MJ: the musical - Reviews- Page 4

[adotburr]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 10:11am

I’m confused. People have issues because it’s a bio musical about the life of Michael Jackson. So, would people still have issues with a musical using MJ’s catalog but that’s not about him?

Like if Once Upon A One More Time was not using Britney Spears’ music but MJ’s, would people have a problem with that?

Updated On: 2/2/22 at 10:11 AM

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 10:14am

“MJ” delivers on its promise of fan service, from costume pieces by Paul Tazewell — that glittery glove and cocked black hat — to nostalgic trips through Soul Train and “Thriller” nights on Derek McLane’s set. But Wheeldon and Nottage make a show of gesturing behind the music only to insist that their contested subject had nothing to hide.

The demons that Jackson battles in “MJ,” his father and the media, are figured as monstrous. But if there was darkness behind the angelic falsetto, a mix of light and shadow that made Michael Jackson a singular artist, “MJ” enacts a sleight of hand, insisting it didn’t belong to him. It’s a renouncement worthy enough of a smooth criminal.

I think the end of the Variety review says a lot about the confusion of what this show is. I love his music, and revues of his shows from Cirque's MJONE to the UK Thriller-Live have done fantastic things with his music. And by all accounts, it's done so with MJ. But when you try to venture into the story behind the story, especially when it's authorized by his estate, that's when the waters get murky, and if there's not enough to justify how they tell the story, of course the critics are going to notice it. 

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 11:04am

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"."

And he paid a lot of money in settlements. Do innocent people do that? I think not. 
 

After watching the much hyped Janet doc this week it is abundantly clear that the Jackson family is very married to sticking to a script and not deviating from it. Ever. Rose colored glasses and revising history. It makes sense since their livelihood hangs in the balance of preserving the legacy. The family is mired in trauma and deeply troubled. I feel for them. 
 

A Vegas show that celebrates the music seems more palatable than a musical that celebrates the man. 

[Sutton Ross]

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

Some highlights from opening night of MJ: The Musical!

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 11:23am

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 11:23am

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 11:24am

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 11:31am

SidebySidebyLogan said: "This board is so ****ing toxic. Big surprise the bitter old queens whose sole thrill in life is logging on to troll other people’s love and passion for theatre are defending a pedophile.


“He wasn’t convicted” Of course he wasn’t! Disgusting people like you refuse to see these people for the monsters they are so the culture never changes. As a victim of sexual abuse I find these posts morally reprehensible. I hope you never have to relieve your trauma. But I do think if people had to face the type of adversity survivors face they’d change their tune quick. I ask myself how conservatives can look at blatant racism and feel nothing but look at the people on this board. At least Republicans behave this way for self enrichment. Your doing it so you can enjoy a show. F*CKing gross"

This is a theater site where we log on talk about theater. That does not mean people are defending what he was accused of. Very sorry for your abuse but I refer back to my comments. You weren't there. What is disgusting is people logging on proclaiming he did it as if they were there and accusing others of supporting him. See, we are mature enough to to be able to separate his professional career from his personal life, even though his personal life was all over the news.  And if you notice, a lot of us have not really weighed in on the accusations because that is not what this show is about. If you feel that way, are not seeing the show because of it, then don't bother to comment on something else you were not there for. And the name calling of "Bitter old Queen's" says a lot. You don't know us. And reading your comment says you just might be a bit bitter yourself.

And for the record, I was abused as a kid. I worked through it long ago and don't log on to vent at others because of what I went through when it really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. And again,  you have no idea how we feel about his accusations. We may also believe he did it but what we are talking about here is a certain point in his life and the story being told onstage. 

 

[bdn223]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 11:45am

Bettyboy72 said: "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"."

And he paid a lot of money in settlements. Do innocent people do that? I think not.


After watching the much hyped Janet doc this week it is abundantly clear that the Jackson family is very married to sticking to a script and not deviating from it. Ever. Rose colored glasses and revising history. It makes sense since their livelihood hangs in the balance of preserving the legacy. The family is mired in trauma and deeply troubled. I feel for them.


A Vegas show that celebrates the music seems more palatable than a musical that celebrates the man."

100% this. If this were a jukebox musical alla Mamma Mia, Rock of Ages, or Thriller Live! that celebrated and monetized his catalogue by shoehorning songs into a fictional story, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The issue is this musical is a PR job trying to rehabilitate and change the narrative of an accused predator in order to profit off of his musical legacy. The fact its the estate who commissioned this bio-musical, means it critics role and even the audience's role to ask why did you not mention the fact that for the last third of his life he was an accused predator. If the estate were not involved alla Barnum, Bonnie & Clyde, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Chaplin, Evita, creators can get away with stating this aspect of the subjects life was too difficult to fit into the story or not the focus of the piece because that is a reasonable answer when you are trying to turn a persons entire life into a 2.5 hour musical. When the estate is involved the question then becomes, "Is it though or is this meant to be a piece of propaganda meant to preserve the legacy of the subject?"

In the case of MJ its clearly the latter because if anything I would be fine with a sympathetic look at MJ and seeing how the years of religious trauma, domestic abuse, and coming to fame at such a young age takes a tole on a person and lead them down a dark path. They are too focused on preserving their own image and bank accounts to allow for that.  He is a flawed genius, but FLAWED. The musical not only sanitizes that but doesn't even acknowledge it, which it is rightfully being called out for. . If the musical wasn't going to address the final third of his life, at least address the one of the massive pieces of trauma from his childhood so better explain and lead up to why he is a flawed human being. 

Its akin to how ironically Dreamgirls, despite being a piece of fiction is a more truthful and factual to the history of Motown records and Barry Gordy, than Motown: the musical, which was written by Gordy himself. We all know Gordy was a ruthless business genius, but we also know he screwed over numerous people in his rise to the top, but if you only watch Motown, you'll think it was actually everyone else who screwed Barry over and he's the victim. 

[TaffyDavenport]

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

Did They Like It? is now at 5 positive, 5 mixed, and 6 negative:

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

 

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 12:21pm

I honestly feel like a musical that focused on Joe Jackson's abuse, Barry Gordy's exploitation, MJ's own demons AND the disfiguring injuries from a fire that caused MJ to become addicted to plastic surgey -- that  would have made an amazing musical.

[OffOnBwayHi]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 1:23pm

poisonivy2 said: "I honestly feel like a musical that focused on Joe Jackson's abuse, Barry Gordy's exploitation, MJ's own demons AND the disfiguring injuries from a fire that caused MJ to become addicted to plastic surgey -- that would have made an amazing musical."

Did you see the show, cause that is EXACTLY what it's about...

[Sutton Ross]

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

But false accusations of sexual abuse do not exist. It's so traumatic, and victims are treated with such hostility and disbelief. I refuse to believe anyone could actually lie about being sexually assaulted.

Are you serious? There is a small percentage of people that do, in fact, make things up for money and attention. It's very well documented that it exists. 

 

[Lot666]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 1:28pm

poisonivy2 said: "false accusations of sexual abuse do not exist...I refuse to believe anyone could actually lie about being sexually assaulted."



 

[Sutton Ross]

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

^ Word. How embarrassing. 

[OffOnBwayHi]

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

All you folks complaining about the show who haven't seen the show and probably will never see the show, what is the goal here? Why are you even in the review thread fighting with folks about how the reviews are written without any context because you haven't seen the show?

EVERYTHING is addressed in the show. It may not be in the way people would like, but no stone is unturned. It is a very unique bio musical in the way it's framed and deserves more accolades than the mostly, if not all, white critics are giving it. (Race is important to note here, and it's sad that this still hasn't shifted when it comes to critics. This show is an example of why we need more Black voices as theater critics.)

Anyway, y'all enjoy continuing to complain into the abyss of the internet about a show you know nothing about because you haven't seen it. 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 1:46pm

All you folks complaining about the show who haven't seen the show and probably will never see the show, what is the goal here? Why are you even in the review thread fighting with folks about how the reviews are written without any context because you haven't seen the show?

This. All day. Every day. 100%

Not interested in this show? Not going to buy tickets? Cool. Stop complaining about something you aren't into and move on with your life. Thanks so much! 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 1:54pm

These people are in this thread complaining for the same reason the critics chose not to even review the show but Jackson’s life, instead - because it gives them a sense of superiority over the subject being discussed. 

[OffOnBwayHi]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 1:56pm

Sutton Ross said: "All you folks complaining about the show who haven't seen the show and probably will never see the show, what is the goal here? Why are you even in the review thread fighting with folks about how the reviews are written without any context because you haven't seen the show?

This. All day. Every day. 100%

Not interested in this show? Not going to buy tickets? Cool. Stop complaining about something you aren't into and move on with your life. Thanks so much!"

Of course!

I've been on the board for a few years now, and you and Jordan Catalano have had our disagreements in the past, and might have more in the future (LOL) but I thank you both for being speaking clearly and reasonably, yet critical, about this show in this thread and others. Y'all are THE major voices on the board, if we're being honest, and I really respect y'all for the takes. You both have looked at the show from every angle in a very fair way.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 2:04pm

In related news:

‘MJ’ Broadway Musical Removes Variety Reporter for Asking About Michael Jackson Sexual Abuse Allegations

In part:

“Art is very complicated,” Quentin Earl Darrington, who plays the roles of Rob and Joe Jackson in the musical, told Variety on the red carpet. “I pray that for every piece of theater that you see—whether it’s ‘Oklahoma,’ ‘MJ The Musical,’ or ‘The Music Man’—that you can find yourself in the story being told. You can grapple, wrestle, be enlightened, be intrigued, be mystified by how you fit in the context of life being displayed before you.”

“Maybe you have some questions,” he said. “Maybe you have some resolutions. Maybe you’ll be frightened. But that’s what art is all about.”

Yet, after several candid conversations with cast members, representatives for the show told Variety’s reporter that he was no longer welcome on the carpet.

“I’ve been hearing you’re asking difficult questions,” one representative said. “Not on opening night. If you would like to ask real questions, you can schedule an interview with the cast.”

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 2:08pm

These people are in this thread complaining for the same reason the critics chose not to even review the show but Jackson’s life, instead - because it gives them a sense of superiority over the subject being discussed.

100% Jordan. Great comment.

I've been on the board for a few years now, and you and Jordan Catalano have had our disagreements in the past, and might have more in the future (LOL) but I thank you both for being speaking clearly and reasonably, yet critical, about this show in this thread and others. Y'all are THE major voices on the board, if we're being honest, and I really respect y'all for the takes. You both have looked at the show from every angle in a very fair way.

Thank you babe, I appreciate you.  And yes, everything you said is true about the past (lol) but I think we have all moved on from it and can objectively look at this show in a rational manner and realize that the "critics" that reviewed this show honestly did NOT. Also, people who haven't seen this show have no idea what they're talking about. It's just annoying and you know I have no issue calling it allll out.  

 

[Lot666]

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

poisonivy2 said: "Lot666 said: "poisonivy2 said: "false accusations of sexual abuse do not exist...I refuse to believe anyone could actually lie about being sexually assaulted."



"

Of course there's victim blaming and victim shaming in this thread. Better to silence inconvenient voices than to actually listen to victims ..."

My above post didn't blame, shame, or silence any actual victims. It did, however, blame YOU for refusing to acknowledge reality. I noticed that you have also conveniently declined to respond to my other post that describes actual false sexual assault charges. Now, what were you saying about "inconvenient voices"?

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 2:17pm

[carnzee]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 2:49pm

Lot666 said: 

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."

"Executioner" lol. The reviewer has common sense. If a man has sleepovers with children and some of those children later claim to be molested, Occam's Razor says he's guilty.

You think you occupy some moral high ground when in reality you just want to enjoy the man's work without having to wrestle with things that make you uncomfortable. Get off your high horse.  

 

[pagereynolds]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 2:58pm

Sutton Ross said: "^ Word. How embarrassing."

Shilling and posting only positive quotes about a poorly considered and generally reprehensible show is embarrassing also.