This is an amazingly shallow movie -- it makes the Bobby Darrin musical look like Shakespeare. If you choose to make a film about a monster but overlook all the evidence of monstrosity, then you're severely limited on the job. The Ebert site's one-star rating seems generous. (That said, because the movie reproduces several of Michael's dance routines, the experience is ridiculously entertaining.)
Generally, a coming-of-age story involves the discovery of sex; it's the exploration of sex that lets the protagonist begin to form an adult identity. Janet Jackson is a sturdy example; her recorded works are like a Bildungsroman. She is energetic and charming in "Escapade"--but it's "Love Will Never Do" that throws on all the lights. You put Djimon Hounsou in a little white Speedo, and there's no turning back. Janet's adult entanglements with heartache, death, disappointment, mental illness, cheating--all these feel "relatable." Janet is a grownup writing about her grownup life.
Michael did not have this trajectory. At what time did he begin to think about raping children? When did he first act on the thought? It's difficult to imagine that pedophilia had not (in some way) "entered" Jackson's life before 1987/88--the cutoff for the current film. Even if he wasn't assaulting kids at this point, the roots of the problem were there. To pretend otherwise is to be profoundly dishonest.
The other problem with "Michael" is that it has very little to say about the monster's artistry. If you're not going to tell a difficult story about the life, then why not tell a story about the work? We see Michael watching "Singin' in the Rain"--but I suspect there is more to say about Michael's connection with Gene Kelly? How about the origins of "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough"? How about Michael's interactions with other dancers--what was he like on the set of a music video?
What a stinker.
Comments
Post a Comment