The Michael Jackson biopic leaves out the child abuse allegations: this is what Colman Domingo and Nia Long say

Colman Domingo and Nia Long explain the reasons behind the absence of the allegations in the film ‘Michael’, which focuses on the artist’s early years.

The highly anticipated release of the biopic ‘Michael’ has sparked immediate debate around one of the most controversial aspects of Michael Jackson’s life: the omission of the allegations that marked his later years. In response to the criticism, actors Colman Domingo and Nia Long have addressed the film’s narrative approach and explained why this chapter is not included.

During an interview on the Today show, both actors were asked directly why the film avoids addressing the child abuse allegations that surrounded the artist for years. Journalist Craig Melvin raised the issue clearly, pointing out that today there is a strong emphasis on taking survivors’ stories seriously, and questioned how such an omission can be justified.

Colman Domingo’s response focused on the film’s timeline: “The film takes place from the ’60s to 1988, so it does not go into the first allegations, which were in 2005.” With this explanation, the actor made it clear that the decision was not about denial, but rather a deliberate narrative boundary.

He continued: “Basically, we centre it on the making of Michael. It’s an intimate portrait of who Michael is.” An idea that Nia Long reinforced by adding: “Through his eyes.” This perspective defines the film’s approach, aiming to explore the artist’s personal and creative development rather than his most controversial period.

Domingo also left open the possibility of a continuation that could address later events: “There’s the possibility of a second part that may deal with what happened afterwards.” According to him, this first instalment focuses on Jackson’s childhood, his upbringing, and his journey to finding his voice as a solo artist.

The debate, however, is not new. The allegations against Michael Jackson began to be publicly investigated in the 1990s and have remained a subject of intense media scrutiny for decades. The decision to exclude them from this first film has divided audiences between those who value its artistic focus and those who believe it omits a crucial part of his story.