Jackson's biopic: box office smash, critical disaster, and a legacy battle
The numbers don't lie: Michael Jackson's new biopic, Michael, is a commercial triumph. Despite scathing reviews that label it a “bland, bowdlerized…and bad” affair, the film has already become one of the highest-grossing musician biopics of all time and is poised to dominate 2026’s box office. But behind the glittering façade of success lies a tangled web of legal battles, unresolved controversies, and a deeply fractured fanbase, revealing more about the state of celebrity legacy than it does about the King of Pop himself.
The reality gap: what the film doesn't show
The most striking aspect of Michael isn’t its artistic merit (or lack thereof), but the chasm between the film presented and the complex reality of Jackson’s life. This isn’t merely biographical license; it’s a carefully curated narrative, heavily influenced and, in some cases, legally restricted by the Jackson estate. The film’s abrupt ending in 1988, a consequence of a surprising legal snag regarding the depiction of one of Jackson’s accusers from 1993, is just the most visible example of this selective storytelling.
But the omissions run deeper. Initial drafts of the screenplay reportedly intended to open with a depiction of the 1993 police search of Jackson’s home – a pivotal moment that ignited years of controversy. That scene, and countless others grappling with the allegations that would haunt Jackson’s final years, have been relegated to the realm of a promised sequel, a sequel that, given the estate's track record, may never fully confront the uncomfortable truths.
Stan wars and the illusion of innocence
The film's reception has exposed a profound division within Jackson's fanbase. While casual viewers might compartmentalize the controversies surrounding Jackson’s later years, a fervent contingent of devotees – a veritable “stan army” – has launched a relentless online campaign, dismissing any criticism as a fabricated smear campaign and proclaiming Jackson’s “innocence” (a term they wield with far more certainty than any legal verdict ever allowed). The film, consciously or not, seems designed to placate this audience, echoing the narrative of unwavering exoneration championed by the estate.
It's a strategy reminiscent of right-wing coded messaging: subtly reinforcing a pre-existing belief without explicitly stating it. The frequent allusions to Neverland, Jackson’s sprawling estate and the epicenter of many allegations, serve as wistful promises of a lost paradise, a narrative arc that sidesteps the difficult questions surrounding his relationships with children.
Estate control and the resurrected star
The Jackson estate’s involvement in the film’s production isn’t unusual; artist estates routinely seek approval and influence the portrayal of their subjects. However, the estate's actions in this instance – particularly its aggressive use of non-disparagement clauses to remove the documentary Leaving Neverland from HBO’s streaming service – demonstrate a relentless determination to control the narrative surrounding Jackson’s legacy. This isn’t simply about protecting an image; it’s about actively shaping it.
The trend of audiences favoring virtual resurrections over actors attempting to embody iconic figures – as evidenced by the success of Bohemian Rhapsody – further complicates the picture. Michael doesn’t just tell a story; it offers a simulacrum, a carefully constructed echo of a pop icon, leaning into the desire of fans to see their idols resurrected, even if it means ignoring the shadows that inevitably accompanied their brilliance.
Ultimately, Michael isn't a courageous exploration of a complicated man. It's a carefully managed echo chamber, amplifying the voices of those who have already made up their minds. The film’s ending, a coy promise of a sequel that will undoubtedly further sanitize Jackson’s legacy, isn’t a bold artistic statement – it’s a victory for the most ardent defenders of a reputation that may never be fully reconciled.