Dan Reed, the director of the acclaimed 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, has launched a sharp attack on the recently released Michael Jackson biopic Michael, accusing it of deliberately glossing over serious child sexual abuse allegations against the pop icon. In a candid interview with Variety, Reed expressed deep disappointment with the film’s portrayal of Jackson, describing it as a sanitised, myth-reinforcing narrative that ignores uncomfortable truths.

The biopic, directed by Antoine Fuqua and backed by the Jackson estate, has enjoyed considerable commercial success, grossing over $219 million in its opening weekend. However, Reed argues that this achievement comes at the expense of historical accuracy and respect for the alleged victims. The film conveniently ends in 1988, several years before the first major public accusations of child abuse surfaced, presenting Jackson primarily as a victim of his domineering father and a childlike figure robbed of his own youth.

Reed attended a screening of Michael and found the early sections depicting Jackson’s childhood somewhat watchable. Yet he was highly critical of the adult portrayal, performed by Jackson’s nephew Jaafar Jackson. He described the performance as wooden, largely due to a weak script that offered little psychological depth. Instead of exploring the complexities of Jackson’s character, the film reduces him to what Reed calls “an asexual plastic action doll” — an eccentric, overgrown child whose interactions with young boys are shown only in innocent, philanthropic contexts, such as hospital visits.

This approach, according to Reed, creates a false and incomplete picture. He draws uncomfortable parallels with other high-profile figures like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, noting that philanthropic efforts do not erase other dimensions of their behaviour. While Reed is careful to state that he is not calling for Jackson’s music to be cancelled, he insists that the stories of accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck deserve acknowledgment and respect.

Leaving Neverland detailed the allegations made by Robson and Safechuck, who claimed that Jackson groomed and sexually abused them when they were children aged seven and ten respectively. The documentary presented graphic accounts of the alleged abuse, including claims of mock weddings and the involvement of security staff. Reed points out that the biopic inverts this narrative by casting Jackson’s security guard Bill Bray as a heroic protector, directly contradicting the accounts given in his own film.

The director is particularly scathing about the biopic’s failure to offer any credible alternative explanation for Jackson’s well-documented habit of sharing his bed with young boys. He dismisses the common defence that Jackson was simply reliving a stolen childhood, arguing that immense power, charisma, and influence do not justify such behaviour. Reed contends that the estate and filmmakers have avoided addressing the core issue, choosing instead to reinforce a mythical image of Jackson as a pure, almost saintly figure.

Reed also responds to comments made by Fuqua, who reportedly suggested that some people make “nasty things for money” in reference to abuse allegations. Turning the phrase back on the director, Reed implies that profiting from a distorted narrative about a man accused of serious wrongdoing is itself problematic. He highlights the financial motivations behind the biopic, noting that Fuqua reportedly earned a substantial fee, while Robson and Safechuck have never received payment related to their stories.

In Reed’s view, Jackson has transcended his identity as a real person to become a cultural myth — almost a religious figure in the collective imagination. This myth, he argues, cannot accommodate the possibility of serious wrongdoing. Challenging it, as Leaving Neverland did, is akin to blasphemy for devoted fans. The biopic, by contrast, restores and reinforces that comforting myth.

The making of Leaving Neverland itself was a significant undertaking for Reed, whose previous work focused on war, terrorism, and major crises. He initially hesitated to tackle the Jackson story but became convinced after extensive research, including reviewing thousands of pages of court documents from the 1993 and 2005 investigations, and conducting in-depth interviews with Robson and Safechuck. Reed maintains that he found no significant inconsistencies in their accounts and uncovered substantial corroborating evidence.

He addresses common criticisms of the accusers — such as their earlier public defence of Jackson and the large damages they are seeking — by explaining these as typical elements of grooming and trauma responses. Robson, in particular, defended Jackson at the 2005 trial before later coming forward after becoming a father himself. Reed stresses that the men have never sought financial settlements from Jackson during his lifetime and have not profited from the documentary.

The controversy surrounding both films highlights the enduring polarisation over Jackson’s legacy. While Michael has boosted streams and box-office numbers, Reed’s documentary continues to provoke strong reactions, including death threats at its premiere. He remains committed to amplifying the voices of those who claim to have been victimised, believing it serves a broader purpose of exposing grooming and abuse patterns.

Ultimately, Reed’s outspoken criticism underscores a fundamental clash between two narratives: one that seeks to preserve Jackson’s image as an unparalleled artistic genius and cultural icon, and another that demands accountability for alleged serious crimes. As the biopic enjoys commercial triumph, the debate over how to reconcile Jackson’s extraordinary talent with the serious accusations against him shows no sign of fading. For Reed, ignoring the latter does a profound disservice to the truth and to those who have come forward.