0 comments
A critical bomb but a commercial success, the new Michael Jackson biopic proves fans will do anything to preserve a dream of their idols.
There is an absence at the heart of Michael, the new biopic charting the rise of Michael Jackson. And it doesn’t take a forensic specialist to point out.
It is a void so conspicuous that it shapes the entire film. The biopic is a slow, rose-tinted meander through the early years of Jackson’s career, one that would feel like a saccharine play-by-play were it not for the near-total erasure of the late singer’s later life – a period shadowed by allegations of child sexual abuse.
Despite this, or perhaps because of it, Michael has become a box office success. A rough critical response which, beyond the absence of any kind of negative gaze, labelled the film ‘dull’ and blankly ‘bad’, didn’t stop Michael amassing a reported $97 million domestic debut and $217.4 million globally.
That puts it on track to be one of the most successful musician biopics of all time and a standout commercial hit at the 2026 box office.
The film, directed by Antoine Fuqua, traces Jackson’s trajectory from a precocious child performer in Gary, Indiana to a global icon, concluding in 1988 – just before the most contentious chapters of his life begin.
Beyond a merely aesthetic decision, the film’s stunted timescale reflects the ongoing influence of the Jackson estate, whose control over both Jackson’s music and legacy has shaped any public retelling of the artist’s life since his death in 2009.
Biopics have always involved compromise, but in the current landscape they are increasingly shaped by those with a vested interest in preserving reputations. When it comes to musician biopics in particular, access to the catalogue is everything. Those without it face a near impossible task if seeking to convey a warts-and-all depiction of celebrity.
As a result, the genre has morphed into a visual extension of personal brand, rather than the thing it ostensibly claims to be: a careful exploration of human life.
But Michael’s silence doesn’t necessarily render it neutral either. Instead, it guides the audience toward a particular understanding of Jackson as a figure defined by innocence and misunderstood genius.
His well-documented fixation on childhood (his affinity for Peter Pan and emotional alignment with children but two of the manifestations of his self-professed desire to ‘never grow up’) is presented without interrogation. If anything, it’s framed as a poignant response to a stolen youth.
