“Billie Jean” plays in the darkened cinema hall. The audience is no longer seated in rhythm with the music. Some are humming, some are standing, others are dancing. Although it is a film screening, the hall has turned into a concert.
This is the scene witnessed among Michael Jackson fans around the world. His biopic ‘Michael’ has been released 17 years after his death and has created a storm at the box office. It has also stirred debate among critics, largely due to the controversies surrounding Jackson.
A central question remains: can biopics serve as an alternative to truth?
On Friday , the film earned around $39.5 million in North America on its opening day, an impressive figure. Globally, it has grossed $217 million so far. It has already surpassed the opening earnings of ‘Straight Outta Compton’, ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ and ‘Oppenheimer’.
The production company Lionsgate also needed this success, having struggled to deliver major commercial hits after the Covid-19 pandemic. The film has broken that trend.
Interestingly, while audiences are emotionally engaged with the film, critics have been far more critical, describing it as “dull”, “clichéd” and “lifeless”.
Their main complaint is that the film avoids many of the complex realities of Jackson’s life. The audience score stands at 97 percent compared with the critics’ 35 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.
The strong audience response is largely attributed to nostalgia, with viewers revisiting their childhood, adolescence and youth.
Despite this divide, there is broad agreement on one point: Jaafar Jackson’s performance. When he was cast as Michael Jackson’s nephew, the decision drew criticism.
However, critics have also acknowledged his transformation. His body language, dance and vocal mannerisms have been so closely recreated that they have not only satisfied fans but also softened critical resistance. His performances in sequences such as ‘Billie Jean’ and ‘Man in the Mirror’ have been widely praised.
However, the arguments against the film’s overall execution remain strong. It is undeniably a high-standard international production, with concert sequences that demand the cinematic experience. Yet critics argue that the storytelling is lacking.
While Michael’s difficult childhood and his father’s strictness are depicted emotionally, the director appears cautious in addressing darker aspects of his personal life. Themes such as loneliness, psychological pressure and identity struggles are present but not explored in depth.
The allegations of child abuse against Jackson, long part of public discourse, are absent from the film. It is not presented as a deliberate omission. The original script reportedly included these elements, but legal complications led to their removal at a cost of $50 million.
The film concludes with the ‘Bad Tour’ in 1988, before the allegations emerged. Many have described this approach as “whitewashing”.
The influence of Michael Jackson’s estate and family is evident throughout the story, production and screenplay. There were also internal disagreements, with some family members not participating in the project.
As a result, the film feels like a curated tribute, celebrating the artist but not fully revealing the man behind the image.
The closing message, “His story continues”, hints at a sequel. This raises an ongoing question: will future instalments address the more controversial chapters, or will they continue to be avoided in the name of preserving a “positive image”?
