MJ: the musical - Reviews — Page 3

At the end of the day it is a terrible musical. Cowardly, pedestrian and bombastic. A cash grab indeed and I’m sorry that any of mine went to this garbage.

From TheWrap review: "No, the villains of “MJ” are reporters, specifically one named Rachel (Whitney Bashor) who is brought in to shoot footage of the rehearsals for an MTV News piece to promote the tour. Nottage shows some discretion here. She doesn’t name the character Karen."

OK, that was funny. But this feels a little over the top...

"And that is why wealthy, powerful and very talented men like Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein and, yes, Michael Jackson were able to perpetrate their abuse for decades. Reporters were acting as these men’s publicists. Reporters weren’t doing their job."

Certainly we've gotten some great investigative journalism over the years but ideally there is strong community, a functioning justice system, CPS, social workers, doctors, a trusted support system, activists, professional oversight, etc. and the only thing standing between predators and victims isn't reporters. That's a strange worldview. A lot of things have to fail to require reporters.

KJisgroovy said: "Sorry but a line in the sand must be drawn here.


I can appreciate the folks who want this musical to be viewed in isolation. A lot of great artists worked on this and it seems like they have done great work. There’s no doubt (to me) that Michael Jackson was/is one of the greatest and a creative genius. For all those reasons, I wish these artists had created a show that was not about his life but used his work and likeness to create something new. I can’t separate the two. For those who can, I say let them. The music and the artistry is unparalleled.


That said. Sexual assault allegations are not “just talk.” We no longer dismiss victims. We listen when they need to tell us their stories. Their stories matter.Enjoy the show and defend its existence but do not dismiss the stories of sexual assault victims. It’s a step too far."

I don't think anyone is "dismissing" anything. This show just isn't about that time period in his life. The problem is that all of you who are upset about it not being included just don't get that. And why is that? Maybe because it doesn't give all of the people all upset about it the chance to get on here and other sites and rehash it all over again. And you can't, won't understand or accept that it is not part of the story being told. Because that's not the way YOU want this show to be. Well it is not, and all of the complaining about it is never going to change that fact. Ever. All it will do is fulfill your need to bring it up and rehash it as if you were actually there and witnessed everything.

Also as far as the backhanded comments in the reviews and review comments about it being produced by special arrangement with his estate, well...yeah! The man is dead. Who else were they going to go to? I am sure Tina and Cher had some say over what went onstage in those shows.

Jordan Catalano said: "This is clearly going to be one of those shows that audiences love but critics don’t want to like. And a theme I’m noticing is they’re not happy the show doesn’t address “the big question” even though this show takes place before those events publicly happened. So it seems their big problem with the show is that it’s not the show they want."

BINGO! And that makes a poor review imho — not judging the show for what it is. And it is pretty darn fabulous, and difficult to say otherwise.

I think it’s the best thing on Broadway right now. I feel sorry for all those people wasting money at The Music Man. Such a soulless revival. But I digress.

I do think that the discourse around how we perceive the work of a public figure that's essentially been cancelled is important discourse to have. But my issue with a lot of these reviews (particularly The Wrap) is that it reads more as an op-ed column and less of a review. It's not telling us how the different parts of the show worked, its successes and failings in telling a story, or even how it stacks up against other bio-musicals. And I'm not saying that reviews should be entirely devoid of the outside context surrounding the show (like I said earlier, I think Jesse Green actually balanced that discussion fairly well), but to hinge the entire review on what the show is missing would be like saying Hamilton is a bad show for not including the issue of how the founding fathers owned slaves. There's certainly merit in discussing it's failings in that regard but that doesn't overcome what the rest of the show is doing. If I'm reading a review I'm reading it to see what the experience of attending the show is like and how it comes together as a piece of art. The discussion around whether the show should exist and the moral implications of upholding a figure like Michael Jackson would be better served in another type of article and not be the entire review.

“I don’t think anyone is dismissing anything.”


Sorry. Yes. And that was my line in the sand. It wasn’t you. Though we don’t agree, I respect where you’re coming from on this. You’ve done a good job separating the musical from the events in question. The below statement felt like an explicit dismissal.


“hate on them all you want but it's just talk. We'll never know who is right or wrong.”

Helen Shaw at Vulture pretty much nails it for me:

"A show isn’t a deposition; a musical isn’t a witness statement. A series of songs, strung together by a combination of managerial and commercial interests, isn’t an argument. But there’s something about MJ, the jukebox bio-musical about Michael Jackson, that definitely feels like it’s squirming under cross-examination. In the moments between its big production numbers, it deflects; it distracts; it ducks and takes the fifth. It opens its mouth and drops out blather so anodyne, so contorted and textureless and bloblike, it barely resembles speech. Only the music and movement in MJ work — the show’s Michael, Myles Frost, glides and hip-rocks through a physical impersonation that operates above and beyond the show’s own ugly logic. Remember who Michael Jackson was? Not everyone wants to; certainly not everyone agrees on how to do it. But remember how he moved? A dancer who can actually inhabit and electrify those shapes — the chest tucked into rigid concavity, the kung fu leg striking out — still has power."

The thing is... even if we forget the accusations: the show remains extremely poor in terms of creativity...

Yes, they dance and sing. Oh, great! That's basically the idea behind a musical! The stage is empty 90% of the show, the story doesn't tell anything and it doesn't even portray MJ as a strong person: he looks like a victim all along (his father, the media, etc.), and he's addicted to drugs. I think it's crazy that even the fans think it's great when they make MJ look like a lunatic.

Updated On: 2/2/22 at 06:38 AM

I was molested as a child, and yet I’m here to remind you: he was tried and found innocent. The allegations were not dismissed. They were investigated, and he stood trial."

Not to be pedantic, but being found "not guilty" is not the same thing as being found "innocent".

KevinKlawitter said: "
I was molested as a child, and yet I’m here to remind you: he was tried and found innocent. The allegations were not dismissed. They were investigated, and he stood trial."

Not to be pedantic, but being found "not guilty" is not the same thing as being found "innocent"."

If your response to what I just said is that, you aren’t worth engaging with.

Are you saying it’s only people born around the same time as him that would see this? Born in the 70s and growing up in the 80s, Jackson was the biggest star I’ve ever seen. He was our Beatles. When a new MJ music video came out, you’d sit in front of MTV all day if you had to in order to see it and then sit there all night hoping to see it again. I remember before we had cable, we sat at the Orange Julius in the Mall because they played MTV and would sit there with so many people just waiting for the new stuff.
So you have an entire generation who grew up post-Jackson 5 and only knew him as a solo star, again the biggest we’ll ever see.


And enough with the “if you see or enjoy this show you’re supporting pedophiles.” Jackson is DEAD. There’s no supporting “him”. It’s recognizing what he did as an artist. Pretending he wasn’t culturally significant and a game changer when it came to music/dance/culture ETC., doesn’t make you come off as superior in the way you want it to.


And as for the reviews - the whole “What did the critics think of MJ: THE MUSICAL”, I’d say we don’t know. We know what the critics thought of the man but it seems they forgot to largely mention the show they were sent to watch, when writing about it. This is really one of those things where I now feel like I’m defending something a hell of a lot more than it deserves because the reaction is so ridiculous. And I haven’t even had my coffee yet.

Updated On: 2/2/22 at 09:53 AM