Is truth determined by the size of the audience it reaches? If so, Michael, the new film about pop icon Michael Jackson, aims to become the apotheosis of artistic virtue despite critics' claims that it sanitizes his reality.

The release has sparked a familiar but intensified online battle between those who wish to reclaim Jackson’s music and myth, and those viewing any celebration as a failure of accountability. While musically, Jackson was unparalleled, his legacy is also defined by allegations of sexual abuse and eccentric personal life.

Director Antoine Fuqua maintains that the film erases the most controversial two decades of Jackson's life, focusing instead on his musical legacy. This decision came with a legal trade-off, as the original cut included a reenactment of the 1993 police raid on Neverland Ranch which was ultimately scrapped due to a settlement agreement.

The result is a film that stops abruptly in 1988 and lacks the real interiority that made Jackson so polarizing. As many seek out their own truths, there’s a responsibility to challenge the framing or at least question its assumptions. The Jackson family has expressed intent to reclaim his public image, while fans argue for separating the artist from the work.

Michael won’t make or break Jackson's legacy; he is too large and immovable in the pop imagination. Each of us creates our own narratives about him, living with our own truths.