The Ghosts of Neverland

The news that Lionsgate is moving forward with a sequel to their Michael Jackson biopic has sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry. However, this development is not surprising given the controversy surrounding the original film’s handling of child sex abuse allegations and its hastily edited narrative.

According to Adam Fogelson, preparations for the sequel are “going exceptionally well.” Yet, his statement raises more questions than answers about how the studio plans to tackle these sensitive topics. The fact that they’re considering using footage from the original production – which would account for 25-30% of the new film – suggests a reluctance to deal directly with the abuse allegations.

This decision speaks to a broader issue in Hollywood: the willingness to gloss over problematic figures and stories rather than confront them head-on. The Michael Jackson biopic was criticized for sanitizing his troubled past, and it seems likely that the sequel will follow this trend by cherry-picking marketable aspects of his life while sidestepping controversies.

By avoiding difficult conversations about abuse and accountability, we risk perpetuating a culture of impunity that silences survivors and protects powerful perpetrators. This is not just a matter of artistic integrity; it’s a moral one. As our society becomes increasingly aware of the lasting impact of trauma on individuals and communities, it’s astonishing that studios are still willing to take such risks.

Fogelson’s suggestion that the sequel may not follow a chronological narrative raises questions about what exactly this film will be trying to say. Will it be a rehashing of familiar tropes or an attempt to subvert expectations? The studio appears to be banking on audience apathy rather than genuine interest in exploring these complex issues.

The original film’s success was hardly surprising, given its glossy production values and carefully curated soundtrack. However, what about those who aren’t fans? Will they be willing to engage with this complicated, messy, and often uncomfortable subject matter?

This is not the first time a Hollywood film has danced around these issues. The 1993 documentary Living with Michael Jackson was widely criticized for its sanitized portrayal of his life, while Martin Bashir’s later interviews with Jackson were accused of being complicit in perpetuating abuse.

Given the ongoing conversations about representation and accountability in Hollywood, it’s astonishing that a studio would choose to prioritize profit over artistic integrity. Perhaps Lionsgate should take a step back and reevaluate their priorities: are they truly committed to telling this story with honesty and nuance, or will they continue to pander to their audience’s desire for escapism?

As the world grapples with its collective guilt and shame surrounding Michael Jackson’s abuse allegations, it’s high time we started taking responsibility for our actions. If a sequel is inevitable, perhaps it’s because we’re still trying to make sense of this enigmatic figure – and ourselves.