Michael: The challenge of biopics and our perennial need for binary simplicity

In the last two weeks, the pure entertainment sphere of the social media world has been home to two divergent narratives surrounding the release of the new Michael Jackson biopic. Critics across the board have hurled incredibly harsh reviews at the movie accusing its creators of portraying Michael Jackson as an infallible saint and pushing a narrative that hides abhorrent realities. Some of the headlines tied to these reviews include the following:

“In a new biopic, Michael Jackson is an eccentric saint. Yuck.” – The Economist.

“Michael: A Jackson biopic leaves too much unsaid” – New York Times

“The Michael Jackson movie biopic is a ghoulish, soulless cash grab” – The Independent (they gave the movie 1 star).

“Michael is a highly selective version of the singer’s life, and that suits more people than you might think” – The Guardian

“Michael Jackson’s Biopic Blinds Us From the Truth” – The Wall Street Journal

These reviews clash hard against a stunning commercial reality. As of May 2, 2026, the Michael Jackson biopic has surpassed $413 million in worldwide box office earnings, rapidly becoming one of the highest-grossing music biopics of all time. The film shattered records with a roughly $217M–$218.8M global opening weekend and, as of May 1, surpassed $300M, placing it second only to Bohemian Rhapsody.

As most reviews indicate, the movie conspicuously avoids the child sexual abuse allegations that came to define the 90s for Michael Jackson. This lies at the heart of all the criticism that the movie has met with. At the same time, the movie only covers the 80s – the years when Michael Jackson did largely live up to who the vast majority of his fans wanted him to be – aspirational, an avenue to unimaginable escapism, portraying a wholesome image, boundary-pushing, a cultural milestone for Black America on both the domestic and international stage, and hook-laden music that has clearly stood the test of time across the globe. There is a seductive lure across all cultures for a story that chronicles the unlikely rise of a broken child (largely due to abusive family pathology with the protagonist’s father being at the center of it) that rises against all odds to break financial, racial, and cultural barriers on an unprecedented scale. Furthermore, the power of nostalgia and memories of a musical monoculture further amplify the emotional attachment to the story of Michael’s rise. There is also unlikely to be anyone like him in the foreseeable future. It is unclear that the conditions today lend themselves to the emergence of another Michael Jackson. His story is like no other and we all wish the “90s and beyond” chapters of his life mirrored that of the 80s. But once again, the movie ONLY covers the 80s and given this reality, did its creators truly sane-wash his eccentricities and allegations of predatory behavior? A compelling argument can be made that they did NOT. That being said, if this movie is being pushed as an all-encompassing story of the international superstar, then it does validate the arguments advanced by publications such as The Wall Street Journal and The Economist.

I personally struggle with biopics because the goal of creating a compelling and sensationalist narrative often leads to sharp departures from reality. This was evident in the 2018 hit movie “Bohemian Rhapsody” starring Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury – the dynamic and iconic frontman of rock band Queen. In this movie, the false narrative of Queen having split up only to reunite for their iconic Live Aid performance on July 13, 1985 completely disregards the fact that the band never split and had been touring an album called “The Works” until a few months prior to their performance at Live Aid at Wembley Stadium in London. The timeline around Mercury’s HIV diagnosis is also shifted pretty dramatically in the movie. On the surface, these might seem like relatively innocuous embellishments of the truth, but they do fundamentally tell a story that is at odds with reality. I was afraid of something similar with the Michael Jackson biopic – which is why I wished it was never made. In fact, Michael’s daughter Paris offers her own perspective on departures from reality in her father’s movie biopic in this video clip below:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by celebrities hub (@celebrities_hub29)

The second reason why I wished that the Michael Jackson movie was never made is because it forces an uncomfortable dilemma that many of his fans (me included) have been forced to repeatedly confront. As the primary DJ for the 24/7 global radio broadcast of Radio Crème Brulee (the online radio station that this blog and article are attached to), I constantly find myself having to reconcile my need to feature Michael Jackson’s music (old and new) on our radio broadcast with some of the very troubling and unresolved questions about Michael’s inappropriate relationships with children. As a child, he was my favorite music artist (he’s my second-favorite music artist now) and his music was a key piece of life’s sonic backdrop growing up overseas in Mumbai (India). My first concert ever was a Michael Jackson concert in Mumbai (India) that took place a week before my 15th birthday. To say this is one of the most memorable evenings of my life would be an understatement. I had no idea I was going to attend the concert until a few days prior when I found myself almost blinded by a hologram on a ticket slid under my dinner plate by my mother. It was a surprise. I still get goosebumps as I remember my mother telling me I was slated to attend the concert with my best friend, our Physics tuition teacher, and her daughter. The purity and innocence of that moment together create an added layer of attachment to the Michael Jackson fandom at a time when India was a largely ignored market by western artists/bands that underestimated their appeal and commercial prospects for concerts in countries where music piracy was rampant and conventional record sales were an inadequate barometer of popularity. Simultaneously, my continuing to give his music airplay on our radio broadcast fuels a financial benefit to his estate and potentially a validation of harmful behavior (if true – and there are compelling arguments for why the allegations might be true). In a world where the allegations are true, I run a non-trivial risk of being an enabler of the abhorrent. My justification for continuing to play his music is largely driven by this idea that I am supporting the other songwriters that fueled Michael’s meteoric rise. This includes Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney and the late Rod Temperton from the British 70s funk band Heatwave. Many might think of my justifications as being intellectually hollow and their criticism of me is likely reasonable. I live with this uncomfortable tension and dichotomy. I also refrain from participating in online wars about Michael Jackson’s innocence. I also am somewhat comfortable with processing competing realities that include Michael’s brilliance, his harmful eccentricities, his downright unfairness when it comes to decisions around royalties for at least one of his session musicians during the recording process, and the unsavory after-taste that a large part of his personal legacy leaves behind (despite his many unquestionably charitable endeavors).

Unfortunately, today, we live in a world of binary and ideological purity. We have to take a side and stay committed to the side at all costs. Any ability to hold viewpoints espoused by competing sides is seen as a full-throated betrayal of those supporting one side of a narrative. Tribalism at all costs is king. We have also lost the capacity for nuance. The release of the Michael Jackson biopic forces these realities to the forefront once again and reminds us of what a broken world we live in and how our insatiable need for binary simplicity leaves us in a perpetual state of polarization. There are rumors of a sequel to this biopic. My sincere hope is that it addresses the controversies and presents the facts without a value judgment one way or the other and tries to nudge the viewer towards the possibility of holding two narratives that are seemingly incongruent but true. This might be a lofty expectation but one can only dream.