Consequently, actors, musicians, sportspeople — and even traditionally ‘behind-the-scenes’ folks like directors and producers — invest a lot into how they are perceived online. There is a significant amount of money being directed into public relations (PR) firms, talent management companies, and even into increasing the follower count on social media platforms to heighten one’s chances of appearing popular. ‘Appearing’, as opposed to ‘being’, is the operative part — in the age of screens.
Now let’s turn the clock back, to the era when stars achieved dizzying levels of fame without the help of social media or the kind of PR machinery that exists today. Back in the day, fame came from word-of-mouth, so there was no question of buying followers. It’s not as though PR companies and the concept of carefully curated public images did not exist back then. They were very much there, but in the absence of social media algorithms, the fame and the hype were more organic.
One of the most cited examples of such fame is Michael Jackson — the late American popstar who became a global phenomenon in the 1980s and ’90s. So when his biopic, Michael, hit cinemas on April 24, it promptly went on to set a new record for the highest-grossing opening weekend for a biopic. According to Box Office Mojo, a website that tracks film revenue, Michael has grossed over $700 million worldwide, and could cross the $1 billion mark by the end of its theatre run.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Michael Jackson’s nephew, Jaafar Jackson, as the ‘King of Pop’, the film covers Michael Jackson’s life till 1987 — right before the first in a series of sexual abuse cases. The second half of Michael Jackson’s career was rocked by allegations of child sexual abuse, besides other controversies, which the film curiously glosses over.
So, it has naturally invited criticism for a sanitised narrative that conveniently skips past anything that is difficult or dark. Even when it does depict the abuse the legend suffered at the hands of his father, Joseph, the movie doesn’t really show how it traumatised him, except to establish that this was why he had to get the “best” lawyer to be free. His relationship with his mother, sisters and brothers — with whom he was in a popular band called Jackson 5 — isn’t explored either. His sister Janet, arguably the second-most famous Jackson, is completely missing from the film.
Considering the fact that Michael was made with the full involvement of the Michael Jackson estate, this seems to be a lost opportunity in presenting the popstar’s life as he lived it, away from the often-slanderous and always-sensational tone of tabloids, which is how most people are usually introduced to Michael Jackson and his legacy.
However, his fandom — still active and loud, despite Michael Jackson’s death in 2009 — is celebrating the box-office success of the film. Fans are labelling it a ‘victory’ for Michael Jackson’s story, claiming that despite negative reviews from the mainstream media ecosystem, which is depicted as being at odds with the truth of Michael Jackson’s life, the film has won people’s hearts. Adding to this is Michael Jackson’s chart-topping music on streaming services such as Spotify, which points to the musician’s new GenZ fans.
Few are questioning that the film itself is written in a way that makes money off these sentiments. The fans’ delight at seeing their idol’s triumph shadows the need for a critical evaluation of what this means for art and for the truthful depiction of an artist’s life in an exploitative industry.
There is nothing wrong in being someone’s fan. The problem is in letting the parasocial relationship define a major part of one’s identity — to the point where one begins to view the world with blinders on. This is the point where fandom becomes less like fandom, and more like a cult.
Eye culture is a weekly column devoted to subjects such as art, dance, music, film, sport, and science
 "Photo: Wikimedia Commons")