OPINION PIECE BY PEZ JAX
This week, it seemed there was a small triumph when Sky Arts announced that due to strong reservations from Michael’s family (namely Paris) they would not screen their controversial, fantasy story about Michael Jackson, Liz Taylor and Marlon Brando.
Having followed the commentary since the story first broke about the show mid-2016, it’s become apparent that there now seems to be this industry shift towards putting a Michael Jackson ‘themed’ story out there. Perhaps the industry feel 8 years is enough of a grace period and that the potential audience is too lucrative to pass up on the offer? But when all is said and done, don’t we all know the story already? Could a made for TV movie really tell us something about Michael that we don’t know…but should?
Let’s start with the Sky Arts Show ‘Urban Myths’ which was to tell the long rumoured story that after 9/11, Michael, Liz and Marlon who had been in New York for the 30th Anniversary shows, hired a car and drove to Ohio. As far as stories go about Michael, this is one of the most ridiculous and it seems that people who buy in to this are quick to forget he had not only his children, but his parents and siblings with him in New York. Yet, we’re expected to believe he just abandoned them all for a ‘road-trip’ to safety?! Secondly, fans who were in New York for the shows have reported for years on just how Michael went to extensive efforts to ensure that the fans who had congregated outside his hotel were moved to safety, requesting some of his own team to assist with the transition. This is the truth about how Michael dealt with the 9/11 atrocity. He did not hot-foot it out of New York with out concern or care for those who were in the city to see him.
The biggest controversy surrounding the Urban Myths show was that they’d hired a white actor to play Michael. Joseph Fiennes, a little known actor who has had a few shots at the big time was to portray Michael alongside Grease Actress Stockard Channing as Liz Taylor and Brian Cox as Marlon Brando. Understandable there was upset as Michael was an African-American and the idea of a white man playing him is both confusing and offensive. The fact that the show was set in 2001 proved a challenge with casting; Michael was a black American who, due to vitiligo appeared with a fully white complexion at the time which they were looking to portray. To select a black actor and ask them to ‘whiten up’ would be inappropriate. To select a white actor and ask them to be Michael was also inappropriate. Perhaps a light skinned African-American would have been a far better choice? Ultimately from this casting issue alone, the story should have been abandoned.
But for me, the thing that bothered me more than who was cast was the way in which they chose to portray Michael’s persona. As others have done in the past, this show sought to portray Michael as this insane, infantile man who speaks soft spoken nonsense and only cares about futile issues. You see this in the trailer, with no surprise that Bubbles was name dropped as Fiennes is seen running erratically through the woodlands. It’s this that continues to bother me about these attempts to depict Michael. You saw it in the horrendous ‘Man in the Mirror’ movie starring Flex Alexander and in numerous TV shows that have failed at portraying the true Michael Jackson. Acting a stereotype of a person is easy…understanding who you’re meant to be representing is far more complex and as ‘fine’ as all these actors may be credited, they do their profession a dis-service when they choose to portray Michael as the media enigma and not taken on the task of researching who he really was, how he really spoke and what he was really about.
For now, we’ll be spared having to see such a farce play out as Sky’s cancellation means the footage will stay off our airwaves…at least for the time being. Banned footage creates demand, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see the episode surface at some point…But as of right now, it’s cancelled and that’s a good thing.
No sooner has the cancellation been announced that more details of the ‘Lifetime network’s’ biopic about Michael has been released and the circus starts up again. The ‘movie’ is reported to be based on the Bodyguard’s book ‘Remember the Time’, is written by Berry Gordy with support from Suzanne De Passe and featuring…Navi as Michael. You simply couldn’t make this up!
Personally, I find this concept extremely insulting. Between the period of 2006-2009 in which the bodyguard’s book is set, Michael was at a very unique point in his life. He’d been through the
most emotionally draining, physically taxing trial of his life, partnered with a full on media-slaughter and public execution. He had numerous financial and legal issues surrounding him and by all accounts it seemed he just wanted to get back to being a father and living as normal life as possible. For any TV network to think they could possible begin to understand what Michael had gone through and be able to serialize that for the small screen is highly offensive. Gordy and De Passe, whilst I’ve no doubt will be respectful, were not a part of Michael’s life in those later years and so their positioning seems misplaced. As for Navi as the lead, it’s evident the production are more interested in getting the look right than they are in portraying the depth of Michael’s life. It’s ignorant to think that because a person can throw similar dance moves and alters his appearance with make up and prosthetic to look like Michael, that he could possibly be able to portray Michael, following the trial and the struggles which the book details. It does Michael a complete dishonour for those tied to this project to think they can adequately convey Michael at this stage in his life. For those who have read the book, it’s well placed in being from the point of view of the bodyguards; what they saw, what they experienced, how it affected them. But the driving factors for a ratings show will always be making ‘Michael’ the star, the first person and the ‘character’ they choose him to be.
Another problem with these types of movies is always the question ‘how do you know?’. If we have a scene featuring just Michael and his children, unless any of them regaled the entire conversation, word for word, ‘how do you know’ that’s what went down? If Michael and Liz were having a catch up in their pajamas (as they did in 2009) and neither told what they spoke about, what are you going to do? Make it up? and here in lies the problem. These movies become fictitious, dramatic productions that follow the penciled lines of Michael’s life.
I’m sure these won’t be the only two projects as Michael’s life continues to fascinate and will no doubt continue to do so for years to come. But put simply, do we need these? Michael Jackson was one of, if not the biggest star on the planet. His entire life was played out in front of the cameras. We followed his inception in to the industry before he was even a teenager, right up to his passing and beyond. What more do we need to see about a man that gave everything he wanted to give to the public and keep private those things that he had every right to do so? His health was his business, his finances, his business, his legal issues, his business. None of these warrant a place on a TV screen in a budget recreation of Michael’s life and surroundings.
As we approach the 8th year of his passing, we can look back and see that we’ve learned a lot about Michael that we didn’t know before, some good, some we’d prefer remained private, many stories and interviews have filled in little bits of the puzzle of what made Michael the person we admire. We don’t need this elaborated or scandalized for a few ratings. How could you create a biopic on Michael Jackson anyway? Far too much happened in his life to cover everything. What would be deemed most important? You couldn’t tell one part without the rest of the story. And who would you cast? would it be multiple actors? Michael’s life was his. Enough of it is out there for those who want to know. I believe a biopic is and would always be a horrible idea. I don’t need to see the trial re-enacted…I lived it! If I want to see Michael live? I’ll stick on a DVD.
Granted we had the ‘Jacksons American Dream’ back in the 90s and I think they did a great job in portraying a part of the Jacksons’ upbringing and launch in to super stardom, yet these were different times where not as much was video documented and Michael’s life in particular was most certainly less complex.
Thankfully, being the creative genius he was, Michael documented much of his creative output and we’ve been privy (official or otherwise) to getting a view at the way he wrote, recorded, rehearsed and made magic. This is what we should be seeing, this is what is important to Michael’s story, the documentation he left behind tells the story from Michael’s perspective, with Michael as the star and how he wanted it to be seen. I’ll leave you with a quote from the man himself…
“I’m a great fan of art, I love Michelangelo, if I had the chance to talk to him or read about him I would want to know what inspired him to become who he is, the anatomy of his craftsmanship, not about who he went out with last night … what’ wrong with … I mean that’s what is important to me.”
Pez.
I couldn’t agree with this more! As you say Michael’s life has been documented pretty much from the day he was old enough to showcase his personality! I understand the need for this when it’s a star who is super private who’s life has been somewhat sheltered. Where Michael is concerned people have a habit of re-writing HIStory, even those who was around him. I just think with all of his home movies, and footage from his travels, work days etc it would be more interesting, more lucrative and more appealing for his own tapes to be put out there. We’ve already seen just how great that can be by the few snipets we were given with some of the old making ofs, the Bad25 and Off The Wall documentaries.
I say they should leave well enough alone.
Well written Pez.
Some people will never leave Michael alone, all they see are $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Dear Pez… great article and I agree that we don’t need a biopic on Michael Jackson, there is always the need for ‘dramatisation’ to make such programmes attractive to the potential viewing audience. Perhaps Gordy/de Passe involvement is meant to keep the fans happy, to some of us it probably just seems like betrayal of Michael’s love and appreciation for these individuals, as expressed in many a gracious acceptance speech. Perhaps they thought rather someone who really knew Michael do it than someone who didn’t at all. As for Navi playing Michael, it makes no difference to me who pays him, especially not on the basis of race. I can understand the ‘look’ of the man, but that can and has been achieved by numerous others, and I wouldn’t want them playing Michael either. They’re NOT Michael, as I am reminded every time I see one of them perform. For me, unless the Estate and his kids are involved or sanction such a biopic project, I am just not interested. Neither will his heirs benefit, as they should, from any project about him (at least that’s the way I feel about it.) I have to admit to raising an eyebrow at the description of Joseph Finnese… he’s not exactly little known. Perhaps it’s just that I am a movie buff, count Shakespeare in Love (also largely a fabrication!) amongst my favourites, and tend to notice Mr Finnese, brother of Ralf, when he appears in other films and TV shows. But, that’s all beside the point. The issue for me isn’t, nor do I think it should be, the race/colour of an actor. We need to remember that Michael wanted to play Edgar Allen Poe in a biopic… I know as a society we have moved on since then, but I think that Michael’s colour-blindness in terms of great characters, artists, people is something we can still learn from. However, not having ever been a member of a minority group in the population or from a marginalised section of society, I’m really not in a position to say much on that. I haven’t walked in those shoes, so I can’t really know. I just think it shouldn’t matter. What SHOULD matter, as you have quite rightly pointed out, is the playing of real, well-known individuals as caricatures of there real selves. And, of course, they are not here to talk about it. Ditto the biopic on the Bodyguard’s book, which I in tern found informative and intrusive. I have it on myself, read, but remain undecided about it – apart from being annoyed by some timeline errors I detected in it which any fan (such as yourself) well versed on what Michael was doing when and where, could have picked up in the editing process. There’s so much more I’d like to see, and hope we will see, officially, including the rehearsal, ‘making of’ and behind the scenes footage from Michael’s career when he took control of his creative output… like many of us, THAT’S what I want to see. I don’t want the legacy of his creative genius to be dominated by stories of his being surrounded in his later years by people who seemed largely to take advantage of his generosity and vulnerability in terms of financial and personal management. The media just wants controversy. As with the books that have been written about Michael’s final days, they’re not interested in giving us a balanced picture. In reality, I truely believe, they’re not interested in the REAL Michael Jackson – just the caricature they, the media, have created and fostered for decades – at Michael’s and now his family’s expense. And ours.
Navi as MJ? Mmmm…not so sure….Earnest Valentino is nearer the mark…but the whole idea is unnecessary..we all get the idea
I knew Michael Jackson personally for over 12 years and he would have been furious and horrified by these idiots who were trying to portray him in that complete lie of a movie.And thank God for Paris getting that hideous piece of garbage stopped.And I agree that any type of biopic about Michael Jackson will never be right because of how complex a person and perfectionist Mike was. And Navi is a great impersonator of Mike’s but he wasn’t his favorite,that goes to E Casanova. To really portray Michael in a true positive and respected way you would have to wait and see if his son Blanket would ever want to step into his dad’s shoes because nobody could pull off reinacting Michael Jackson better than his son! But that is a big IF because Michael’s life wasn’t glitz and glamour and he would not want to subject his children to the hellish moments of his life and especially not the last years! And he would have been furious with them choosing that white dude Joseph Fiennes to play him.Mr.Jackson was and always will be a Very proud African American male,who just suffered from the Vitiligo skin changing disorder that he didn’t ask for or couldn’t stop from getting. And to have had a white dude play his part would have been insulting and totally disrespectful.I know how much he hated that hideous piece of garbage movie Man in the Mirror,and Edward Moss’ s roles in the Scary movie spoofs so I don’t doubt he would have been hopping mad and definitely gotten his attorneys to stop from this latest slap in the face from airing!
Faith – I agree with you, except for your comments about ‘that white dude Joseph
Fiennes’… we seem to forget that Michael wanted to play Edgar Allen Poe in a biopic, and Poe was a ‘white dude’. Not that I wanted to see Fiennes, or Navi or anyone play Michael. I don’t want to see the bodyguards’ book filmed and become accepted as ‘fact’ by future audiences who may not be bothered to delve a bit deeper. Basically we have so much footage of Michael in rehearsal and at Neverland etc that could be used to provide a great doco – but unless is an authorised project (Like Bad25) I’m not really interested. His heirs need to have a say and reap any financial benefits.