As you may have heard, the new biopic “Michael” is on the way to becoming a huge box office hit, which Hollywood needs desperately these days. It is also a film that critics have nearly unanimously panned as pure hagiography. Sure, movies about real people routinely gild the human lily, but “Michael” has taken the whitewashing (Is it tasteless to use that term in reference to Jackson? I think it’s rather appropriate…) to absurd levels. The film stops before the 1993 allegations of child sexual abuse against the pop icon, in part because the terms of Jackson’s financial settlement ($20 million while refusing to admit wrongdoing) with an accuser prohibited the estate from publicly questioning the allegations against him. Thus “Michael” is a big wet kiss to the King of Pop and his fans, omitting the dark and creepy stuff, which in Jackson’s case is considerable. I would argue that it is also defining.
Jackson is played by Jaafar Jackson, one of the singer’s nephews, who looks like Michael might have looked if he were, you know, normal. Telling the life story of Michael Jackson while ignoring his disturbing pederastic tendencies is like making a movie about Errol Flynn or John Barrymore that never shows them taking a drink. Or a movie about John Wilkes Booth that leaves out that little Ford’s Theater incident. How about a Bill Clinton biopic that leaves out Monica? Fatty Arbuckle was a silent film genius: why ruin a movie about him by including that downer of a party he gave where a woman was killed and he was tried for murder?
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
I think your examples are off. “1776” is a musical, so by definition it has signaled that it is abandoning realism. And its not about Jefferson, but about Jefferson and others during a single event—and as far as we know, Tom wasn’t raping any of his slaves in Philadelphia. If the biopic of George left out the fact that he was a slaveholder, I’d object to that; If it showed any of his mistreatment of slaves, the film makers would be obligated to also show his conversion to oppose slavery later in life.
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.