Increasingly, as fewer and fewer Americans read books and increasingly get their “knowledge” of history and past cultural events from TV and movies, misleading representations of real people in production that are completely estranged from reality creep closer and closer to the category of “lies.”
The Times interviewed Jackson fans at the theater where it was playing in Union Square. They liked the fact that their hero remains unsullied by the film. The Times writes:
“Fans appeared thrilled, or at least unbothered, by the final version. One wrote on social media that “Michael” was “a small love letter” to the singer. Critics are seething, she said, because they “wanted this film to be tragic & sad.”
In the lobby of the Union Square theater, where Jackson’s music was pumping, Necia Blanc, said she, too, was unconcerned that the film avoided the allegations against Jackson.
“I think they should save those type of subjects, that subject matter, for a documentary,” said Blanc, who declined to give her age. “Documentaries are based on fact, and a film is for entertainment.”
Another Jackson fan told the Times, “I believe that Michael Jackson never did something like that.” No, he just had pre-teen boys sleep in his bed with him out of complete innocence. Adam Fogelson, the chairman of Lionsgate, the studio that made the film, says regarding “Michael,” “If you give audiences what they want, they will come.”
In this post, I wrote about the unethical practice of films misrepresenting living figures as having worse character than they do. I feel the same way (there are posts about this too) about sliming deceased individuals. Does my ethical objection extend to movies that make dead people seem like saints when they were, in fact, rather repugnant?
Yes it does, but that’s just me. What about you?
The Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Ethics Alarms 
the problem I have with this is that iconoclasts think that any portrayal of George Washington should have scenes of him beating slaves and stealing their teeth.
any production of 1776 would require a scene of Jefferson raping slaves.
Shakespeare’s treatment of Richard III was the exact inverse: demonize him in every way (sure, it was the source material)
telling a story does not mean including things not relevant to the story
leftists complain if you present anyone as a hero without displaying their worst flaws.
most people are considered heroes, not for their flaws, but in spite them.
-Jut
Ethical obligation not to ‘grossly misrepresent?’ Yes.
Are they obliged to drag him through the mud? No. But to ignore his seemingly serious mental health issues and probable pedophilia is to create a dishonest experience. You cannot call the movie a biopic if it ignores much of the biography.
The movie trailer is impressive – excellent casting and production values. However, though Danny and I enjoy a weekly afternoon at our local movie theater, we won’t be spending our money on this one.