Michael Isn't a Biopic, It's an Advertisement | The Backdrop

Who'd want to watch a biopic about a washed-up, dead pedophile anyway?

This proselytizing of producer as elite seems endemic now. As an example, I used to listen to "Fresh Air" on NPR (the whole station I find unlistenable these days) but I can do so no longer. I often relished the varied interviews that included science, technology and education topics but something changed around 2023, and the focus became sharply media centric and seems to fit a constant template now discarding its previous (fun) eclectic meandering. Since then it feels like a relentless endless parade of Atlanta and Hollywood film and N.Y. theater producers, actors, script writers, book writers, musicians (often Jazz) and the occasional female athlete. I feel it elsewhere and everywhere too. and I feel the machinery of venerating consumerism as "art" has extended to all corners of our lives. I wonder among readers who you would these days most consider your role model and what you consider the metric for success? Also, does anyone else see the intrusion of media tropes in the thinking of our political leaders with their thinking revealed by their choice of meme usage and spoken statements in political proceedings. I wonder, is this a good trend or a bad one?

Really good video, Darren! I like the juxtaposition of the Jackson estate bemoaning others trying to have an easy payday.

There's something kind of icky to me about estates finding ways to milk money out of the memory of the person/people who actually did the work and had the talent

Morbidly fascinated to see if this mystical sequel ever appears and, if so, what it could possibly be. The standard defense of MJ ("he was a broken man who reverted to childhood and never would have harmed a fly") would make a terrible movie and also not really jive with the hagiographic tone of this first one.

I want to preface this comment by saying that I more or less agree with the point made in the video. Honestly representing the subject of a biopic does more for art and history than scrubbing it clean for monetization. You'd really think that the Jackson estate would have enough money that they wouldn't care if people knew Michael molested children but I guess it's too much to resist. But the thing I want to examine is the comparison to Amadeus, and its accuracy as a biopic. Whether or not you consider Salieri to be the focus of the biopic, the film drastically misrepresents his real life character. For one, him and Mozart were very close friends. Salieri taught Mozart's children music. They were frequent collaborators. Second, Salieri was, in fact, married with children and was even a known womanizer. He was not the chaste God fearing man that the film claimed him to be. Third, Salieri wasn't even in the same country as Mozart when he was writing the opera that would lead to his death. He was in London at the time. There's something to be said that maybe Salieri is withholding certain facts for his story in the film for one reason or another but it's also possible (and very likely) that the play that the film was based on just wasn't trying to be accurate to Mozart or Salieri and just wanted to tell a compelling story. The play, after all, ends with Salieri admitting that he never actually killed Mozart. But this part is left out of the film so it's not entirely relevant. My point is that Amadeus is a masterful character study of one of my favorite characters in cinema poised as something like a biopic but is completely inaccurate to reality. There might be value in remixing a person's history for artistic effect but it'd have to be obvious upon the slightest examination that it's not true

An excellent video as always. I would never see this throne sniffing slop, even if you praised it to the heavens, as the thought of putting money in his estate's pocket makes me ill. I'll even go so far as to say that if I had to chose between seeing this flick and never seeing another movie again, then I would never watch another movie.

+1 for Widows. Rocketman and Elvis aside, the musical biopic genre has done nothing but disappoint me over the past decade. It's weird for me, because the only brand of biography I like to read tends to be music-related, but the movies just always feel naff and made to invite no deeper criticism than "x-star sounded/looked the part". I was never going to watch the MJ puff-piece anyway, but at least I now feel doubly validated in that decision. This Mooney production was entertainment enough to tide me over for now.

Kinda have me wondering who owns Wembley Stadium, and whether they’re getting a cut.

I always thought this film was going to be… problematic but even just watching a critical essay on it makes me feel dirty. Truly ghoulish, but thank you for the perspective on the genre as a whole Darren.

Who makes up the Second Wind legal team exactly? Great video as usual.

V

I'll assume my check is in the mail, otherwise I can post my direct deposit information here

Sounds like every music biopic

A guy who spent his life being belittled, slandered, and harassed despite being the greatest thing to ever happen to pop music deserves to have a biopic that finally celebrates him.