Michael Jackson can be seen through different lenses. To many, he is the “King of Pop,” a creative revolutionary, a caring humanitarian. To some, he is the prime example of a celebrity riddled with controversy, a predator that hides behind moonwalks and a shiny white glove. Within our culture’s endless efforts to define his legacy, Michael Jackson’s complicated life has been transformed into simple fantasies to be probed and dissected, not to be seen and understood.
“MICHAEL,” the first official biopic of Michael Jackson, arrives after decades of documentaries, tabloid narratives, TV specials and sensationalist media portrayals that have transformed Jackson into a polarizing brand—so any attempt to humanize him feels like worship.
Ahead of the Los Angeles red carpet premiere, director Antoine Fuqua and cinematographer Dion Beebe joined professor Leonard Maltin at USC for an early special screening of “MICHAEL.” I was lucky enough to be at the screening, and sitting within the front rows of Bing Theatre after watching the film, I couldn’t stop thinking about how Fuqua had balanced Jackson as a spectacle while simultaneously exploring the person underneath it. Looking at MJ through a human lens has been impossible for the media to do, ever since the icon rose to unprecedented stardom.
“There’s a tendency with Michael,” Fuqua said, “to want to get to what people think is the meat and potatoes of Michael. But you can’t really understand that unless you understand him from the very beginning.”
By making “MICHAEL,” Fuqua isn’t trying to give audiences a final verdict on Jackson’s tumultuous life or deliberately persuade people to think of his life as simply good or bad. Instead, he attempts to make a portrait of how a younger Jackson channeled his gifts, chased his ambitions and fought to carve out his own identity before the world made him a myth.
The movie covers Jackson’s life from his early days growing up through The Jackson 5 into his solo career and the beginning of the “Bad” era. The final cut is intentionally cherry-picked, and the Jackson estate’s involvement shaped what’s on the screen.
But, the controversies that haunt Jackson’s legacy didn’t define his early life and are not part of the story Fuqua is telling. Within the period the film does cover (1966-1988), Jackson has to chase his creative ambitions while dealing with his father’s expectations and the weight of a gifted child being turned into a commodity by his own family.
Whether that reimagination fully triumphs on the big screen is complicated. However, much of the criticism being directed at this film frames it as revisionist propaganda to persuade the public to think about Michael as a "saint.” That criticism completely misses the point of the movie premise, the backstory of Michael Jackson, as well as the production behind the project.
It’s essential to know that “MICHAEL” isn’t entirely the film Fuqua set out to make. Fuqua revealed at the screening that he initially envisioned a darker story with an entirely different third act (the third act was shot but scrapped due to legal issues, forcing a fundamental reshaping of the story).
“It wasn’t the movie I initially signed up for,” Fuqua admitted, “but I’m really happy with the film we made.”
The final cut of the film constantly battles between personal narratives and big performances.
MICHAEL captures “the King’s” mind-numbing scale and spectacle
Michael Jackson’s biopic, being shown on the big screen and in theaters worldwide, demands that his second-to-none stage presence and musical genius be captured. Both Beebe and Fuqua understand that, and with their background stemming from the world of music videos and commercials, they were able to channel their expertise into reimagining the extravagant side of Michael’s performances.
Beebe revealed that the massive concert sequences were filmed at Stage 27 on the Sony lot in Hollywood (the largest stage in Los Angeles) with nearly 2,000 lighting units rigged overhead and 15,000 meters of cable running through the production.
To balance the desire to show the grandness of Jackson while presenting the film as a more intimate story, Fuqua and Beebe had to think of how they could present that through the camera. One of the tools Beebe mentioned using was a probe lens system mounted to a steadicam, which allowed them to get the camera within inches of each performer.
Beebe said, “When you put a camera inside that space…it creates a different tension.” In that way, the film becomes strikingly immersive and intimate through the contrast between grand and personal shots.
Fuqua has to do what any die-hard Michael Jackson fan would have trouble doing: try to decide which parts of Michael’s discography will be on the screen. Reimagined iconic musical moments (Billie Jean at Motown 25, the final night of the Victory Tour, etc.) make the film feel alive and exciting.
“There’s a temptation to just recreate that, because it’s so good and so iconic,” Fuqua said. “But we realized we couldn’t just replicate Motown or replicate Thriller. We had to find a way to enter into those recognizable moments and then step outside of them.”
For die hard fans of Michael, the performances feel simultaneously familiar and alive. Through details like his hat brim being swerved toward the camera, or zooming into Michael’s eye backstage, or close-ups to Michael’s dances on stage Fuqua and Beebe add their own touches to reconstruct these events.
And then there is Jaafar Jackson and Juliano Valdi
Both Jaafar Jackson and Juliano Valdi capture Michael’s essence.
Juliano Valdi, who played Michael during his Jackson 5 years, also is able to provide heart to his portrayal of a young Michael. And in his debut acting role, Jaafar Jackson doesn’t just perform his uncle. He restores Michael’s soul.
Beyond the stage, Jaafar’s portrayal of Michael is gentle and able to embody Michael’s ambitions. But, while on the stage, Jaafar shines the most. With a background in dancing and singing, Jaafar fills Michael’s shoes with a dynamism and a charisma impossible to fake. There were no body doubles patching together performance sequences.
Beebe recalled that on the first day on set, they were shooting the “Bad” performance that closes the film, and when Jaafar stepped onstage and the music kicked in, “everyone just stopped in place and jaws dropped. We realized at that point that we could really lean into Jaafar’s incredible ability as a dancer and a performer,” he said.
There was also no need to dig into MJ’s vocal archive to replicate his singing ability, as both actors’ backgrounds in singing allowed Fuqua to blend their voices authentically with Jackson’s recordings.
In doing so, they were able to avoid exposition and externalize Michael’s one-of-a-kind stage presence through the actor’s innate energy and showmanship.
“MICHAEL” is not a complete portrait, and its struggles are self-evident
For all its visual ambition and Jaafar and Juliano’s committed performances, the pacing of the film moves either too slow or too fast. While legal issues cut down the timeline of Michael’s story, Fuqua still attempts to cover an enormous amount of ground in Michael’s story. Fuqua often condenses moments of Michael’s life into montages and time jumps, and it feels like there are missed opportunities to slow down and actually sit with each character so when it’s time for more personal moments, characters haven’t been properly explored so it’s hard to feel emotional attachment to them.
Many characters, such as Joe Jackson, are a clear example of this problem. Joe, played by the phenomenal Colman Domingo, is reduced into a clear antagonist trope, almost becoming a flat villain always in Michael’s way. The real Joe Jackson was a far more complicated human being, but none of that complexity makes it onto the screen, as Joe becomes a symbol of everything holding Michael back rather than a person with his own experiences and ways of thinking.
As a film that is mostly about Michael Jackson’s struggle to break away from his father’s expectations and also the Jackson 5, “MICHAEL” portrays Michael’s brothers as less than individuals. Michael has to navigate his love for his family with his desire to leave them. But it’s hard to feel emotionally connected to Michael’s brothers because we never get to explore each brother and their relationship to Michael.
My biggest personal critique with the film is that it brushes past Michael’s internal struggles. Michael’s childhood trauma fundamentally shaped his loneliness and insecurities, his growing body dysmorphia, his inability to connect with people his own age through adulthood. All of these things are acknowledged briefly but never truly explored, as we only get gestures at his pain through a couple lines here and there, then quickly move on to the next performance or montage. And for some of his tendencies that expedited as he became an adult, such as his Peter Pan complex, his love of animals, or his tendency to seek out the company of children—these are presented as charming idiosyncrasies rather than being a tragic result of his tumultuous early life. Michael’s vitiligo, while shown, doesn’t seem to affect him except for one scene and could’ve been explored further. His relationship to his bodyguard as a father figure (because his childhood was on stage and away from his mother) isn’t also deeply explored. There was a more introspective film living inside this one, and it occasionally surfaces before being pulled back under by the desire to lead to the next iconic Michael performance.
The creative relationships that defined this period of Michael’s life also feel rushed. Just as one example, Quincy Jones, one of the most important collaborators with Michael and in musical history, is present but treated just as a producer. The depth of their partnership is never shown, as we never see how they met, what Jones saw in Michael, and what Michael found in Jones. As a film about an artist obsessively chasing his own vision, it surprisingly glosses over the specific extraordinary human connections that made that vision possible.
The creative process for any artist is very personal and held within the interior, so depicting without projecting and speaking for the artist’s intentions and experiences in creating work will always be difficult. But feeling beholden to MJ’s vision, Fuqua is able to sneak moments of how Michael was able to conceive of his songs, music videos especially in creating “Beat It” and “Thriller” with honor.
So…what exactly is “MICHAEL”?
“MICHAEL” tries balancing the spectacle that Michael Jackson created while simultaneously telling a story that is more personal and intimate. The scale is enormous, the music is undeniable and Michael’s dedication to his craft is honored with genuine care. However, it struggles to give enough context of the complex relationships Michael Jackson had with others and himself and leans toward restoring nostalgia rather than simmering within the personal life of the man that performed them. That isn’t inherently bad, but that choice makes the movie play like a Greatest Hits collection instead of an introspective portrait of “the King.”
However, it struggles to give enough context of the complex relationships Michael Jackson had with others and himself and leans toward restoring nostalgia rather than simmering within the personal life of the man that performed them.
Even though the introspection rarely runs as deep as the spectacle, it’s a film that starts humanizing the myth of Michael, even when it fails to portray all of his early struggles.
It’s also a genuinely entertaining celebration of Michael Jackson’s early life and musical genius. It’s an immersive theater experience and if his music doesn’t make you move in your seat out of joy, nothing will.
Fuqua revealed there is more story to tell, more music left in the catalogue. There were performances that were shot and held back, and another film is already being thought about. “MICHAEL” won’t satisfy those who come in with their verdict on Jackson already decided, unwilling to look at him without every allegation attached. But that was never who this film was made for. “MICHAEL” was made for those who want to immerse themselves within a story that showcases Michael’s special creativity and dedication. It’s far from a definitive portrait of the icon, but no doubt an enjoyable start.