The Michael Jackson Movie Has Broken the Critical Part of People's Brains

If you’ve logged onto X (formerly Twitter) at any point this week, you’ve likely walked into one of the most caustic and angry debates I've ever seen between fans of a movie and critics.

One that I feel like has furthered the divide between circumcision and the people, and that we kind of have to address on this site.

Even if it feels like walking through a live minefield.

Antoine Fuqua’s long-awaited Michael Jackson biopic, Michael , has hit theaters, and the discourse surrounding it has gone nuclear online.

Amidst all the bodies online, I find myself drawn to the true casualty in all of this: nuance.

Let's dive in.

• YouTubewww.youtube.com

---

A Disclaimer Up Top

Look, we can't get into the Michael Jackson of it all without also talking about his allegations of child molestation, among other insidious crimes.

If you came here to know what I think, I'll tell you that I feel like there is overwhelming evidence that Michael Jackson abused children.

From testimony to documentaries, to personal videos that have surfaced, and even interviews, I believe that happened and that he largely got away with it because he was rich.

You can stop reading now if that's a roadblock to you.

The Rotten Tomatoes Chasm

Right now, the Michael movie is getting tormented by many reviewers, and that's caused a huge debate online. As of its opening weekend, Michael is sitting at a remarkably low critic score in the 30% range, while the verified audience score is soaring past 90%.

Now, we've done articles on how Rotten Tomatoes works before, so you have to understand this is just a smattering and estimate, not a declaration of quality.

We’ve seen this exact audience-versus-critic divide before with estate-sanctioned music biopics (Bohemian Rhapsody), but the vitriol this time feels distinctly elevated, thanks to both the charges against Jackson and a swath of people who think critics are unfairly judging the movie because of them.

Fans are using the high audience score as "proof" that critics are, at worst, actively plotting against Jackson’s legacy, and at best, out of touch.

Meanwhile, critics are frustrated that a film heavily backed by the Jackson family plays it incredibly safe and completely ignores the complexities and darker realities of its titular subject.

But here's what I think everyone is forgetting...

'Michael' Credit: Lionsgate

All Art Is Subjective

A Rotten Tomatoes score is not a mathematical certainty. It's just a bunch of people on one side or the other sharing an opinion. But it's just an opinion.

It does not declare certainty.

It doesn't even mean a movie's worth. It just means how a group of people felt about a subject.

You're allowed to feel anything you want and allowed to see any movie you want. I still watch and love a lot of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski movies.

I watch them all on Mondays, which I have declared "Problematic Mondays" in my house, but that's a topic for another day.

The thing is, when I watch these or other movies that may not have a critical consensus around them, I don't care! Because I have my own opinions about what makes them good or not, and I tend to stick with that when analyzing them.

I am my own person, and I like to avoid groupthink.

The Death of Media Literacy (And Why We Need It Back)

We are currently trapped in a bizarre paradox regarding film criticism. And we need more people with just basic media literacy to get it back.

On one hand, audiences are aggressively devaluing critics. There is a pervasive, anti-intellectual sentiment online that insists if a critic dislikes a blockbuster movie, they are simply a "hater" who don't know how to have fun.

Sure, some of these critics need to lighten up, but that doesn't mean they need to change who they are!

Their job is to expose their taste. Not to anticipate yours.

It's so maddening to see those ideas trending because it's so asinine to get mad at someone for an opinion about art.

On the other hand, audiences are simultaneously putting way too much stock in what critics say.

These are just people with cool jobs, that's all. Sure, they may be able to talk about film and TV in an educated manner, more so than the average Joe, but at the end of the day, it's all just opinions!

'Michael'Credit: Lionsgate

People are fighting tooth and nail in comment sections to defend a movie because a critic dared to give it a 2/5.

Go see it and form your own opinion, stop being mad that someone else had a problem with it. You look insane, and you come across as stupid.

Instead of engaging with the cinematic language of the film, like analyzing Fuqua’s shot composition, John Logan's screenplay structure, or the pacing of the narrative, audiences are treating movies like team sports, where you have to either call it the greatest of all time or the worst ever.

Sorry, but that's not how art works!

True media literacy means understanding that a critic's job isn't to validate your fandom.

The job of a film critic is to analyze the film’s text, context, and execution. You are allowed to read a negative review, understand the critic's perspective, completely disagree with it, and still love the movie.

You are also allowed to acknowledge that a film might be structurally flawed but undeniably entertaining.

You just have to form your own opinions.

The Elephant in the Room

Finally, we need to talk about the very real, very heavy baggage attached to this film. This is baggage that I think it is irresponsible for people to ask critics to ignore.

Michael deliberately focuses on the first three decades of Jackson’s life, building up to the 1988 Bad tour.

It does that to avoid the later decades of his life and the severe child sexual abuse allegations that fundamentally altered his legacy.

This was not the original plan for the movie, which wanted to take on and debunk the allegations, but was not allowed to thanks to a lawsuit and settlement with one of the victims.

Now look, many fans are happy to just have a happy Jackson movie that celebrates the hits that the king of pop delivered.

But I have to be incredibly clear about something: The scandal surrounding Michael Jackson is a completely valid reason to not feel great about this movie.

If the allegations make someone uncomfortable, or if they feel that a multi-million dollar, estate-sanctioned biopic is essentially a PR whitewashing exercise, that is a perfectly reasonable boundary to draw.

If you cannot separate the art from the artist, that's okay!

'Michael'Credit: Lionsgate

Conversely, if you believe Michael is innocent or are able to completely separate the art from the artist, that is totally okay, too!

We may disagree, but I am not here to argue with you on these points.

Go out and love the movie. Enjoy the IMAX experience!

Now, from either side, I am here to ask you to stop harassing people online about it.

Toxic fandom, from any direction, is so stupid and insane and only exists to make trouble without any substantive addition to society.

It's shameful. So knock it off.

Summing It All Up

Michael is a textbook example of why we need to recalibrate how we talk about movies and how we engage with both fans and critics.

Movies are designed to make us feel something, but they should also make us think.

So, log off X, engage with the art on your own terms, and trust your own brain enough to make the call.

Let me know what you think in the comments.