Jackson Fans Rip VH1 Movie from Stem to Stern MJEOL Bullet #175 Biopic ridiculous and wildly inaccurate After media reviews tearing the VH1 movie Man in the Mirror apart, Jacksons fans are also ripping the movie apart from stem to stern; questioning everything from the accuracy to the choice of actors. In a mad rush to be one of the entities to financially benefit from Jacksons fame and legal troubles, VH1 created what some have characterized as a dramatization of media articles, clichés and inaccurate info staring a cartoon character version of Michael Jackson. This version is often seen through the lens of misinterpretations, half-truths, or outright lies.
The movie, as expected, portrayed Jackson to be an immature, selfish nutcase who doesnt know how to live in the world, according to many fans at the powerhouse fan site MJJForum and even the vh1 messageboard. The sentiment is also shared by members of this site, MJEOL, where the majority of fans who posted their reviews feel that the movie lacked both depth and enough truthfulness to be even remotely accurate. While this asinine interpretation of Jacksons behavior makes the media happy, it is far from an accurate portrayal of the talented artist and shrewd businessman who has been a superstar since before he was teenager. Jacksons sheer survival skills should have been a tip-off to the writer of the script that he should have quadruple-checked his sources and background info before he turned in the final draft of this daft parody. Nothing is depicted concerning Jacksons obvious business acumen and shrewdness; nothing showing his profound knowledge of artistryincluding everything from music to architecture. What is child-like behavior from the real Jackson is turned into brainless, childish behavior, which is indicative of shallow research and taken-as-is, unquestioned media reports. Instead of sensitive but strong, fragile and immature is depicted in the movie. Instead of idealistic and respectful, hes portrayed as flaky and selfish. Everything from the ridiculous makeup, to the ridiculous voice was roundly panned by a great number of fans who have posted their opinions. While there were a few who wanted to give the creators the benefit of the doubtand some found humor in the biopicmost were not as generous. One fan simply says This gotta be one of the worse movies Ive ever seen (Requiem, MJJF). And the reviews get even worse. One has to wonder if the media is interested in doing an actual biography of Jackson. Those wacko jacko sensibilities etched in the publics psyche by years of inaccurate and misleading informationnot to mention the outright liesdoesnt dupe those fans who, unlike Flex Alexander (plays Jackson), follow more than just his music. One fan writes: Rarely does the public demand an authentic portrayal of Michael. Therefore, there is rarely the effort to give it rather than the myths and media/tabloid one-dimensional version of Michael Jackson (classic, MJJF). Another fan offers what those involved in the film should most definitely be feeling What an embarrassing ass movie (MoOnWaLk4MeBaBy, MJJF). And boy did the inaccuracies and nonsensical story-telling come rolling in, according to other fans. Those who have knowledge of Jacksons history pointed to a number of things that were flat-out incorrect. For example, there is a scene in the alleged biopic concerning Jacksons Dangerous album. According to those whove seen the biopic, a person tells the Jackson character that his Dangerous CD isnt selling well and the Jackson-like character fired him because he didnt believe. Yeah right .sure. They seem to conveniently leave out the fact that Jacksons Dangerous CD is pushing 30 million copies worldwide, if it hasnt surpassed that mark already by this time. It was also Jacksons fastest selling CD before the HIStory album some years later. So the notion that someone would get fired or even reamed out by Jackson for that reason seems to come straight from a tabloid story. During the OJ Simpson trial the Jackson character is portrayed as more selfish and more concerned with the media attention given to the trial than to him. Where are they getting that from? They seem to be pulling it out of thin air. By all accounts, the media attention given to the OJ Simpson trial is exactly what Jackson didnt want at that time. Another nonsensical moment is concerning the Jackson characters reaction when he hears about the 1993 allegation. Fans report that they portrayed Jackson as caring more about a Peter Pan movie than anything else. Any person with any sense could probably tell you that a movie was last thing on his mind during that time. While they accurately make reference to Jacksons vitiligo, another inaccuracy concerns the stages and times of his disorder. Fans report at certain points, Jacksons skin is much darker than it was in real life; an error that should have been easily caught:
the makeup was terrible. They had Mike with dark skin during the Dangerous era and when he was with Lisa, then they had him lookin all dead and gray during the Bashir part, and then at the end he looked dark again! (Thrillergirl at MJEOL)
Any video from the Dangerous era–from Black or White to Remember the Timeand you can clearly see that Jacksons vitiligo has progressed to a more-than-obvious level by that time. Any idiot could have double checked to make sure. More fans complain about the overly used Neverland references. Whats a fact is that while Neverland obviously holds a special place in Jacksons life, hes probably spent more time away from it in the past few years than hes spent at the overly used Neverland of the movie. For example, Jackson was in Vegas while police were ransacking his home on Nov 18 2003. The ridiculous and gratuitous scene where the Jackson character is watching the World Trace Center towers being attacked was another source of ridicule. According to those who watched, the Jackson character tells a bodyguard to cancel the surrogate, I cant bring another child into this world. As if there is absolutely any basis at all that this conversation took place or that Jackson is booking and canceling surrogates like hes ordering and canceling room service. And as if Jackson, who is givingsometimes to a fault, by all accountswould be so selfish as to be thinking about himself at a time like that. The movie also treats Jackson like hes never had an adult heterosexual relationship. Both marriages are viewed by the writer as either a ploy to prove his manhood (L Presley) or a simple surrogacy arrangement (D Rowe) even though both women say there was clearly a relationship between them and Jackson. On that subject, one fan points out correctly that Jackson didnt propose to his first wife, Presley, in his bedroom but rather, over the telephone. Minor fact, but a fact nonetheless. The alleged movie also claims that Jackson was only using Presley for his image during the 93 allegations. In fact, he had been wanting to hook up with her since she turned 18, YEARS before the 93 allegations, as evidenced by the Prime Time Live interview. On another vein of their marriage, If anything, he was more hated by media and some in the public after the marriage because he was seen as the freak that was screwing the Kings daughter. Fans who have seen the movie also report that the grab the baby and run dramatization was far from what really happened between Jackson and Debbie Rowe, after the birth of his children. Of that, one Jackson fan writes:
I dont like how they portrayed Michael with Debbiethey made it seem like Michael thought of her (and women in general) as baby-making machines the people involved in this movie dont know Michael so a lot of these scenes in this movie are straight up fictional (floetic_justice, MJEOL)
If Rowe was a simple surrogate, he certainly wouldnt have married her. Besides not being true, there doesnt seem to be one iota of factual information to back up the baby-making machine theory. It reeks of flawed, stale pseudo-psychoanalysis based on speculation pulled out of thin air (or your local tabloid). This segues into another fact about the actors hired to play the roles. None of them actually look like the people that theyre portraying in the movie. For example, the children in the movie hired to play Jacksons kids appear to be too big to be Jacksons children at the ages they would have been during some of these make-believe scenes. No one with the exception of Martin Bashir (ironically)–not the actor playing Liz Taylor, Janet Jackson, not even the actor playing Michael Jackson–look a thing at all like the real people. In the movie, Jacksons daughter Paris is depicted as having blonde hair when she in fact has long dark brown hair. As one fan puts it at the VH1.com message board: this movie looks like they threw it together in a week without taking the time to study dates, details, or anything (CadetABC at vh1.com board). Another small point is that to most fans knowledge, Jackson doesnt call his little sister Tink as portrayed in the movie. Her nickname is dunk (or donk) which is short for donkey. Its a family joke. The creators of this this . movie claim that Jackson would like it because it was positive. Some fans say that if creators thought for a minute Jackson would approve of this hatchet-job, they should have thought again. Just because you arent making a movie declaring his guilt, doesnt mean that the movie is positive. Most fans who posted their reviews would have preferred truth and accuracy. Of Jacksons reaction to this biopic, one fan writes:
This movie was HIGHLY insulting to Michael Jackson’s character. This was absolute character assassination. Michael Jackson in this movie, was made into a cartoonish buffoon…. made into a retard. There is nothing funny about this character assassination and if anyone here think that Michael is pleased with this portrayal…. THINK AGAIN! This movie didn’t show any of MJ’s charity works, his business acquisitions – NOTHING. This movie was a slap in MJ’s face. (MsTenda, MJJF)
In the many interviews done by Flex Alexander, he does say that he is a Michael Jackson fan. But its clear hes a fan of the music only, and doesnt have that encyclopedic knowledge of events and information that a number of other fans do. If he did, he would have been able to point out those blaring discrepancies, inaccuracies and inconsistencies as most of the fans, who follow both Jacksons career and life, have done. In an interview with TV Guide, Alexander says he wasnt spooked by Jacksons legal situation and wants the process to work itself out in court. Of the voice and mannerisms, he claims that he worked on it and did a good job. Well, not all fans agree with that assessment: Another thing that irked me, is Flex’s voice, how he kept it all high even in the last scenes. Michael doesn’t use that falsetto anymore (m1958j at MJJF). One has to wonder if either Alexander or the producer of this movie has recently heard Jackson speak. True, hes no Barry White, but hes certainly no Mickey Mouse either. When asked by the TV Guide interviewer if the film is a hatchet-job, Alexander says that the movie is very positive and claims that he learned more about Michael Jackson than he ever knew. If he learned about Jackson through this film, then its no wonder he sees Jackson the way he does. This attitude is an illustration of the different tiers of Jackson fans. Had he delved a bit deeperor simply knew more about Jackson going into this moviehe probably wouldnt be claiming knowledge now. All in all, this is one movie the world seriously could have done without. With even some Jackson-hating media entities trashing it, one has to wonder what it accomplished. And no amount of good intentions on the part of the creators or the actors is going to change that. Remember the phrase made famous by Judge Judy: Dont pee on my leg and tell me its raining. In that same vein, dont create/participate in a movie like this and tell me its positive and that Jackson will like it. Alexanders next role should be playing an apologetic actor who just screwed over a musician of which he claims to be a fan. -MJEOL