In The Guardian US, Nadia Khomami wrote a piece titled, “Michael is a highly selective version of the singer’s life, and that suits more people than you might think.” [Open in new tab.}
I clicked into the article thinking that I would disagree with the premise. I think, or thought, that a bio pic ought to be truthful and complete, with all the juicy details. But the author changed my mind. Maybe it’s enough that a movie about a celebrity tells an entertaining story.
Michael Jackson’s legacy will be forever tainted. His attempts to change his skin tone. His disastrous plastic surgery. Child abuse allegations. Courtroom drama. The oxygen chamber. It all really drags down the artist’s image. And though it is fair and fitting that we know and learn the bad along with the good, maybe it’s okay if we, just for a moment, set aside the bad, and enjoy the good.
My grandkids are familiar with Michael’s music. But they didn’t watch the premier of Thriller on MTV. Do you remember that? The whole world stopped to watch it. It was revolutionary. Awesome. Fantastic. That is the Michael I best remember. The Michael that kept surprising us. The Michael that was anointed, “The King of Pop.”
Michael Jackson’s talent deserves to be showcased. The music. The dance. The choreography. The moon walk. The style. The glove. That’s what “Michael” is about. Critics slammed it because it is one-sided. It completely ignores that bad, juicy details. And after a bit of thought, I’m okay with that. I go to the movies to be entertained. And what could be more entertaining than two hours of some of the best, most groundbreaking music and dance of a generation?
I was never a Michael Jackson fan, never really cared all that much for the Jackson 5, either (nor did I have time for the Osmonds — but that’s another day’s argument). Given all that we know about Jackson’s private life I can’t see how a film can be made about him that ignores the abuse he committed. His talent’s as may be, but at what cost?