When Biopics Become Candy (Or Art)

Ah … the biographical picture. Or for short, “biopic.”  That word has definitely been part of your vocabulary recently, has it not?

Or … maybe not. 

Well, regardless of whether you’ve said the word “biopic” in the last couple of days (I have to be honest, I haven’t) I bet every time you’ve watched one, it’s imprinted on you in a deeper way than you would expect. 

After all, almost all of us have seen and loved “Bohemian Rhapsody” or, more recently, obsessed over Austin Butler’s portrayal of Elvis Presley in “Elvis” (Memphis-native talking here!) Why? Because they satisfy our endless curiosity about Hollywood stars, singer-songwriters (like Whitney Houston) and royalty (Princess Diana) in a way that is so delicious.

In my experience, there’s nothing more tantalizing than getting cozy on the couch and immersing yourself in the lived experience of a person that feels so real that they feel like a personal friend. And the market for these films is going to do nothing but grow in the next few years, as seen by the myriads of them scheduled to release in 2026 and beyond. 

Speaking of upcoming biopics and Hollywood stars, let’s talk about Michael Jackson. Yep. The “King of Pop” himself is getting a posthumous chance at the big screen in April, portrayed by none other than his nephew, Jaafar Jackson. 

Now, at first glance, this looks practically perfect. His own flesh-and-blood? Yes. Immaculate casting. However, when you think about it a bit harder, it can raise a lot of questions.

For example, if what makes a good biopic so impressive is the lead actor’s ability to immerse themselves in the character so deeply that they become them, does Jaafar have an unfair advantage? How can we judge if he’s truly a gifted actor if he physically shares DNA with the person being portrayed? 

Also, how in the world do we know the difference between good quality work and a cash grab? After all, celebrities sell. This is true whether what is being told about them is true to life or not. We all know this instinctively. It’s why the tabloids are next to the Snickers at the grocery checkout — they are both “candy” — horrible for you, but oh so delectable.  And even more than that, (excuse my bluntness) deceased celebrities sell even better, because especially with someone as famous as Jackson was, the generations born after he died are of course going to want to know all about this mysterious person the generations before them have remained loyal to unequivocally.  

So, how do we know if something is quality work and a real, enduring piece of art or simply a mediocre run-on sentence explaining what we already know? What makes a good biopic?

In my opinion, the first thing that sets a quality biopic apart from a nostalgic cash grab is whether it includes both the glamorous and not-so-glamorous. For example, in “Elvis,” not only did we see his sensational performances . . . we also saw him lying on the floor, surrounded by pills, drunk, fighting with Priscilla and fighting with his manager. That’s a good biopic.

Now, plenty want all the shine and none of the mess.  Here’s the issue — not only is this bad writing, but it’s inhumane. It further reinforces the idolization of celebrities that are real people, just like all of us. It creates parasocial comparison that is based on lies. And it makes us feel discontent that our lives aren’t free of struggle and darkness … when the truth is, the most wealthy, beautiful and talented people in the world are also the people who struggle with depression, addiction and suicide. It does the public a huge disservice when we don’t bring these parts of a celebrity’s life to light. 

Secondly, what makes or breaks a good biopic is whether or not it summarizes or makes meaning. In other words, is it just going to repeat the Wikipedia page bio I read five minutes before I pressed play? Or is it going to draw me into a narrative that has births, deaths, family fights, falling in love, reconciliation and redemption? Is watching it going to change or expand my perception about the person being paid tribute to? Is it going to change my outlook on life, even in the smallest way?

Now, you may think my expectations are a bit too high. 

Fair. Fair, if you want to watch something for entertainment, not for meaning. Fair, if you are the type of person who grabs a Snickers at the check-out aisle along with the National Enquirer. 

Now, don’t get me wrong. A Snickers is OK every now and then. But it is disrespectful if a biopic dismisses the not-so-glossy parts of a celebrity’s life or fails to craft a compelling narrative about them because “it’s good for PR.” 

In short, what makes a good biopic is whether its writers respect the person being honored enough to tell us the whole story, and whether the actor portraying them truly becomes them.

Now, whether Jaafar will truly deliver an immersive experience or a cheap imitation in Michael remains to be seen. But if he relies on his uncle’s mannerisms and their similar physical characteristics in order to get by, the film will not have nearly as much impact as it should have, and I’ll be left with little more than an empty bag of M&Ms and mild disappointment.