In Antoine Fuqua's movie "Michael," everything is polished and pressed, the beats familiar, the arc pre-approved. Childhood: rough. Talent: obvious. Stardom: foregone conclusion. The camera lingers on the magic trick--a body that seems to slip the leash of gravity, a voice that conceals a razor in a velvet case.

But just as things get interesting, the film ducks out. No allegations, no courtroom drama, no awkward confessions that might make the studio suits sweat. As Associated Press film critic Jake Coyle put it, the film "moonwalks right past" the facts that now define the argument around Michael Jackson.

You can see what they're up to: not clearing his name, just making him easier to use. The film hands you a Jackson you can play at parties without anyone shifting in their seat. It gives you the music minus the historical baggage. Crank it up, the film hints, and maybe the old math will work out after all.

"Billie Jean" hits and your body signs up before your brain can file a protest. The groove snaps into place, the vocal slides in behind, and for a few seconds, the whole debate evaporates into muscle memory. You don't forget. The music just makes forgetting seem beside the point.

The trouble is, the math doesn't add up anymore.

Jackson was a national phenomenon when he was 8 years old. He had his first No. 1 solo hit, a love song to a rat that was originally written for Donny Osmond to sing, when he was 13. There was a stretch--the long "Off the Wall"–to–"Thriller" moment--when Jackson rewired the whole pop industrial complex. His records sounded like tomorrow, and the present scrambled to keep up. Radio caved. MTV blinked. Pop, R&B, rock, spectacle--all got funneled into the same bloodstream. With Quincy Jones, Jackson made rhythm feel like architecture, hooks like gravity.

Jackson's art isn't just wallpaper. You notice when it's gone. The silence echoes. It changes what you hear next, and what you remember from before.

And then the life story elbows its way in.

There is a line from George Steiner that has been doing the rounds for decades, often invoked in moments like this because it refuses to sit quietly at the edge of the discussion: A man can read Goethe or Rilke in the evening, play Bach and Schubert, and go to his day's work at Auschwitz in the morning. It is an appalling sentence because it is plausible. It asks you to consider the possibility that aesthetic refinement and moral failure do not cancel each other out. They co-exist. They may even draw on the same reservoirs of intensity.

We live in a world where monsters write symphonies and get standing ovations. Caravaggio: murderer, painter of saints. Richard Wagner: opera revolutionary, world-class antisemite. Pablo Picasso: genius with a brush, menace to women. Ezra Pound: fascist radio host, poet who........

© Arkansas Online