MJ: the musical - Reviews- Page 2

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:14pm

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. 

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:16pm

Their Instagram just went live for the finale megamix / bows. 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:20pm

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. 

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:21pm

The cast and audience sounded electric just from those few minutes. Looks like a total blast!

Everyone was dancing onstage during the exit music. Myles stepped forward for an extra bow afterwards, but was rushed off stage when the curtain nearly hit him (a la Stephen Schwartz on reopening night of Wicked).

Awaiting the cast album, now that we know it's definitely happening. 

Updated On: 2/1/22 at 10:21 PM

[Synecdoche2]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:27pm

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

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

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:27pm

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/

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:30pm

Can these even be considered reviews, at this point?

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:32pm

Synecdoche2 said: "Once again critics are not interested in the actual show, but instead everything surrounding it. Most of these reviews could have been written before they even saw the damn thing."

You are so on the money. Once they mention the allegations I have just glossed over them. Why I expected the Times to take the high road and just review the show, I don't know. It's like, let it go already. If the show had been about the Jackson 5 in the 70's would hey still want the allegations in the show? Talk of it takes up space that could have been devoted to talking about individual performances, etc. We all know what happened. Just review what you see onstage.  JMO

 

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:33pm

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

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

[BoringBoredBoard40]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:36pm

most of the artists that have had good things to say have been african american, which the production purposely has been inviting in because they probaly figured these were how the reviews were going to play out so they were attempting a grass roots word of mouth community thing

that being said, this show was a bad idea to start and was never going to be authentic, I mean the estate is producing this and I think thats the big grip here, the show is set before any of that stuff happened, but thats the criticism, this show could have been set during any time of the last 50 years and they purposely have created this show that while very well performed and designed isn't actually digging into who this man was, its all surface level, as good as Miles is, like most of these bio-musicals he isn't playing Jackson he is mimicking him because thats all the show gives him to do and reallys asks of him, I'm not surprised that Ephraim Sykes left

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:37pm

I’m not surprised the majority of critics felt compelled to mention the sexual abuse allegations. Someone had to. The New York Times review sums it up best. It’s difficult to feel much of anything for any character on stage when their greatest flaws are being intentionally hidden.

[George in DC]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:37pm

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.

 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:39pm

Sutton Ross said: "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."

Ooooooohhhh.....booo hooo for you. After months of shilling for this show, the critics don't share your opinion. How sad. At least they acknowledge what you don't - this is glorifying a man who slept with little boys. I guess you're okay with that. 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:41pm

Sutton Ross said: "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."

They DO matter. You are living in denial about a bunch of things, and it's all pretty pathetic.  

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:41pm

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.

[BJR]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:44pm

It's worth noting the show directly addresses his being dogged by "rumors". The Act 1 closer is a press conference where he attacks the media. "They Don't Really Care About Us" was written about the police but here is exclusively about the media.

So, while the show takes place before the first public allegations, it is most certainly trying to rehab his image as being unfairly maligned by the media.

Any response to that rehab attempt is fair, not necessarily a pre-conceived notion.

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:52pm

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.

 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 11:00pm

uncageg said: "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.

"

Yes, let's just enjoy a show and celebrate a pedophile simply because none of that is portrayed onstage. Hell, if he can put forward good music, let's just ignore all his crimes with children. Head in the Sand disease is running rampant on here. Good lord. 

[BJR]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 11:02pm

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.

[BoringBoredBoard40]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 11:09pm

"Just review what you see onstage and not what is not and was not even planned to be."

 

It is a bio-musical...what are you talking about O.o

 

[KevinKlawitter]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 11:11pm

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.

[Sauja]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 11:21pm

At the end of the day, would you be comfortable going to see a play about what an amazing athlete and celebrity OJ Simpson was if it took place the year before the murder of Nicole? He wasn’t convicted of that crime. So if the play was set a year before her murder, would it be okay for the play not to address it? Or would you be unable to watch it because the specter of that crime would hang over the entire evening? “It’s set before the allegations were made public” is a cop out. Period. These allegations have been public for thirty years and are about child molestation. Where is the line?

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 11:25pm

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.

 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 11:41pm

'MJ The Musical' review — a flawless tribute to a flawed icon | NewYorkTheaterGuide.com (newyorktheatreguide.com)

[bdn223]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 11:55pm

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.