Bella Lloyd
A feel-good film or a form of propaganda?
The musical biopic dedicated to Michael Jackson was released in UK cinemas on the 22nd of April, and it has been an uncharted financial success. Despite its overwhelming box office achievement, the film has proved to be somewhat divisive. Critics have begun to question the film’s complete refusal to acknowledge the accusations of child abuse made against Jackson, and audiences are split on what to believe. Is this film a well-executed portrayal of Jackson’s personal story? Or is it a bitter insult to justice and an attempt to manipulate public opinion?
Part of the formulaic success of biopics is to absolve the protagonists of their sins.
With crowds of people flocking to see the much-loved “king of pop”, it seems that musical biopics are quickly becoming a favourite for audiences across the world. Films such as Rocketman, Elvis, and A Complete Unknown, demonstrate a tried and tested formula that creates an emotional attachment in viewers. However, the recurring issue of sanitisation in these films does not always go unnoticed. A two-star review of Luhrmann’s Elvis in the Guardian concluded that the film “erases his actual Republican sympathies” and his “illicit relationship” with his co-star Ann-Margret. It appears that part of the formulaic success of these biopics is to absolve the protagonists of their sins. Michael’s producer, Graham King, who also produced Bohemian Rhapsody in 2018, has said that he wanted the film to show Michael’s “warmth” and “heart”.
With a focus on Jackson’s animal-loving nature, his tendency to spend time with people suffering from illnesses, and his experience of being used and neglected by his father, the film leaves its audience with no other option but to sympathise and root for his character. Perhaps it is unsurprising that the film offers such a positive and sympathetic portrayal of Michael Jackson, given that he is played by his nephew, Jaafar Jackson. It was also found that the filmmakers signed a non-disclosure agreement.
In an attempt to vindicate the star and protect his legacy, the film did not offer a single moment in which Michael’s character could be criticised.
The consistent dedication of the film to present Jackson as “God-like” in his kindness and talent left a feeling that this film was simply a form of propaganda.
The consistent dedication of the film to present Jackson as “God-like” in his kindness and talent left a feeling that this film was simply a form of propaganda. In an attempt to vindicate the star and protect his legacy, the film did not offer a single moment in which Michael’s character could be criticised. This sets it in opposition to the BBC documentary, released only a few weeks prior, entitled Michael Jackson: An American Tragedy. The documentary aimed to examine his “genius, controversy, trials and tragedy”, and it did not shy away from discussion of his sexual abuse allegations. Whilst some think of the documentary as “a valiant attempt at balance”, others say that it “spends three hours romping through a complex story”.
This speaks to a louder divide in public opinion about whether Jackson was innocent or guilty. During his lifetime, Jackson was open about sharing his bed with young boys. In the 2003 documentary by Martin Bashir, he was interviewed sitting next to a young Gavin Arvizo, and spoke openly about sharing his bed with him; stating “the most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone”. Arvizo, as well as four other young boys, accused Jackson of sexual abuse and intoxication while he was still alive. In February 2003, Jackson was handcuffed and arrested on suspicion of sexually abusing minors. He was later released, but only following a postal bail of three million dollars. Two years later, in the high-coverage court trial, he was acquitted of all counts. For the potential victims and their families who suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson, the release of this film only acts as a further miscarriage of justice.
Can the art be separated from the artist?
In the same week that Michael premiered, streams of his music soared above their normal rate, reaching 137.5 million.
The question remains: should Michael be enjoyed by audiences if there is doubt about Jackson’s innocence? This is an issue that also relates to listening to his music. In the same week that Michael premiered, streams of his music soared above their normal rate, reaching 137.5 million. Whilst it is true that the film was reviewed harshly by critics, audience enjoyment was high, and the effect was a huge resurgence in the popularity of Jackson’s music. Although many people have an awareness of the allegations made against Jackson, they cannot refrain from enjoying his music. This falls into a much wider debate, surrounding the issue of whether the art can be separated from the artist.
Jackson is not the only example of an artist that people allow themselves to enjoy despite moral dubiousness. In recent years, American rapper Kanye West has expressed antisemitic views on a number of occasions. With a willingness to present himself as a Nazi-sympathiser, he has attempted to sell T-shirts branded with swastikas, and in 2022, he tweeted “death con 3 On Jewish people”. Despite this, Kanye’s song “Bully” from his most recent album, released earlier this year, made it to number two on the charts. In early April, he performed two sold-out shows in Los Angeles. This level of success, after Kanye’s expression of such xenophobic sentiments, is shocking and disturbing. However, his behaviour has not gone completely unnoticed. This summer’s Wireless Festival in London has been cancelled as Kanye, their intended headliner for all three days, has been denied access to the UK by the government. Maybe this shows a positive shift towards stricter rules surrounding artists and how far they are allowed to go in their extremism.
Others would insist that music should be enjoyed as a product and separated from the artist’s personal views or character. There is also an argument to be made that stars such as Jackson and West have suffered from mental health issues and did not receive the help that they needed. Michael Jackson, pushed into the spotlight when he was only six years old, and used as a money-making tool by his abusive father, was likely someone who needed support rather than a solo record deal.
For those who watch Michael with a consciousness of his ambiguous past, it quickly becomes less of a feel-good film and more of a “thriller”.
The narrative of Michael cuts off in 1988, five years before any sexual abuse allegations were made against Jackson. This tactful decision means that the film completely ignores this side of Jackson’s legacy. The movie ends with the text “his story continues”, and the film’s director, Antoine Fuqua, has declared that the production of a sequel could begin as early as 2026. It will be interesting to see whether a second film will address the controversies surrounding Jackson, in what manner it will do so, and if it will persist in its unrealistic portrayal of him as a faultless character. For those who watch Michael with a consciousness of his ambiguous past, it quickly becomes less of a feel-good film and more of a “thriller.”
Bella Lloyd
Featured image courtesy of Call Me Fred via Unsplash. Image license found here. No changes were made to this image.
For more Impact content and information on how to get involved, follow us on Instagram and connect with our Facebook page.
If you can’t get enough of our Features, connect with our section’s contributors’ page and follow us on Instagram.
