional, kitsch musical - nothing said but everything implied - the "Bad" song played in hell but still with dancing devils and stuff.
Michael outsmarts the devil when he buys Hell and calls in NeverTalkAboutAnymore Land, Michael in a TV quiz "catch the baby", Michael meets Elvis, Michael meets angel Michael played by John Travolta in 1996. The possibilities are endless.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I love Tom Breihan's review in Stereogum. I've posted a few quotes, but it's worth reading in full if you can spare the time.

Thanks - I've done exactly that. I must say the idea of computer animated Bubbles playing Twister isn't without appeal.


Mark Kermode's review popped up in my feed a couple of days ago. Seems he enjoyed it less than Tom, but was equally conflicted and reached similar conclusions about the film's absences.

[W]hat you have is a film that, for all its nuts and bolts efficiency... is comedically, horrifically hagiographic. I mean, at one point I actually started to wonder if you could play it on a double-bill with Melania.*

What is now on screen is a second coming narrative... The messianic stuff is absolutely nuts, like laugh out loud funny... It's that level of hagiographic.

I think it's really remarkable that you could make this movie in the way it's been made and not expect people to go "where's the rest of it".

* Since he name-dropped it, I'll mention that Mark's scathing review of Melania is my most-rewatched video review of all time for the biting passion with which he discusses it.

 

[Crimson]

I'm not enough of a Michael Jackson fan to have any interest in this movie, especially since it appears to be just estate-driven corporate propaganda to whitewash Michael's complicated legacy.

One reviewer called it a tribute act masquerading as a movie, and that appears about right. I can't imagine why fans would even want to see that. I was relieved when the Madonna biopic fell through. As a fan, why would I want to watch Julia Garner doing embalmed recreations of Madonna's performances when I can just watch Madonna's performances?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

* Since he name-dropped it, I'll mention that Mark's scathing review of Melania is my most-rewatched video review of all time for the biting passion with which he discusses it.

Heh.

After watching that Melania review, I literally experience went into spontaneous and immediate explosive diarrhea.

Literally. Diarrhea.

 

[Willie Oleson]

especially since it appears to be just estate-driven corporate propaganda to whitewash Michael's complicated legacy.

Is the estate in anyway involved with the production or distribution of the film? From what I can gather they could prevent the use of Michael's music in case the film would include parts that the estate wouldn't support.
Therefore it's also possible that the film is the result of "what's left of it" after certain parts had been no-voted out. As a film maker you could ask yourself if it's worth to make such drastic concessions at the expense of artistic integrity.
Unless, as speculated, there is going to be a sequel that doesn't need the music and so they'll have the freedom to focus on the media frenzy about the (alleged) sordid stuff.

If there has been any whitewashing going on then it's not about showing the worshipping and philantrophy because that also really happened.

 

[Angela Channing]

I'm not sure I agree with the comments about the film whitewashing Michael Jackson's life story. The film's aim was to tell his story from when he was young up until the release of his best known work (Thriller and Bad) and the allegations of child abuse and the court cases were after than period. In the same approach taken for the film Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) didn't cover all of Freddie Mercury's life, just his early years through to Live Aid.

 

[Crimson]

I'm not sure I agree with the comments about the film whitewashing Michael Jackson's life story. The film's aim was to tell his story from when he was young up until the release of his best known work (Thriller and Bad) and the allegations of child abuse and the court cases were after than perio

Exclusion is a form of commentary. If there's a part 2 and it deals with the controversial aspects of Michael's life in an unbiased manner, I'll be proven wrong. With Michael's estate and the corporate owners of his musical catalog involved, I am confident in saying that will never happen. This is all what the kids call "glazing", focusing on the glory and the hype for PR myth making.

And yes it was true of BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY as well, a carefully curated, sanitized, crowd pleasing film designed to hype up Queen music. And it was effective. I had zero interest in Queen and then spent months after the movie listening to their "Best Of" album. One can be manipulated even while being aware of being manipulated.

Is the estate in anyway involved with the production or distribution of the film? From what I can gather they could prevent the use of Michael's music in case the film would include parts that the estate wouldn't support.

The estate was involved and had considerable influence on the production. Michael's musical catalog is too valuable for the estate or corporate owners to allow too much truth or controversy to mar his image. No dramatization or documentary will be able to fully explore Michael's life and legacy until after copyright expiration, long after we're all dead.

Something similar occurred recently involving a Prince documentary, which was said to be excellent and in depth look at his highs and lows. The Prince estate objected, refused to allow the use of his music, and the 9-hour doc is now shelved. Instead we'll get an estate approved PR puff piece.

 

[Crimson]

Now his family members are making allegations about him. When that much money is involved, you just can't tell what the truth was.

My attitude has long been that he was probably a pedo but there's just enough (intentional) ambiguity to give the benefit of the doubt. The recent release by the Cascio family of photos of Michael holding a shirtless, dead-eyed little boy has eliminated any doubt I had. That's as close to CP as I ever hope to see.

I'm always amazed at the number of people who believe the worst about every scenario but willingly drink the Kool-Aid when it comes to MJ. His fame and music cast a long shadow. I even now think all the "Wacko Jacko" stuff was intentional misdirection. Better to be seen as an eccentric weirdo than a predator.

 

[Angela Channing]

Exclusion is a form of commentary. If there's a part 2 and it deals with the controversial aspects of Michael's life in an unbiased manner, I'll be proven wrong. With Michael's estate and the corporate owners of his musical catalog involved, I am confident in saying that will never happen. This is all what the kids call "glazing", focusing on the glory and the hype for PR myth making.

And yes it was true of BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY as well, a carefully curated, sanitized, crowd pleasing film designed to hype up Queen music. And it was effective. I had zero interest in Queen and then spent months after the movie listening to their "Best Of" album. One can be manipulated even while being aware of being manipulated.




The estate was involved and had considerable influence on the production. Michael's musical catalog is too valuable for the estate or corporate owners to allow too much truth or controversy to mar his image. No dramatization or documentary will be able to fully explore Michael's life and legacy until after copyright expiration, long after we're all dead.

Something similar occurred recently involving a Prince documentary, which was said to be excellent and in depth look at his highs and lows. The Prince estate objected, refused to allow the use of his music, and the 9-hour doc is now shelved. Instead we'll get an estate approved PR puff piece.

They don't need his estate permission to make a biopic of different aspects of his life and I suspect at some point someone will make one covering his later life. A lot of the information is already in the public domain and you can't libel the dead so the estate couldn't stop them. However, film makers want their films to be profitable and fans might be less enthusiastic to see a film covering the allegations made about him so I think the decision to focus on his early life was a good one for commercial reasons.

 

[Crimson]

They don't need his estate permission to make a biopic of different aspects of his life and I suspect at some point someone will make one covering his later life.

You are correct, someone could make either a movie or a documentary about Michael without needing approval from the estate. Such a portrayal could be warts and all ugly truth, or even quasi-libelous fiction as Ryan Murphy constantly proves. But good luck to that someone with no access to Michael's music, and a litigious $3 billion estate wanting to protect his image.

But it's not even a suspicion that Michael's estate was directly involved in sanitizing this movie, it's documented.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I even now think all the "Wacko Jacko" stuff was intentional misdirection. Better to be seen as an eccentric weirdo than a predator.

Funny, I had exactly the same thought when I watched the Jimmy Savile documentary. His sexist remarks were so in-your-face that it kinda worked as a bluff smoke screen. Nobody would expect him to openly admit to that kind of attitude.

Nevertheless, just enough ambiguity is also ambiguity and it should work for anybody who's being accused of evil-doings.
I consider Michael's Neverland alter ego a possibility but I'm still not 100% convinced (I'm that difficult member of the jury who's keeping us locked up forever).

 

[Crimson]

I'm that difficult member of the jury who's keeping us locked up forever

You're a defense attorney's erotic dream.

Presumption of innocence is always a good starting point, especially for the living. Whether there's enough evidence for Jackson to have ever been found criminally or legally liable, I couldn't say. I think there's certainly enough evidence for it to be credibly factored into his legacy.

That thing that demonstrably happened never happened.
-- Every Michael Jackson fan

I sometimes wonder if I'll live long enough for the mass-hypnosis his music seemed to have on so many people will be studied. Apply the same level of evidence and allegations against any other man and no one would give the same benefit of doubt that MJ gets. "He was a trash human being but made some really great albums" is a pretty valid position, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know why so many people are so desperate for him to have been a saint as well.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I sometimes wonder if I'll live long enough for the mass-hypnosis his music seemed to have on so many people will be studied

It may the kind of popularity that kept feeding itself. The hits that became super-hits, the super-hits that made him a super-star, the super-stardom that made the fandom and adoration very accessible (or logical, even) resulting in even bigger sales and bigger super-hits. Etc etc.

When I think of my own favourite artist, it really shaped my perception of "desirable" and consequently my entire life, because I live for beautiful and entertaining things.
It didn't last very long, but that two-year time capsule has simply never left me and it still feels as powerful as the first day I heard the song (which, ironically, is about devilish hoodwinking).
So, who am I to judge the fans of an artist who was far more talented (but not more entertaining) than my favourite artist?

For what it's worth, the first 7" single I owned was Shake Your Body Down To The Ground, it was my single and I didn't have to share it with my brother, in fact he wasn't even allowed to look at it.

 

[Angela Channing]

I sometimes wonder if I'll live long enough for the mass-hypnosis his music seemed to have on so many people will be studied.

I don't think it's mass hypnosis, blind belief or an inability to accept facts. Michael Jackson was prosecuted for the allegations and a jury found him not guilty. Subsequent civil cases have been dismissed. If the courts when presented with all the evidence don't believe he is guilty, then it's not unreasonable for members of the general public to accept that verdict.

Because the facts are still disputed, I can totally get why the film makers decided not to include the allegations in the final edit.

 

[Crimson]

Because the facts are still disputed, I can totally get why the film makers decided not to include the allegations in the final edit.

You're ready to burn the monarchy to the ground over allegations directed at Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who hasn't been tried let alone convicted. You're clearly not opposed to extra-judicial judgements affecting perception. That's ultimately my point: people apply curiously different standards to Michael Jackson than any other. Why, because they like his music? Because they were duped by his sexless man-child persona?

 

[Willie Oleson]

people apply curiously different standards to Michael Jackson than any other. Why, because they like his music? Because they were duped by his sexless man-child persona?

I'm sure that legacy and charisma has something to do with it, but also how the accusations came about.
For every strange thing MJ did there's the equally strange aspect of parents putting their children in that (potentially) unhealthy situation.
Technically speaking that should have no bearing on a guilty/not guilty verdict since the choice was ultimately his to do whatever he did (if he did it).
But it does add to the overall vibe and credibility of the accusations, if only from an emotional point of view.