Michael Review: How the New Biopic Sanitizes Michael Jackson’s Legacy

The modern musical biopic has evolved into a sanitized form of storytelling—less biography, more hagiography, often wrapped in a hit-packed soundtrack. Films like Bohemian Rhapsody, Elvis, and Walk the Line prioritize nostalgia and sing-along moments over raw truth. They reassure audiences that the artists they admire were, in fact, flawless heroes. Michael follows this template closely, but with a troubling twist: it erases the very controversies that defined Michael Jackson’s later life.

Directed by Antoine Fuqua and written by John Logan, Michael traces Jackson’s life from his childhood in Gary, Indiana, to his rise as a global superstar. The film opens with Jackson reflecting on his legacy before a concert promoting Bad in 1987, then flashes back to his early years. Young Michael (played by Juliano Valdi) is shown performing with his brothers in a Jackson 5 lineup, but their domineering father, Joseph Jackson (Colman Domingo), demands perfection. Long-suffering mother Katherine (Nia Long) tries to mediate, but Joseph’s harsh discipline—including beatings with a belt—leaves deep scars.

As an adult, Michael (now played by Jaafar Jackson, Michael’s nephew and son of Jermaine Jackson) struggles to reconcile his lost childhood with his stardom. He surrounds himself with animals, collects Disney memorabilia, and shares late-night ice creams with his mother. His greatest desire? To create music that makes a difference—a goal constantly undermined by his controlling father.

Michael Jackson as a Cosmic Force for Good

The film’s most glaring omission is its refusal to engage with the sexual abuse allegations and eccentricities that marked Jackson’s later years. Instead, Michael portrays him as a near-messianic figure, beloved by all except his villainous father. The film leans heavily into tropes, even when they strain credibility. For example, after Michael expresses his hope that his music can change the world, he immediately turns on the news to see footage of gang violence involving the Crips and Bloods. The scene cuts to Michael assembling these rival gang members in his soundstage to rehearse Beat It. Rather than hostility, the film shows them awestruck by his talent, as if his mere presence could dissolve decades of conflict.

Such moments highlight the film’s refusal to grapple with Jackson’s complexities. The Crips and Bloods, shown in grainy news footage as violent adversaries, are suddenly transformed into adoring fans in Michael’s presence. Their reactions are staged to emphasize his saintly aura—no skepticism, no tension, just uncritical reverence. This approach aligns with the broader trend in modern biopics, which often prioritize feel-good narratives over honest storytelling.

In the end, Michael delivers exactly what audiences might expect: a polished, uplifting tribute to a musical legend. But in doing so, it sacrifices depth for sentimentality, leaving out the very elements that made Jackson’s life—and legacy—so compelling and controversial.