Thanks for this. Sounds like a skip. I generally have no problem listening to MJ or other problematic artists. A lot of the classical music I love was authored by nationalists, adulterers, abusers, liars and fascists! However, if you're transcribing a musician's art and life into a biopic (even a puff piece), you'd better have something to add besides the propaganda of the musician's heirs.
I hope we all eventually get to see the Prince film that Netflix and the Prince estate buried. Critics who got to see it described layers nuanced, mystery, drama, sin and genius. That sounds like a real movie.
I don’t think people will even notice the lack of a dramatic arc or explanation for what made Michael tick. Jaafar sounds and looks like the best simulacrum to Michael there is, so in essence they have a concert film by a spectacular entertainer. They don’t want to take the watch apart.
Thank you Sonny. I appreciate your role on The Bulwark, especially as it relates to film. Living in Los Angeles as a law school student, I saw everything-I was in THAT city and needed a break God knows from three years of ick. Now many years hence, a new city, two teenagers and a lapsed New Yorker review I appreciate the guidance. I think I'll stick to my MJ LPs. He's just a guy, good or bad, I don't want to see bio pic'ed. Maybe it's just Human Nature.
one is accused, look back at the hearings, and the family mia came from, she fine now, but was not always, little drama there. ronan, carrying water for mom
It's not quite the same thing, in that its central figure is not utterly loathsome, but — the way that 24 Hour Party People uses Tony Wilson as its protagonist as opposed to some of the better-known musicians in the period it covers shows that this is very doable. (At the very least, it's a film I prefer to the Joy Division biopic Control by a large margin.)
Good point, though it makes me wonder if a movie about a parasite has to make the host the antagonist. If Parker had been a real Svengali (i.e. if he had "made" Elvis), it would be a different matter.
Honestly? Watching and listening to Michael Jackson is enough for me. Not every movie needs to drag me through guilt and introspection and emotional upheaval.
Now that I've admitted that, I might as well touch the third rail: I will, on occasion, watch Grease 2.
I really don't understand why this film needed to be made. I was a fan in the 80s (when I was very young), but it wasn't even a little bit hard for me to stop listening to his music when accusations started coming out. I guess because I was never a die-hard fan. I've never been able to bring myself to watch Leaving Neverland, but I definitely believe those men. It's disgusting how people so easily overlook his horrible crimes just because Jackson was such a unique talent. I would probably feel differently about the movie if the producers had worked around the legal prohibitions by not using real names. But as it is, it seems to be just a hagiography for someone who doesn't deserve it.
It's been really interesting to watch some of the drama about the making of this movie, because it really does look like they wanted to make a straight-up defense of MJ which is ... well, let's just say "potentially evil."
I just read the New Yorker piece on Antoine Fuqua, and I really wish it had gone a little deeper into that side of things. (See also: John Logan; both of them are quite good at their craft, but them being on board with this project seems less than great.)
So, how much did they make about the Jackson’s being from
Gary, Indiana, the one time
murder capital of the country?
The City that’s still trying to capitalize on the success of the Jackson 5.
Im guessing not much at all.
It’s mentioned a couple of times!
Thanks for this. Sounds like a skip. I generally have no problem listening to MJ or other problematic artists. A lot of the classical music I love was authored by nationalists, adulterers, abusers, liars and fascists! However, if you're transcribing a musician's art and life into a biopic (even a puff piece), you'd better have something to add besides the propaganda of the musician's heirs.
I hope we all eventually get to see the Prince film that Netflix and the Prince estate buried. Critics who got to see it described layers nuanced, mystery, drama, sin and genius. That sounds like a real movie.
I don’t think people will even notice the lack of a dramatic arc or explanation for what made Michael tick. Jaafar sounds and looks like the best simulacrum to Michael there is, so in essence they have a concert film by a spectacular entertainer. They don’t want to take the watch apart.
I wonder if Kevin Spacey will end up like Michael Jackson: mostly remembered for his art
Having a horrible father & being a gigantic talent doesn't excuse Jackson's likely abuse of children.
I admit to being torn in not wanting to give a cent to support this kind of charade and yet knowing I would probably enjoy the singing & dancing.
I’d rather watch the early ‘70s “Jackson 5” cartoon. Besides, it gave more attention to Tito and Marlon.
Thank you Sonny. I appreciate your role on The Bulwark, especially as it relates to film. Living in Los Angeles as a law school student, I saw everything-I was in THAT city and needed a break God knows from three years of ick. Now many years hence, a new city, two teenagers and a lapsed New Yorker review I appreciate the guidance. I think I'll stick to my MJ LPs. He's just a guy, good or bad, I don't want to see bio pic'ed. Maybe it's just Human Nature.
Does the film foreshadow the bizarre man he would become? His visage terrified my young daughter.
There’s a little bit about his plastic surgery, but very little.
I cannot fathom why the same society/culture that has cancelled Woody Allen continues to embrace Michael Jackson. It makes my stomach turn.
one is accused, look back at the hearings, and the family mia came from, she fine now, but was not always, little drama there. ronan, carrying water for mom
Woody Allen continues to make money from his works. Michael Jackson does not. We can enjoy his amazing talents without benefiting him.
An interesting movie would be one about his dad. Or Colonel Tom Parker. Or Don Robey. Or any of the notorious bastards of pop music history.
It's not quite the same thing, in that its central figure is not utterly loathsome, but — the way that 24 Hour Party People uses Tony Wilson as its protagonist as opposed to some of the better-known musicians in the period it covers shows that this is very doable. (At the very least, it's a film I prefer to the Joy Division biopic Control by a large margin.)
This is one reason why the Baz Luhrmann ELVIS works! It’s a sideways Col. Parker movie.
Good point, though it makes me wonder if a movie about a parasite has to make the host the antagonist. If Parker had been a real Svengali (i.e. if he had "made" Elvis), it would be a different matter.
Honestly? Watching and listening to Michael Jackson is enough for me. Not every movie needs to drag me through guilt and introspection and emotional upheaval.
Now that I've admitted that, I might as well touch the third rail: I will, on occasion, watch Grease 2.
So, really, I can just save a lot of effort and money by going online and watching a bunch of real Jackson 5 and MJ videos.
I really don't understand why this film needed to be made. I was a fan in the 80s (when I was very young), but it wasn't even a little bit hard for me to stop listening to his music when accusations started coming out. I guess because I was never a die-hard fan. I've never been able to bring myself to watch Leaving Neverland, but I definitely believe those men. It's disgusting how people so easily overlook his horrible crimes just because Jackson was such a unique talent. I would probably feel differently about the movie if the producers had worked around the legal prohibitions by not using real names. But as it is, it seems to be just a hagiography for someone who doesn't deserve it.
It's been really interesting to watch some of the drama about the making of this movie, because it really does look like they wanted to make a straight-up defense of MJ which is ... well, let's just say "potentially evil."
I just read the New Yorker piece on Antoine Fuqua, and I really wish it had gone a little deeper into that side of things. (See also: John Logan; both of them are quite good at their craft, but them being on board with this project seems less than great.)