Michael, the new biopic of “King of Pop” Michael Jackson, has gotten scathing reviews, which it deserves. Nevertheless, it’s a huge hit. This figures, in part because critics are more and more aware of the biopic as a rotten film formula, while the viewing public tends to like biopics, though they’re just about the lowest form of all currently popular genres.They’re typically deliberately dishonest, sticking to rote fantasy narratives about saintly talented figures who withstand personal crises and societal prejudices in order to become stars of such unquestioned superiority, it’s as if God himself had willed their canonization. The interesting, complicated, and controversial aspects of the celebrity’s life and social circumstances are almost invariably suppressed.In fact, one way of making a biopic that fails at the box office is to defy the formula and try to create something a bit more honest and complex. Looking at you Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere (2025), a fascinating exploration of Bruce Springsteen’s deep depression out of which he created his now-legendary Nebraska album. It was a box-office bomb.Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson in Michael. (Lionsgate Films)Michael is even lower than the average successful biopic — more cynically dishonest, more rote in its formulaic box-checking. Michael covers Jackson’s life up until the end of the Jackson family’s fraught 1984 “Victory Tour,” after which Jackson went completely solo. Ending there, as everyone knows, prevents screenwriter John Logan (Skyfall, Sweeney Todd, Gladiator), director Antoine Fuqua (The Equalizer franchise, Training Day), and the rest of the filmmaking team from having to deal with the many accusations of child sexual abuse brought against Jackson.As Jackson’s daughter Paris has said in bitter condemnation, the film made in cooperation with the Michael Jackson Estate is “sugar-coated” in a way typical of biopics:A big section of the film panders to a…
