MJ: the musical - Reviews- Page 3

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 12:16am

Because everyone wants to go to a musical to hear about child abuse. 

Nottage was hella clever in setting the show where she did. She's a fantastic writer. 

Also, let's not forget, he was never found guilty, same with OJ. So you can hate on them all you want but it's just talk. We'll never know who is right or wrong. So just enjoy the show or don't go to it. Up to you. No one needs your negative opinion. 

[ASOOS04]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 12:19am

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.

[pmensky]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 12:22am

I don’t care if every accuser was making it up. The guy lived in an amusement park and openly discussed having sleepovers with children who were not his own. He described sharing his bed with them as a “beautiful thing.”

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 12:36am

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.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 1:08am

Eh. I'm not about that rhetoric. Sure, I agree, believe the victims, but also let's hold people accountable? If you're a parent letting your children sleepover with a grown adult, I think there are multiple parties to blame. 

But also, the man's not alive. We'll never have answers. It's only one sided. And I'm not even an MJ fan, and I actually think his actions are quite gross, but to keep dragging it at every opportunity just feels gross to because we'll never have closure. So if you want to see it, see it. I don't care about his music, but I'd prob see the show because I like artists involved. 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 1:15am

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.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 1:27am

The Daily Beast review was a good read. Not pointlessly vicious and snarky but thorough and well-considered. Just damning the show by its accurate assessments. 

"There is nothing surprising in the show, which opens tonight on Broadway. This is a slickly corporate, officially sanctioned slice of legacy clean-up. Two and a half hours of glittery hagiography. If you expect a musical that examines Jackson’s life, controversies, and legacy, forget it. If you want to see anything which even mildly challenges the deification of Jackson, or interrogates his celebrity and actions with depth and nuance, this is not the show for you."

"Reviews like this won’t matter; its audience doesn’t want to hear a bad, or even vaguely doubtful, word said about its subject, and its producers hope his most devoted fans will supply the reservoir of ticket buyers. It is far from alone when it comes to unimaginative karaoke nights dressed up as Broadway theater shows. Fan worship is their beating heart."

"His astonishing achievements as a Black artist are rightly celebrated, especially in the context of a white America all-too-primed to denigrate Black success. MJ rightly and emphatically states the significance of that success."

"He reveals nothing that already isn’t known, or easy to Google."

"To be clear: their singing and dancing on stage, is wonderful—and the rest of the company too. But this is a spinoff pop concert, and overlong at nearly two and a half hours."

"But that is not the full story of his life or image—and this high-voltage musical is a cynical grab for dollars, as well as yet another depressingly empty Broadway celebration of celebrity."

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 1:37am

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. 

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 2:26am

Exactly. And people calling it a cash-grab.... Momma, duh? What jukebox show isn't a cash-grab? That's the point of the genre. They've already got a very successful Vegas show and I don't know if it's still running but the London show was a big hit. The estate is fine. I'm sure they could do a hologram show. 

[OffOnBwayHi]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 2:28am

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.

[Jonathan Cohen]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 2:56am

BJR said: "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."

Swell, so even though it was written years after the musical is supposed to take place, they still managed to shoehorn in his song famous for having an anti-Semitic slur. 

For me, the idea of asking critics and audiences to engage with this musical just on what it choses to focus on and not what it omits, is ignoring that it's focused on a real person. If you're making a biographic work about Michael Jackson's life, the two things he's most famous for is being "The King of Pop" and for being an accused pedophile.   

It's not a perfect analogy but it's like if someone staged a production of Romeo and Juliet, where Romeo is completely removed from the story. That might work as a piece or art or it might not, but of course every single review of the play is going to mention Romeo not being in it. That's not malpractice, that's giving the prospective audience a clearer picture of if this is a version of a story they already know, they'd be interested in. 

Also there's an economic way that the MJ musical can't be separated from the accused pedophilia. Michael Jackson's estate is profiting from this musical and they're also in active litigation against HBO, for airing the Leaving Neverland documentary. The ticket sales from the musical, are helping fund the legal efforts to silence self proclaimed victims of sexual assault. 

Yes, Jackson's estate can afford lawyers either way, but for people who did believe Jackson's accusers in that documentary, I think there's a moral reason to avoid seeing the musical, apart from the question of if it's "good art" or "bad art". 
 

Updated On: 2/2/22 at 02:56 AM

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 3:05am

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.

[Jonathan Cohen]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 3:36am

If you agree to write a review, you have to include some opinions on what you actually saw. The Wrap review did fall short on that. Other than saying there were "dazzling dance sequences" there was little said about anyone's performance or if the songs worked in this context, just that he hated Lynn Nottage's book. 

With Hamilton, it would be completely valid to discuss in a review how nuts it is that George Washington is portrayed as the most moral and wise character in the musical, despite owning over 300 slaves in real life. But yeah, that would probably not be helpful if that was the only point discussed about the musical in the initial review.  

  

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 3:44am

“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.”

[Dolly80]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 3:49am

I totally missed the part where he went to court and was convicted of being a paedophile- as many here are calling him. And in some reviews. 
When did this happen? I’ve googled it and can’t see him being found guilty.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 5:02am

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."

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 6:17am

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 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.

[teos]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 6:38am

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

[gibsons2]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 8:03am

ASOOS04 said: "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."

Accurate description of all jukebox musicals

[KevinKlawitter]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 9:11am

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".

[Lot666]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 9:20am

RippedMan said: "let's not forget, he was never found guilty, same with OJ. So you can hate on them all you want but it's just talk. We'll never know who is right or wrong."

That's the glaring problem with the review from The Wrap, which states: 

"The difference with 'MJ' is that it celebrates a pedophile’s life and not only ignores his crimes but whitewashes them."

The reviewer declares the accused to be guilty, and that's that. He, like so many others, has positioned himself as judge, jury, and executioner.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 9:24am

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.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 9:36am

The broader issues with this show's potential success: it arrives at the intersection of jukebox fatigue and a slow pandemic recovery for Broadway.  The genre has produced such an outpouring of product -- in addition to Tina, Cher, and the like, add oddities like Margaritaville -- that consumers aren't drawn to simply hearing a catalog well performed. And arguably, a large percentage of juke show fans have been tourists. And the tourists have only begun to return. So depending on the tri-state audience for a show like this is iffy, since the casual theatergoer who attends, say, twice a year is probably putting its dollar toward Music Man or Six, or Harry Potter and the regular die hard folks -- seeing Flying Over Sunset or Girl from the North Country -- are less likely to be interested.  And then the marketing issue of targeted audience: Who is it? Jackson was a boomer, born in 1958. His peers are all over 60, most hitting 70. Are they interested in this show? Don't scold: I'm not saying they are not, but as consumers, is their interest a given? They didn't turn up in sufficient numbers for Cher and now Tina, so sidestepping the big debate here about the book, the show may have a bigger issue moving forward, tied to the subject's more obvious audience not yet (fully) returning.  

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 9:53am

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

[Andy51]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 10:05am

While I think that some of the negative reviews make valid and important points, I find them overly constricted in their evaluation of the production. Peter Marks' positive review in the Washington Post best summarizes my own take:

"The show’s decidedly selective memory may be off-putting to theatergoers appalled by the stories of Jackson’s alleged misdeeds. Nevertheless, the creative team’s painstaking work has resulted in a riveting, adrenaline rush of a show, propelled by remarkable dancing and a mesmerizing central performance by Myles Frost as the sleek, soft-spoken pop megastar."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/theater-dance/2022/02/01/mj-michael-jackson-musical/