Why is the movie 'Michael' a 'huge success'?

I watched 'Michael'.

To put it bluntly, I felt that this film is a huge success as a very contemporary 'oshi-katsu' (fan activity) movie.

By 'oshi-katsu movie,' I mean a film where the value is found not in critically appreciating the work itself, but in supporting it, promoting it, analyzing it, supplementing it, and getting excited about it with other fans.

In that sense, 'Michael' is very well-made.

The level of reproduction in the overwhelming singing and dancing scenes is incredible. The sense of unity between sound and image makes it feel as if you are re-experiencing live footage and music videos in a theater. This film reproduces the intensity of Michael Jackson as a performer with quite high precision.

And above all, this film does not attempt to damage Michael's public image in any way.

The work is crafted to protect the ideal image of Michael that many fans have loved. Even after watching the film, you don't really touch upon the unknown sides of Michael or his struggles as a human being rather than a star. What is depicted here is strictly the glorious figure of Michael that the whole world was crazy about.

In other words, this film does not depict the complexity of Michael Jackson as a human being, but rather regenerates the legend of the 'King of Pop' that already exists within fans and passes it on to the next generation.

In that objective, 'Michael' has achieved a huge success.

In this article, I will consider what this film does not depict and what it tried to protect. And I will also consider whether that regeneration of the legend was truly for Michael's sake.

◾️Thin as a biographical film, but...

Personally, I was honestly dumbfounded by the structure that pretends to be a biographical film but ends with a declaration that 'this story continues!'

Of course, one could take it as the latter half of his life leading up to 'This Is It' will be depicted later, so this film is a grand first part.

However, I also feel that is just the audience speculating and interpreting the producers' convenience favorably, as it is not depicted in the film itself.

In addition, there are things in the film that are clearly not depicted.

That is the deep dive into Michael's inner self and struggles, which many fans have pointed out. The relationship with Diana Ross and Paul McCartney, which broke down despite building such a deep connection. The unnatural absence of his sister, Janet Jackson. And the fact that the Jackson brothers, who should have naturally had conflicts and jealousy, are just dancing in the background like sensible mob characters.

The complex events and human relationships that occurred around Michael are quite conveniently simplified and beautified. In that sense, I have to say that this film is fatally thin as a biographical film.

However, I think that thinness is not just a failure, but an intentional dramatic choice. Rather, this film functions as an 'oshi-katsu movie' precisely because it is made thin.

If you depict Michael's complex humanity, noise enters the legend that fans can safely bathe in. If you deeply depict the conflicts with his family and the love-hate relationships with those around him, the ideal image of the 'King of Pop' would waver.

Therefore, this film focuses Michael's problems on his conflict with his father, organizes and sanitizes his human complexity, and ultimately recovers it into the brilliance on stage.

As a biographical film, it leaves something to be desired.

However, that is precisely the design of this film.

Show fans what they want to see.
Do not show fans what they do not want to be hurt by.
Recreate the legend that fans already hold, making it bigger, more beautiful, and more moving.

"Michael" is not a film that digs deep into Michael the human being.

I believe it is made as a film that protects the image of Michael that traditional fans have loved and presents the "King of Pop" legend once again to a younger generation of viewers who do not know Michael as it is.

◾️ The difference between "appreciating" and "supporting"

Watching the fans' attitude toward this film reminded me of a note written by Tsunehiro Uno about "oshikatsu" (fan support activities).

Regarding the phenomenon where enthusiastic fans of a work perceive criticism of the work as "affecting box office revenue" or "hurting the work" and view criticism itself as an enemy, Mr. Uno states the following:

This point is also very suggestive when considering "Michael".

Appreciating a work means accepting what is depicted in the work and what is not. There are parts you like and parts that seem flawed. It is an act of facing the work while maintaining a distance, including both the excitement and the discomfort.

On the other hand, supporting a work is a little different.

In fan support activities, the work is not just an object of appreciation. It becomes an object that you support, promote, and want to make successful. There, the evaluation of the work becomes tied to your own actions and identity.

That is why when flaws in the work are pointed out, it feels not like mere criticism, but like an act that hurts your own "love" for it.

Mr. Uno also writes about the danger that love for a work causes one to lose the ability to accept criticism:

Of course, I do not mean to criticize the fans of the movie "Michael".

However, in some of the reactions surrounding this film, one can see a structure where affection for the work causes a loss of distance from criticism.

As a biographical film, this work is clearly thin. Michael Jackson's inner self, his complex relationship with his family, his breakups with fellow artists, and the distortions of remaining a star—these things are omitted, romanticized, and sanitized.

However, among the voices supporting this film, many do not accept this as a flaw.

“It showed me the Michael that fans want to see.”
“It’s unavoidable that there are things that couldn’t be depicted due to contractual reasons.”
“It was the right decision to specialize in Michael as an entertainer rather than depicting his complex inner life.”
“The latter half of his life will surely be depicted in a sequel.”

In this way, the audience favorably supplements the parts not depicted in the film itself with the production side's circumstances.

I believe this “attitude of supplementing gaps with affection” is proof that this work is functioning well as a fan-activity movie itself.

What is important in a fan-activity movie is not to critically delve into the subject.

It is to share a space where you can like the subject once again without hurting the memories or ideals that fans already hold.

In that very sense, 'Michael' has achieved its goal.

To borrow Mr. Uno's words, it is close to an attitude of “living one's own story” by “supporting the work” rather than “watching the work”.

'Michael' is not a movie to learn about Michael's life.

I think it is a movie that reaffirms oneself, who has loved Michael, once again.

◾️ Why was Jaafar necessary?

So, why did 'Michael' need to reenact Michael's singing and dancing scenes through Jaafar Jackson?

I understand the feelings of Michael fans who have such questions well.

A vast amount of footage of Michael himself remains. In terms of the perfection of singing and dancing, no one can surpass the original. No matter how excellent Jaafar's performance is, it is not the real thing; it is a reproduction and an imitation.

If so, wouldn't it be better to watch the original Michael footage?

It is natural for fans to think so.

A clue to thinking about the structure of this work is 'Mobile Suit Gundam GQuuuuuuX (G-Ax)-Beginning-'.

Recent Gundam works such as 'The Witch from Mercury' and 'Iron-Blooded Orphans' each functioned as an entrance to a 'new Gundam' for the younger generation who do not know Gundam.

However, 'Gundam: Requiem for Vengeance' achieves something those other works could not. It directed a younger generation of viewers who do not know Gundam toward the Universal Century series of works that span from the original 'Mobile Suit Gundam' to 'Char's Counterattack'.

At the time of the release of 'Requiem for Vengeance,' there was criticism questioning whether there was any point in going out of the way to depict scenes reminiscent of the beginning of the first Gundam.

However, I believe that is precisely where the meaning lay.

That was not just a production choice to nostalgically please past fans. It was also a mechanism to guide young fans who do not know the old works toward past Gundam titles.

In fact, on social media, there were many discussions comparing the depictions in 'Requiem for Vengeance' with those in the older works. From there, the descriptive power and the brilliance of the direction in the past works were unearthed once again, which sparked interest in the older works within the fandom and, specifically, had the effect of encouraging people to watch them.

In other words, 'Requiem for Vengeance' did not simply present a new Gundam.

It was also a work that achieved the unearthing and reconnection of an old IP.

I think Jaafar's reenactment in 'Michael' also holds a role similar to this.

For long-time fans, watching the original footage of Michael himself is enough. However, for a generation that did not know Michael in real-time, reenactments of past footage cannot capture their interest.

In order to have them experience Michael's greatness, it was necessary to reconstruct Michael's performance once more through the latest visual technology, the acoustics of modern movie theaters, and a physicality that reaches contemporary audiences.

Jaafar Jackson's reenactment is not a substitute for Michael himself.

It is an act of creating an entrance for the generation that does not know Michael to enter the legend that is Michael Jackson.

Young viewers who are impressed by the movie will likely trace back to the original songs and music videos of Michael himself. They will encounter the interpretations and testimonies of long-time fans and come to know even more about Michael's greatness.

In short, I believe 'Michael' was also a movie that reboots the IP known as Michael Jackson.

◾️Humanity was trimmed to regenerate the legend

Thinking about it this way, the reason why this movie does not delve deeply into the complexities of Michael as a human being also becomes clear.

In order to reboot the IP of Michael, human complexities that are difficult to understand become an obstacle. The 'real image of Michael that fans don't know' is also not necessarily required.

What is needed is the public image as the 'King of Pop' that many people already share.

A tragic prince who, while possessing genius talent and foresight, suffers from abuse by his own father, yet cannot completely cut ties with him. A prince who, while being hurt, does not lose his purity and kindness.

That is the image of Michael that this movie is trying to protect.

That is precisely why there is no need to significantly shake up that image through the film's own unique interpretation. In fact, perhaps it should not have been shaken at all.

A symbolic moment is the scene before the Jacksons' final concert.

Michael declares that he will "look his father in the eye and tell him his intentions." However, in reality, he does not tell his father goodbye himself; instead, his bodyguard Bill simply drives him away, saying "Get lost."

If Michael himself had looked his father in the eye and clearly said goodbye here, it might have been a powerful climax showing his growth.

But at the same time, that would deviate from the image of Michael that this film is trying to protect.

He wants to escape the curse of his father,
but he cannot bring himself to hate him completely.
Even while being hurt, he cannot abandon his kindness.

What this film is trying to protect is the image of Michael as that "tragic prince." That is why I believe the film did not let him explicitly reject his father himself.

This is a weak decision for a coming-of-age drama.

However, it is consistent for a film that protects a legend.

"Michael" is a film for those who have loved Michael to reaffirm the "King of Pop" legend within themselves, and at the same time, it is a film for the younger generation who do not know Michael to encounter that legend for the first time.

To achieve that,Michael had to be depicted as a thoroughly innocent being.

Not as a complex human being, but as a "tragic prince" who, while being hurt, never loses his purity.

I believe that is the image of Michael that this film chose to portray.

◾️ Is it love, or is it exploitation?

"Michael" is not a film that gets to know Michael.

Instead of depicting the inner life of Michael the human, this film depicts the image of Michael that fans have loved. I believe it was designed as a "bible" thatdoes not damage Michael's legend and passes it on to the next generation.

But who was that revival of the legend for?

For the love of the fans?
Or for the IP holders trying to generate new profits in Michael's name?

When we face this question, I feel as though we are approaching the position of Joseph Jackson, the father who is depicted critically in this film.

This work depicts Joseph as a "bad father" who, while believing in Michael's talent, also used and tried to exploit that talent.

If so, how free is the act of loving Michael and continuing to consume films made in his name from that same structure?

Is it love?
Or is it exploitation?

That is the greatest sense of discomfort I feel regarding the movie "Michael".

…As an aside, when I was watching old Michael music videos at home after seeing "Michael," my wife, who was sewing next to me, asked with a straight face, "Why does this guy keep saying 'hee-hee' all the time?"

No, I really don't want her to point that out.
That is not about logic, it is an expression of passion 😅.