Fair point.
However, I think the issue isn’t necessarily the amount of screen time Michael is given, but more so how that screen time was distributed throughout the film. There are a couple of famous instances where the most iconic characters in a film are only on screen for a short time (when compared to the film’s total run time). Consider this: Hannibal Lecter was only given 24 minutes of screen time in a film that ran 1 hour 58 minutes. That’s crazy, right? I thought for sure he was in the movie a lot more than he actually was. The director of The Silence of the Lambs did a great job of keeping that character’s presence at the forefront of the audience’s mind. Lecter loomed just outside of the frame if that makes sense.
I think DGG could have done better to sprinkle Michael in a bit more here and there, particularly in the beginning, to give his short screen time a larger presence. AND, I think the scenes that do feature Michael could have been given a bit more punch. In my opinion, DGG didn’t quite stick the landing in this regard.
edit: Here’s a link to a cool article that gives a few examples of instances where directors really made good use of an actor’s limited time on screen. I was surprised by the Robin Williams one.
https://collider.com/best-lead-performances-had-minimal-screentime/