Biopic: What else is there to say about Michael Jackson?

But he became weirder and weirder over the years. We watched his public appearances with morbid fascination as he turned into a peculiar asexual (a-gender) creature. It was reported that he was spending a lot of money to make his skin whiter and his nose sharper. He became a “freak”.

It also seemed that he wanted to regress to being a child. He used an oxygen chamber to delay ageing, he sought out children to play and spend time with. This would lead to scandal and lawsuits that would ruin him, both personally and professionally.

For me personally, the issue was settled when a friend said: “It’s simple. He wants to be a young white girl.” Ah well. All of us want to be many things, but we lack the courage, and more importantly, the money.

In June 2009, I was at the Rome airport when I saw the news of Jackson’s death flashing on CNN on the TV screens in the lounge. I got on the phone immediately with my colleagues in Delhi at Open, the magazine I was editing at that time. A few months earlier, I had met an Indian-origin Britisher who had covered Jackson’s trial on alleged child abuse for Vanity Fair (Jackson was acquitted). We found him and got him to write on Jackson. He delivered a memorable piece, arguing that he was an innocent who dreamed of being Peter Pan.

And now a film on him. It is difficult to believe that someone so materially successful could have led such a troubled life. A man, so gifted, but who remained uncertain about his identity—from gender to genetics—and died such a lonely death. (Michael will be written by John Logan, who wrote Martin Scorcese’s The Aviator, the biopic of Howard Hughes, the deeply disturbed American billionaire.)

It is an inarguable truth that any film on Michael Jackson will sharply divide opinions and audiences. The film will inevitably be linked with Bohemian Rhapsody (Graham King as producer), which won several awards. But as someone who has been as devoted a fan of Queen as Freddie Mercury could have imagined, I found that the film skirted over some key issues.

Freddie’s sexuality seems to be papered over. Yet, it’s an integral part of who he was and the music he made—an obvious example is “I want to ride my bicycle”, where he cheerfully tried to say what he was not allowed to. He lived in a time where same-sex love was not approved of openly.

Bohemian Rhapsody was a bit disappointing. A film can be fine as cinema, but when it claims to be a real-life story, it has certain added obligations.

According to the official press release, the Jackson biopic Michael “will give audiences an in-depth portrayal of the complicated man who became the King of Pop. It will bring to life Jackson’s most iconic performances as it gives an informed insight into the entertainer’s artistic process and personal life.” However, one must keep in mind that the film is being made with the approval of and cooperation from the Jackson estate. It may turn out to be the “authorised biography”. And authorised biographies are always suspect.

Obviously, Michael will be eagerly awaited, and will be debated and dissected noisily when it is released. But will it shed any new light on who Michael Jackson was as a person, a human being? I have grave doubts about that.

Like everyone else, I have my opinions about this man, blessed bountifully and also hideously cursed. But we will never know. To end, let me quote from the obituary that I commissioned when he died:

“Jackson’s talent was his principal burden. He didn’t want to be the most famous singer in the world, he just wanted to be loved… What death has done is at once relieve Jackson of this burden, and restore him in a way, by reminding us not of his surgeries or tawdry allegations, but of his epochal talent.”