Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary- DVD / Blu Ray [available on iTunes Nov 19]

C

ChrisC

Guest
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Spike has been saying he had 'full' access to MJs vaults. I can't see the Estate telling him he couldn't use certain things as they wanted to keep them for a release in 25 years. Possible I guess but not sure lol
 

tricia70

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,249
Points
0
Location
Florida, U.S.
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

I don't speak French but in the original French comment I spotted the word "CATASTROPHE" (in full capitals like that) which I think means the same as in English (and that was translated as DISASTER). So I don't think it was just the translation.

Ah okay respect77, no misunderstanding then. I wished I had read it in French. I was just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. But oh well, that is just one reviewer, and it seems that the majority really like it.
 

tricia70

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,249
Points
0
Location
Florida, U.S.
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

So anybody know why Quincy Jones wasn't included on this? Is he that miffed at Michael really? Personally I like that he is excluded. Sometimes he gets too much credit and not enough credit goes to Michael. BAD was Michael's baby and he was the architect of the project NOT Quincy.
 

Hunterr

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
833
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Quincy deserves praise too
 

Hess

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
11,406
Points
83
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

They could do like they did with TII.

Some extra on the DVD version - LOTS of EXTRA on the Blu-Ray!!
 

virginia_woolf

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
1,150
Points
48
“Even though I didn't interview Quincy, he is given much respect,” said Lee. “He has a busy travel schedule and is not always available,” Branca added.
______________________
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Spike has been saying he had 'full' access to MJs vaults. I can't see the Estate telling him he couldn't use certain things as they wanted to keep them for a release in 25 years. Possible I guess but not sure lol
I think it's more about - say they have 5 hours of unedited footage from one studio session, but they only used 5 minutes of it (I'm just making this up), obviously we'd like to see as much of it as possible.
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

I'm curious to know what Paris replies to Spike's question

Spike Lee ?@SpikeLee
@ParisJackson Dear Paris,This Is Spike Lee.Please Let Me Know What You And Your Brothers Think Of BAD 25.I Love Your Father.Peace,Spike

also:
Spike Lee ?@SpikeLee
Now That I'm Back In The States I Must Give Big Love To The Magnificent MJ Fans I Shared With In Venice,Paris And London.You Keep MJ ALIVE#1


:clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
Last edited:

Annita

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,429
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

In UK it`s coming on BBC for Christmas.
 

Hess

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
11,406
Points
83
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Hope Paris answer him. - And of course I hope she likes the doc too! :lol:
 

Rudolf

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
4,187
Points
48
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Did MITM in doc included the reprise too? Or just single MITM? Just curious if they showed it.
 

dmehta

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
670
Points
0
Location
London, UK
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/254bbb7a-f805-11e1-828f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz25pxY7ZWt

In ‘Bad’ company

616644ee-0950-11e1-8e86-00144feabdc0.img
By Peter Aspden

Spike Lee’s film gives us reasons why Michael Jackson was great. It concerns itself with art, not with a messy life

I happened to be, of all places, in the Copenhagen back garden of Lars von Trier, the splendidly contrarian Danish film director, on the day that Michael Jackson’s death was announced. “I think that’s fair enough,” he said neutrally. “He didn’t look so happy.”

Jackson’s final years, as we suspected at the time and now know, were indeed imbued with trauma. The obituaries talked voraciously of his scandal-ridden personal life, and glibly of his artistic genius. It was a perverse order of priorities, “like noticing a cobweb on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel,” as his former producer Quincy Jones puts it.

Jones is quoted in a new documentary on Jackson, Bad 25, directed by another great cinematic visionary, Spike Lee. Timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the Bad album, the film is not the place to go if you want to discover more lurid details on plastic surgery, oxygen bubbles or suspect relationships with children. Lee has been granted access to Jackson’s personal archive by the singer’s estate, so it was never going to pose the difficult questions.


Instead, it does something much more necessary and much more ennobling: it gives us some of the reasons why Michael Jackson was great. It concerns itself with art, and not with a messy life.


The atmosphere at the UK premiere of the film last weekend was unashamedly celebratory and Lee, wearing a light-grey US Olympic tracksuit top and improbably white sneakers, was in effervescent mood. He has unearthed some precious material. My favourite footage is of an anxious Jackson discussing the animation of a commercial for California Raisins, which was based on his dance moves. He seems content enough with the depiction of the Michael Jackson raisin but is unimpressed with the two backing raisins. He explains, softly and earnestly, what kind of facial expressions they should be adopting. His analysis is thorough and serious. It is the most striking example of his professionalism and attention to detail, qualities that are too often overlooked by his detractors.


When you have god-given talent, and it has been studiously honed from the age of five, it is commonly considered that inspiration arrives easily, and that perfect execution slips casually into place. Pop artists in particular suffer from the consequences of those assumptions. They are thought to be all instinct, reacting spontaneously to forces all around them, cashing in on their ability to monitor their times.


But Jackson’s talent, whether divinely granted or not, was forged with relentlessly hard work. It is the one observation common to all those talking heads interviewed in the film. His extraordinary dance routines were based on hours of study: they referenced Jerome Robbins, Buster Keaton, Fred Astaire and the burgeoning street culture of the day. He rehearsed them for hours with friends.

7f124c4a-f897-11e1-b0e1-00144feabdc0.img

Michael Jackson onstage during the Bad Tour in 1988

The making of Bad was fraught with tension. In trying to follow up Thriller, which remains the biggest-selling album of all time, he became obsessed with surpassing himself. A bodyguard recalls that in every dressing room used by Jackson on tour, he would find the words “100 million albums” written on the mirror. It was a sales target, and not a bad theme for a business school lecture.


The album was also an exercise in existential fine-tuning. Jackson wanted to be bad, or at least badder than people thought. He hired Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Richard Price respectively to direct and write the short film (Jackson never talked of “videos”) to promote the title track. “He wanted to show the brothers that he was down,” says Price in the film. “So he went to an Italian with asthma, and then he went to a Jew with asthma.” The ethnic asthmatics produced a snarling slice of showbiz fantasy that wasn’t, in all honesty, particularly “bad”, but strikingly inventive.


Rumours circulating at the time suggested that “Bad” was going to be a duet between Jackson and his biggest rival in pop stardom, Prince. The two men’s relationship was shrouded in mystery. But Lee recalls Prince’s good humour when he was asked why the duet never materialised: the very first line of the song – “Your butt is mine” – was not one that either artist was likely to allow the other to sing to him.


When it was finally released in 1987, five years after Thriller, Bad was successful enough. It spent nine months in the top five, sold 45m copies and spawned an unprecedented five consecutive chart-topping singles. The subsequent world tour attracted 4.4m spectators. Jackson was the biggest star on the planet. But his life was unravelling. The details are well known but are left unaddressed in Lee’s film.


That will attract accusations of hagiography. But it came as a relief to me. Bad 25 is a corrective. It is full of insight, humour and no little joy. It casts Wacko Jacko to one side, just for a couple of hours, so that we can imagine what his world might have looked like if he had been more – air quotes at the ready – normal.


Early in the film, some friends and colleagues pore over a quote from the African-American writer James Baldwin, who saw cause for concern in the trajectory of Jackson’s life in a noted 1985 essay, before Bad was even released: “The Michael Jackson cacophony is fascinating in that it is not about Jackson at all. I hope he has the good sense to know it and the good fortune to snatch his life out of the jaws of a carnivorous success.”


It is hard to read that without the grimace of hindsight. Jackson’s carnivorous success ate him up. No wonder he did not look so happy.





 

Petrarose

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
9,574
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

^^These articles--why do they all comment on the fact that Lee does not comment on Michael's "messy life." This is a celebration of the Bad album and the making of BAD, what is so difficult for these reporters to understand? They all say the same thing, including the Rolling Stones article. Even those, like the one above who suggest that it is a relief that the "messy" part is left out are not sincere, because in the next paragraph they bring in controversy, such as the "wa-- jac--" above.

The author claims Michael looked unhappy, but do they ever analyze why he was unhappy? It is almost as though they think Michael made himself unhappy, or they like to claim that because he isolated himself his life went downhill. I guess if they look too deeply into that unhappiness or what they call the "messy life," the source of it will be them and greed, and they do not want to admit their culpability.

The author above writes that Jackson's "carnivorous success ate him up." What a bunch of doo doo. Peter you know what ate Michael up, the persistent lies, persecution, name calling, and jealousy of the media; the allegations which were made possible, due to the perception of Michael that was created by the media, i.e., a strange, bizarre, weird, asexual man-child; the constant and persistent mistreatment by family, quasi friends, business associates, including managers and Motorola due to greed; the constant and persistent betrayal by friends and enemies due to greed, which caused him to not know who is true friends were, and we could add the rabbi in this group. We could go on some more, so when the press talk about the "messy life," we need to inform them about who created the mess in the first place, and ask them why is it so necessary to you to constantly bring up that "mess." What do you, Mr. reporter, get out of it?

Even those who wrote about Bush's book, commented on the fact the controversy is not in it. I have come to the conclusion that all critics and media want in every write up about Michael information about bubbles, the tank, allegations, ect. They are never happy if these things are missing. If they are missing, they alert the reader that the information is not there and then begin to talk about it. What an obsession.
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Absolutely Petrarose!

This week I read an article about the Spike Lee docu in my country and it was the same. While the journalist praised the documentary he wondered why Lee "forgot" to mention the controversy and he brought up the allegations and plastic surgery. Even if in the next breath he admitted that the allegations actually have nothing to do with the Bad era. But still he had to bring them up somehow, even if he KNEW that they weren't within the scope of this docu. It's an obsession, you are right. It's like the media just isn't happy if they cannot bring up some negativity regarding Michael.

Fortunately, most of the commenters then put the journo in his place and enlightened him about 1) why the allegations have no place in this docu (not that he didn't know, he just HAD to mention them, I guess), 2) that Michael was innocent.

And I don't give a damn about Michael's plastic surgery. Why should it be brought up in a documentary about his music? IMO most people are tired of all the talk about it. It's just the media that cannot let it go.
 

Arklove

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
18,070
Points
83
Location
Canada
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

^^These articles--why do they all comment on the fact that Lee does not comment on Michael's "messy life." This is a celebration of the Bad album and the making of BAD, what is so difficult for these reporters to understand? They all say the same thing, including the Rolling Stones article. Even those, like the one above who suggest that it is a relief that the "messy" part is left out are not sincere, because in the next paragraph they bring in controversy, such as the "wa-- jac--" above.

The author claims Michael looked unhappy, but do they ever analyze why he was unhappy? It is almost as though they think Michael made himself unhappy, or they like to claim that because he isolated himself his life went downhill. I guess if they look too deeply into that unhappiness or what they call the "messy life," the source of it will be them and greed, and they do not want to admit their culpability.

The author above writes that Jackson's "carnivorous success ate him up." What a bunch of doo doo. Peter you know what ate Michael up, the persistent lies, persecution, name calling, and jealousy of the media; the allegations which were made possible, due to the perception of Michael that was created by the media, i.e., a strange, bizarre, weird, asexual man-child; the constant and persistent mistreatment by family, quasi friends, business associates, including managers and Motorola due to greed; the constant and persistent betrayal by friends and enemies due to greed, which caused him to not know who is true friends were, and we could add the rabbi in this group. We could go on some more, so when the press talk about the "messy life," we need to inform them about who created the mess in the first place, and ask them why is it so necessary to you to constantly bring up that "mess." What do you, Mr. reporter, get out of it?

Even those who wrote about Bush's book, commented on the fact the controversy is not in it. I have come to the conclusion that all critics and media want in every write up about Michael information about bubbles, the tank, allegations, ect. They are never happy if these things are missing. If they are missing, they alert the reader that the information is not there and then begin to talk about it. What an obsession.

Absolutely Petrarose!

This week I read an article about the Spike Lee docu in my country and it was the same. While the journalist praised the documentary he wondered why Lee "forgot" to mention the controversy and he brought up the allegations and plastic surgery. Even if in the next breath he admitted that the allegations actually have nothing to do with the Bad era. But still he had to bring them up somehow, even if he KNEW that they weren't within the scope of this docu. It's an obsession, you are right. It's like the media just isn't happy if they cannot bring up some negativity regarding Michael.

Fortunately, most of the commenters then put the journo in his place and enlightened him about 1) why the allegations have no place in this docu (not that he didn't know, he just HAD to mention them, I guess), 2) that Michael was innocent.

And I don't give a damn about Michael's plastic surgery. Why should it be brought up in a documentary about his music? IMO most people are tired of all the talk about it. It's just the media that cannot let it go.

I was just going to post the exact same thing, but the both of you beat me to it...

Completely agree....
 

justnat

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
423
Points
18
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

I hope this is the right place to post this info. As probably already mentioned here, Bad 25 will be screened at the Toronto International Film Festival. There are two screening scheduled, one on September 15 at 9:00 p.m. at Ryerson Theater (this one I am going to thanks to my daughter who bought me tickets) and second one on September 16 at 12:00 at Bloor Cinema. I just checked tickets online five minutes ago and tickets for September 16 are still available online. So, if there are fellow Canadians (Ontarians, Torontonians) on this forum, here is your chance :)
http://tiff.net/gettickets/singletickets
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,446
Points
83
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

These articles--why do they all comment on the fact that Lee does not comment on Michael's "messy life."

Its cause they love to bring mj down no matter what and dont care bout his genius work. They cant stand that people seem to be focusing now on his music and not his so called "weridness" that they know will make peple question him.
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

This week I read an article about the Spike Lee docu in my country and it was the same. While the journalist praised the documentary he wondered why Lee "forgot" to mention the controversy and he brought up the allegations and plastic surgery. Even if in the next breath he admitted that the allegations actually have nothing to do with the Bad era. But still he had to bring them up somehow, even if he KNEW that they weren't within the scope of this docu. It's an obsession, you are right. It's like the media just isn't happy if they cannot bring up some negativity regarding Michael.

I too have come across articles that these critiques questioning Lee's documentary because ha has not included plastic surgeries, allegations and other crap talk. Why is it so hard for them to understand that this document is about making BAD album?
Don't they think there is enough of that crap already? Michael was much more that pet character to tabloids and deserves to have a document concentrated to his music and artistry.

Maybe if we nicely inform these "critiques" in the comment section, just maybe they take a hint?
 

Petrarose

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
9,574
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Maybe if we nicely inform these "critiques" in the comment section, just maybe they take a hint?


No they would never take a hint, because they have nothing to offer in relation to the Michael Jackson narrative. Notice they all write the same thing. How could that be if they are all from different papers/countries/states? The only possible answer is that they want to be part of a group that negates his talent, art, genius, and love, and they want to be famous for making as many people as possible believe the negative view of Michael. When someone wants to use debasement to become famous, then you know they have nothing to offer.

It is best to give more power to those who have a backbone, like Lee, and produce great things with quality. After all, while Lee goes on to make thousands working on Michael material that will be shown around the world, these reporters get paid by the hour or per story printing trash in articles that will be seen by less people than Lee's doc. Give your priority to the Lee's and not to the little reporters. While Lee and Michael use their energies to create such reporters use their energies to destroy, so who should you spend your effort on? The creators of course.

Also, the media always have something negative to say about Lee's work. Yet his movies are unique and many go to see them. The media like to attack those who are not following the establishment, like Michael Jackson.
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,446
Points
83
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Maybe if we nicely inform these "critiques" in the comment section, just maybe they take a hint?

Nah even if we tried 100 times commenting in their comment section they still wouldnt care, as long we the fans love it thats all that really matters
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

^^

No they would never take a hint, because they have nothing to offer in relation to the Michael Jackson narrative. Notice they all write the same thing.

Yeah, I noticed that. And I'm like: if you can't offer anything that's worthwhile maybe you should give your place to someone who could. I mean why don't they let someone like Joe Vogel write an article about Bad 25 for their mag? Someone who actually cares about and listens to what Michael has to offer and who isn't dismissive just for the sake of it.

I also realized that journalists think the more cynical they are the better/cooler critics they are. This seems to be a common misconception among critics. How wrong that is.
 

qbee

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
11,827
Points
0
Location
Michigan USA
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Although there may be a few negative, Most of the reviews and articles I have read state it as a positive that he doesnt bring in that surgeries trails and tribulations saying thats what makes Spikes documantary so refeshing and unlike other documentaries and stories released about MJ
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Maybe some of these critiques are stuck living in the time wrap when it was fashionable to make fun of Michael or put his music down just for the sake of putting "something" down. We do need to remind some of these oldie goldies that time has moved forward, and so should them too if they want to stay relevant in their field. I think when you question (or counter attack) their own work and how they do it, it might help them. In Joe Vogel's book, he boldly named a few critiques for not doing their job as they should have, which I applauded while reading it. Nobody, even critiques doesn't want to hear that they do bad job. If they think they can attack on all aspects of Michael's life, when they are supposed to give their opinion of 1 album, film, shouldn't we ,as readers, remind them for what subject they are supposed to give their opinion?

Generally I think most critiques got Lee's message but there are a few stuck so we need to give them a push and remind them what they are suppose to do.
 

Petrarose

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
9,574
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

^^I know some believe that most of the critiques are positive because the critics state that it is a good thing that the surgeries, etc., are not in it. However, we must not forget that stating it is a good thing the surgeries, etc. are not in it, is an underhand way to bring exactly that element into the narrative. Now that aspect is in it and connected to the information around the Bad 25 campaign, and that is their true intent. Anytime any one searches for Bad 25, they will get information on these reports as well, and the surgeries, etc., will be back in the readers mind again. So no, I do not think these critiques are mainly positive about Michael simply because they have a few lines in there that stoke my Michael ego.

Another thing is that I do not see these critics as being oldies, since many younger generation reporters follow that trend of trashing Michael in the news (also, younger artists, comedians). For example, anyone who looked at the tv in 09 after Michael's death would have seen a lot of younger reporters in their late 20's early 30's calling Michel weird, especially on channels like TV guide that had weeks of Michael updates. They use younger reporters to attract a younger audience. The mere fact that they all write and say the same things, also suggest that the bosses like it like that. Consequently, writing the critic will not do a thing, because the bosses want that agenda. It is the bosses or sponsors one would need to change. The reporters are giving the bosses what the bosses want.

Additionally, critics like when you disagree with them. This is the real world. If you disagree with a critic, he is not going to go home and cry to his mama, or change his MO. He takes your attention as a good thing, that he got his message across, and that people are reading his work. In fact, you are just going to make him say more and more outlandish things, because the critic sees that that method gives him a wider audience. This method among critics (look at the Dorothy Dandridge story, e.g,) has been going on for decades now, and I am sure many of you know how critics use to make and brake shows by their nastiness. I say ignore the critic and focus on the persons doing the ethical thing. As you give more praise to these types, send links of their work to others, and reference them in you work, their names will be at the top of search engines on the internet. More people will find out about them, and the critics who you are not giving attention to will begin to realize what sells.
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

^^^
There can be miracles
When you believe
Though hope is frail
It's hard to kill
Who knows what miracles
You can achieve
When you believe somehow you will
You will when you believe


Amen :D
 

bobmoo79

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
2,486
Points
0
Re: The Spike Lee BAD 25 Documentary [Discussion]

Whenever you see somebody in the media trash MJ it is ALWAYS worth raising it as an issue either via comment on the webpage, or an email to the reporter or to their editor. Maybe even email the reporter AND CC the editor! If the article is trashy enough it's also worth reporting it to the regulator too.
The media in the 80s and 90s shaped the image of Michael Jackson that we see reported today. The ONLY reason it exists is because the reporters and editors who grew up reading about Michael Jackson being weird etc are repeating what they were told. they don't know any other way of reporting about him. What we need to do as a fan base is ALWAYS push against that style. It's not necessary for them to report like that. Over time it can be changed, but it needs a sustained, consistent pressure from us.
P.S when complaining don't write comments that make you sound like an unreasonable, blinded, crazy MJ fan. Those are just embarassing to read and don't help the cause. Make sure you sound sensible, reasonable and well educated.
 

dmehta

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
670
Points
0
Location
London, UK
http://www.film.com/movies/bad-25-review-2012

Toronto Review: ‘Bad 25′


Jordan Hoffman September 11, 2012

A- One of the more emotional moments I've had in a theater all year.

Hello. My name is Jordan Hoffman, and I am one of twelve people on God’s green earth who holds no particular fondness for Michael Jackson. I own only one of his albums, “Off the Wall,” and, frankly, I borrowed that from an ex and never returned it. (Dear Mindy Silverstein, if you are reading this, I’m sorry.) The point is this: if a film can bring me to tears — TEARS — by a performance of “Man in the Mirror,” a song I normally roll my eyes at when I hear it at CVS, a song that reflexively fires my “change the station” maneuver on the car radio, this is an indication that something special is going on.

Spike Lee’s “Bad 25″ is, on the face of it, nothing too removed than one of those “Classic Albums” programs that used to air on VH1. Songs are discussed one by one, with tidbits about the recording and writing, and sometimes the mix is finagled so we get to focus on what the bass player is actually doing. “Bad 25,” however, is a Spike Lee film. While his off-camera voice is only heard once in a while, and to great effect, the collage of clips and talking head interviews burst with an exuberance worthy for a subject who called himself the King of Pop.

“Thriller” or the early Motown Jackson 5 era may seem like a juicier topic of focus, but “Bad” proves to be quite fertile ground. “Thriller,” a worldwide cultural phenomenon if ever there was one, left Jackson with an impossible act to follow. The record executives suggested he do an album of covers to give him some distance. Instead, Jackson and collaborator Quincy Jones dove straight into the deep end, looking to represent every musical genre, creating what ?uestlove calls the first album of stadium music by a black artist.

With incredible access to Jackson’s estate, “Bad 25″ shows just how involved he was in every aspect of the album, from writing, recording and producing, as well as the business. For Jackson, of course, an album wasn’t just the music. It was the style, choreography and “short films” that accompanied each track.

A great number of music videos were created for “Bad,” so it provides plenty of doc-ready source material. Some may be surprised to recall that the title track’s video was directed by Martin Scorsese and written by Steven Prince. Both are on hand, along with editor Thelma Schoonmaker, to provide detailed commentary. “Bad” is the first track to get analyzed in “Bad 25,” and it’s here where you’ll see what kind of film this is — “Bad 25″ celebrates the man by focusing on the work.

Jackson’s drive is made evident through phone messages to collaborators, rehearsal videos shot all through the night and copious notes to self from his diaries. The influences are as diverse as Mavis Staples, Buster Keaton, Fred Astaire and “The Third Man.” It is impossible not to feel tremendous respect for this artist.

Jackson’s life is full of sadness, too. His collaborators (some famous, some not) all describe his inability to live a normal life. His idiosyncrasies aren’t dismissed, but they are put in context. Try to dance a mile in his shoes.

Lee breaks from the standard talking head doc format in discussing Jackson’s death. Everyone — and the list of boldfaced names is as diverse as Stevie Wonder, Justin Bieber, Will Vinton and Greg Phillinganes, to just scratch the surface — gets a moment just to bear witness. It is fascinating portrait of grief, a “where were you” collection of anecdotes like those that people trade about the Kennedy assassination or 9/11.

This is followed by an analysis of “Man in the Mirror,” bringing an enormous weight to the story of that important anthem’s birth. “Bad 25″ concludes with a live, complete performance of the song from Wembley Stadium that, I swear, was one of the more emotional moments I’ve had in a theater all year.

No one needs more hagiographic documentaries about famous people. “Bad 25″ isn’t that. It is one of the most energetic and sublime investigations into the creative process put to film. Non-fans will be enthralled. Actual fans will be ecstatic.

Grade A-
 
Top