The most significant cultural event of the cinema season is not a superhero sequel but a deeply contested portrait of a pop icon. Antoine Fuqua’s ‘Michael’, a biopic of the King of Pop that debuted in theatres on April 24th, has achieved the highest audience score on Rotten Tomatoes for any biographical film — 96 percent — while simultaneously earning a critical drubbing at 40 percent. The film, which ends its narrative in 1988, pointedly sidesteps the child sexual abuse allegations that clouded Jackson’s later years, a choice that has proved polarising. That the movie has grossed record-breaking numbers worldwide suggests a public appetite for celebratory nostalgia that many critics find troublingly selective.

In Gary, Indiana, the singer’s birthplace, the film was received as a communal homecoming. The mayor, Eddie D. Milton, hosted a panel discussion on the film and the Jackson family legacy, and the city’s only high school turned out to welcome relatives for screenings. Local officials, as reported by CNN Arabic, dismissed the need to dwell on the abuse accusations, framing the film as a long-overdue tribute. This hometown embrace stands in stark contrast to the broader American critical reception, which has accused the project of laundering Jackson’s reputation under the oversight of his estate and family.

European critics have been even sharper in their assessments. Viewed from Madrid, El Confidencial decried the film as “a shameless posthumous hagiography”, comparing its portrayal of Jackson’s hospital visits to Christ healing lepers. El País noted that the executive producers — Jackson’s relatives and his estate’s lawyer — left an unmistakable angelic gloss, omitting any darkness. Analysts in Milan at Domani observed that while the music sequences triumphantly showcase Jackson’s genius, the truncated timeline sidesteps what they termed ‘pedophilia laundering’. In Beirut, An-Nahar wrote that the film surrounds the King of Pop with a halo of sanctification, producing a text that remains “superficial and problematic”. The consensus across the continent is clear: this is a sanitised narrative, not a serious biography.

Yet the controversy has not dented commercial momentum. Lionsgate’s film chairman, Adam Fogelson, has already described the need for extensive reshoots — costing some $15 million and triggered by legal constraints tied to a 1990s settlement with the family of accuser Jordan Chandler — as a business opportunity rather than a headache. From Hollywood, Fogelson has now publicly stated he would support a sequel that directly examines the abuse allegations, signalling that the studio sees an economic path through the moral quagmire. Meanwhile, in India, actor Anupam Kher posted an emotional tribute recalling his meeting with Jackson, urging audiences to choose ‘purity’ over ‘poison’ — a sentiment that neatly encapsulates the film’s message.

What does this mean for the future of biographical cinema? The gulf between audience and critic — and between the film’s upbeat ending and the unresolved questions of Jackson’s life — suggests a cultural reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths about beloved artists. As Newsweek observed, the simultaneous resurgence of Jackson and Kanye West forces a reckoning with how society grants forgiveness. The Atlantic went further, describing the film as a ‘botched job’, its CGI chimpanzee Bubbles a metaphor for the uncanny, warped take on a complex life. Should a sequel materialise, it will face the challenge that ‘Michael’ so conspicuously avoided: the elephant in the room cannot be airbrushed forever, and the audience that showed up for the music may not stomach the full record.