By: Ethan Goddard
It isn’t very often I have a good excuse to talk about movies here in Wasted Energy. But with the recent release of “Michael” (the first installment in the two part Michael Jackson biopic), I figured now is the time. MAYBE I can convince Wax Trax to let me write-off my AMC A-List membership as a business expense! On the day it was released, my roommates and I went to the theater to go see this highly controversial biopic for ourselves. I ended up with more questions than I had going in, but not for the reasons I had anticipated.
When this biopic was announced, fans and haters alike were focused on one question: “how much are they gonna talk about?” As I mentioned above, this was the first of two installments, with part one focusing on the first half of his life (to be more specific, before The Jackson 5 blow-up, into the “Bad” era). This film covers what’s arguably his most beloved and “least controversial” era, with any controversies that he DID face during this period being either completely scrubbed or polished for the big screen.
An example of this would be the lack of Diana Ross and The Wiz era, which can be chalked up to Ross deciding last minute to have her likeness excluded from the film. This ends up creating a pretty big time jump between the first and second act, allegedly cutting the runtime down by an hour.
I don’t write this with the intention of sharing my opinions regarding Jackson’s innocence (or lack thereof), but rather to question the intentions of putting out a film like this, and what it means for the future of the biopic genre. Whether the filmmakers meant to include the good, bad, and ugly of Jackson’s life or not, the end product ultimately lacks dimension; making the movie seem like a fluff piece at times, and only emphasizing the best parts of him. I suppose it’s possible they’ll even the playing field out in the second movie, but ask yourself, as the studio, what’s the point? Why even release a sequel? The second half of his life was significantly darker and more secluded, almost guaranteeing a depressing watch. Not only that, but the studio will be forced to decide how to make the die-hards happy without suggesting that he’s guilty, but they also can’t insinuate the victims are liars either. It’s a very thin tightrope for the studio and estate to walk.
Regardless of the second movie’s status, “Michael” has also opened a second can of worms. What artists are on and off limits when it comes to getting their own biopic? If I were to ask a majority of folks if they thought a studio could get away with making a Kanye West biopic in 2026, something tells me I’d be laughed off the street; maybe even questioned as to how I could ask such a silly question. But is it a silly question? Kanye hasn’t always been the anti-semitic Trump supporter he is today (although Ye fans are quick to remind you that “he’s since apologized”). In fact, there was a period of time when he used to lean further into much more liberal views, with a photo leaking of a young Kanye even wearing a shirt with a swastika crossed out that reads “say no to Nazi’s new America.” So tell me, if they made a Kanye biopic that told the story of his life from birth to “Graduation,” or even “Yeezus,” would that be okay?
I know comparing Michael Jackson to Kanye West in this scenario may seem a bit harsh one or the other depending on your own perspective, and who knows, maybe it is. Under a court of law, Jackson was found innocent from all ten of his charges in 2005 (although more accusations would come to light in the 2010s as seen in the docuseries “Leaving Neverland”).
On the other hand, he also did admit to sleeping in the same bed as children that weren’t his own… do what you will with that. Nonetheless, the point is that he’s a highly controversial figure, and his guilt or innocence is still a subject that’s widely discussed to this day. Despite this, “Michael” grossed more than a half a billion dollars worldwide, and is helping boost his streams to heights that are breaking records almost twenty years after his death, making this movie a huge success for Jackson’s music catalog (worth over a billion and owned 50/50 between Sony Music and Jackson’s estate). So what classifies an artist as “fair game” for star coverage moving forward? Is it just a waiting game until the world has forgiven or forgotten their sins? Does selective storytelling; picking and choosing what parts of a story can be told for the monetary gain of a big studio and the artist have any limit? Only time will tell.
Leave a Reply