MJ: the musical - Reviews — Page 2

I don't go to shows based on critic reviews, especially when they barely review the show and talk about things that have nothing to do with the actual show itself.

This show has a built in fan base of many generations, and people seem to love it who attend. I also don't think critics love bio musicals anyways. I'm so glad Myles Frost is getting love, he is a star.

Those that don't think this show should've existed probably won't bother coming.

Correct. They don't matter to the production in any way.

Most of these reviews could have been written before they even saw the show.

Updated On: 2/1/22 at 10:27 PM

Can these even be considered reviews, at this point?

The overall consensus on Did They Like It is mixed to negative:

https://didtheylikeit.com/shows/mj-the-musical/

Jordan Catalano said: "Can these even be considered reviews, at this point?"

WORD.

This is exactly why you have quickly become my most effective and trustworthy theatre critic, Jordan.

George in DC said: "MrsSallyAdams said: "The Wrap takes no prisoners.

There’s a difference between enjoying an opera by Richard Wagner, even though he was an anti-Semite, or enjoying a novel by Norman Mailer, even though he was a sexist homophobe. A lot of very morally compromised people have created great art. It’s often a messy business. The difference with “MJ” is that it celebrates a pedophile’s life and not only ignores his crimes but whitewashes them. Can’t wait to see Nottage’s bioplay on Harvey Weinstein.

https://www.thewrap.com/mj-broadway-review-michael-jackson/"



Could not agree more."



But the show isn't "whitewashing" anything. The "crimes"/allegations, did not surface until after the period of time depicted in the show.

It is amazing me how people and the critics are finding any and every way to bring this up when it simply is not part of the show or that period of time. And the constn mention of the "Special arrangement with the estate" is insinuating that the estate does not want the allegations mentioned, even though they are not part of this time in his life. And some of these critics were around at the time and, if they were fans, should know that this was a very pivotal time in his career. I can remember being on pins and needles, along with many others, waiting to hear what this "Dangerous" album was going to sound like without Quincy. Some of these reviews are not even talking about that part of the story. Just review what you see onstage and not what is not and was not even planned to be.

Y'all act like it wasn't a clever idea to have it set in '92, just one year before they would have to acknowledge it.

You want as much of the catalogue as possible, without the allegations. So, '92. And Nottage cleverly makes HIStory songs book scene numbers, since they hadn't yet been recorded.

As Feldman in TimeOut points out, the show is clearly made for those who think he's innocent or can put it aside. Saying it being set in 92 is reason those who can't should is a little disingenuous.

BJR said: "Y'all act like it wasn't a clever idea to have it set in '92, just one year before they would have to acknowledge it.

You want as much of the catalogue as possible, without the allegations. So, '92. And Nottage cleverly makes HIStory songs book scene numbers, since they hadn't yet been recorded.

As Feldman in TimeOut points out, the show is clearly made for those who think he's innocent or can put it aside. Saying it being set in 92 is reason those who can't should is a little disingenuous."

Is that "clever" or is it "convenient"? Going out of your way to focus on a time period where the general public wouldn't have been aware of most of the allegations against Jackson feels like a purposeful sidestep that shouldn't necessarily be praised, even if it was probably the only way a show like this could have been written in a mostly palatable way.

And not to state the obvious, but if allegations were made public in 1993, then the behavior that led to them was happening before that.

KevinKlawitter said: "BJR said: "Y'all act like it wasn't a clever idea to have it set in '92, just one year before they would have to acknowledge it.

You want as much of the catalogue as possible, without the allegations. So, '92. And Nottage cleverly makes HIStory songs book scene numbers, since they hadn't yet been recorded.

As Feldman in TimeOut points out, the show is clearly made for those who think he's innocent or can put it aside. Saying it being set in 92 is reason those who can't should is a little disingenuous."

Is that "clever" or is it "convenient"? Going out of your way to focus on a time period where the general public wouldn't have been aware of most of the allegations against Jackson feels like a purposeful sidestep that shouldn't necessarily be praised, even if it was probably the only way a show like this could have been written in a mostly palatable way.

And not to state the obvious, but if allegations were made public in 1993, then the behavior that led to them was happening before that."

I don't think it is about thinking he is innocent or putting it aside. It is being mature enough to know the allegations are not a part of this part of his life. It is just that simple.

Was it on my mind when I left the theater? Yup. Sure was. But I knew it had nothing to to with what I had just seen. But, of course, I knew what was to come.

Critics have a right to call this musical what it is a cynical cash grab by the MJ’s estate.

This did not need to be a bio-jukebox and could of been an original plot with MJ’s songs woven in. If they went that route instead of the vanity of making the musical focus on MJ, we wouldn’t be having this discussion about how does a bio musical fail to mention/address one of the biggest aspects of its subjects life. The only way to get away with that is to set the show up surrounding a very specific timeline in his life which Nottage tries to do except she using motifs of memory plays to tell the story. Thus if you are using flashbacks to explain someone of MJ’s current actions, you can clearly also address the accusations against him. I think The Wrap is 100% spot on when they ponder what would Nottage do with a play about Harvey Weinstein or even a more apt comparison what would she do with a play about Bill Cosby? Would she set it right before Cosby gets his big break with Fat Albert or the Cosby show as to not have to address the allegations?

Don’t write a biomusical if you don’t want to address one of the biggest aspects of your subjects life.