When I told an acquaintance I was on my way to Manhattan to see This Is It, the just-released Michael Jackson film, I got a roll of the eyes and a shrug.
“It’s just a bunch of people making money on a dead guy,” he said.
OK, you know what? All the business-first pragmatists, the habitual cynics, the perpetually glass-half-empty folks can keep carping about how people are exploiting a music legend that died, but try seeing this film and then let me know if it doesn’t shake up your thinking. It is rehearsal footage of Jackson’s in-progress “This Is It” tour. Pure music and dance and message.
If ever there was a doubt of director Kenny Ortega’s genius, it is displayed in layers through this project.
Read the rest of today’s Game Plan, Yes, Really, This Is It.
I think that the reason this project rubbed many the wrong way is the short amount of time it took to make it happen (under a season) and the fact that Jackson is shown in such a dramatically painful light, all of which makes it seem that creators were looking to make a buck out of his tragedy. Yes, pain was part of his life, but it was not the only thing he offered to the world…
Not saying this is so. Just expressing my thoughts.
Hmmmm. Deb, you may be talking about a different project altogether. There is nothing remotely negative or painful about this one, which is why I loved it. It simply showcased his gifts in a remarkable way.
I posted my thoughts on your column at Fox, where some numnut commented that he could only see the allegations of his supposed child molestation.
People can be so harsh. Frankly, nothing intrigues me more than a peek into someone’s creative process, as so often that’s where the joy is.
Great article, Nancy.
Thanks, Mar!
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Glad you liked the film.
I read a few reviews on the film and found that the opinion varies. Some actually weren’t being mean in expressing their disapproval of “This is It”. We all know that just because we don’t like something, it doesn’t mean that we’re being mean– we just disagree. It’s just that they felt that it could have been done so much better. That there was an unnecessary sort of rush about it.
I think that what ultimately matters is Michael Jackson’s approval :).
Deb, I’m truly confused. I’m not saying anything about respectful disagreement. I welcome that and don’t think it’s mean-spirited at all.
What I’m questioning is your original statement that people were saying this film cast Michael Jackson in a dramatically painful light. I don’t see that as opinion but simply factually incorrect. The pain is not in the film. I would welcome even one example. His musical gift and message are what the film is about.
In fact, I would understand it more if someone said it was a fluff piece. That’s why I thought perhaps we were talking about two different films.
Sorry. I hadn’t even realized that you’d written back here. Twitter lead me back to your blog :)!
“Among the film’s problems, exploitation for starters, are interviews with the singers, dancers and crew gathered like family around Jackson at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. Their words start at worshipful and burst into a Niagara of gush…”
— Rolling Stone Magazine
“Amid a considerable amount of filler, we have the painful sight and sound of Jackson days before his death of a drug overdose. He looks alarmingly frail, his impassive face appearing older than his 50 years. His once glorious voice, reduced to a hoarse whisper — when he speaks, there are often subtitles — frequently fails to hit notes, much less hold them.
At first, it seems the voice has returned for an elaborate re-staging of “Thriller” — and then it becomes clear he’s lip-synching to a decades-old soundtrack… I feel fairly confident that a perfectionist like Jackson would never want to be remembered by a shoddy piece of exploitation like “This Is It.”
-Lou Lumenick, NY Post
No offense. I loved Michael Jackson. Still do. He’s even on my silver iPod Shuffle. But I take in all sides of a story, and what bothers me most about this film is that Michael Jackson’s loved ones weren’t exactly ‘for’ it. Not that their opinion mattered in the end, directors/producers are going to do what they want to do, but, well… It just seemed like a way to make a buck off another’s talent.
Well, we really differ on this in many ways, Deb. I would have no desire to see any film if I read all the reviews before seeing it. I prefer to go see it and form my own opinion. Even at that I had heard rumblings of the “exploitation” charges and went into it with that coloring my view. As you know by now, I think that view is horribly jaded.
Seeing those dancers and singers in the light of exploitation because they loved working with a major artist is the most cynical way of looking at it I could imagine. As is made clear in the film, Michael Jackson was trying to preserve his voice for the tour. It does not claim to be a concert film with him singing full force, so the second review baffles me altogether.
I don’t know what more to say about it. Different strokes.
Through all of these comments, what I don’t have yet is your opinion. What do you think about the film?