MJ: the musical - Reviews — Page 5

I've resisted engaging in this thread, and I am still disinclined to weigh in too deeply. A few thoughts.

1. I saw it. I liked the execution and appreciated the talent on display.

2. I don't like how this show was developed or what that says about Broadway.

3. A lot of what I'm reading falls in the general category of different people having a different take on the same artistic endeavor.

4. The criticism of "the critics" strikes me as silly. A critic needs to be an honest broker. There is no requirement that any human being's take on material needs to be guided by a singular set of rules. Some people review what they see on stage, some place it in a broader context. Some people, obviously, can't get passed the ickiness of what this show represents (and that can be because they don't approve of any show that focuses on - or whitewashes or whatever, or because they view the production as a commercial means of adding value to a brand and that ought not to be what Broadway is about [that ship IMO sailed long ago]). But let's recognize that criticizing a critic for their choice of approach to the material is the same ol' defense of something you liked and someone else did not. No critic owes anyone anything other than honesty. 

5. While I think what the estate has done is gross for reasons I touch on above, it does not own Michael Jackson's reprehensibility as a human being. One might not like the crass commercial motives, but those folks did not sexually abuse children. Likewise, one might question why some of the people in our community who were essential to getting this up chose to do so, but they are not morally responsible for Michael Jackson's behavior.

 

 

Updated On: 2/2/22 at 03:10 PM

Borstalboy said: "MJ: The Musical...it's kinda like the Joe Rogan Podcast of Broadway."

This makes no sense. 

SOLID GOLD CASTING 

Jordan Catalano said: "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."

Uh I have seen the show and agree with the reviews. There are some incredible performers, fantastic staging, and impressive design in the show. It is also very clearly image rehab and the show itself suffers from dancing around it and him.

As one of the reviews noted, this was clearly a show made for those who think he's innocent or don't want to think about it. But you cannot expect everyone to be in that camp, and certainly not every critic.

 

uncageg said: "BJR said: "Jordan Catalano said: "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."


As one of the reviews noted, this was clearly a show made for those who think he's innocent or don't want to think about it. But you cannot expect everyone to be in that camp, and certainly not every critic."

and that is totally incorrect. You cannot make a blanket statement like that about thousands of people you don't know. Plain and simple.

1. When you're quoting someone else, you need to un-italicize so people understand when you're commenting and not quoting.

2. The show was obviously made for people who either think he's not guilty or don't care. Those of us who believe that he had inappropriate, sexual and illegal contact with children aren't going anywhere near this show.

 

pagereynolds said: "uncageg said: "BJR said: "Jordan Catalano said: "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."


As one of the reviews noted, this was clearly a show made for those who think he's innocent or don't want to think about it. But you cannot expect everyone to be in that camp, and certainly not every critic."

and that is totally incorrect. You cannot make a blanket statement like that about thousands of people you don't know. Plain and simple.

1. When you're quoting someone else, you need to un-italicize so people understand when you're commenting and not quoting.

2. The show was obviously made for people who either think he's not guilty or don't care. Those of us who believe that he had inappropriate, sexual and illegal contact with children aren't going anywhere near this show."

 

1. Sutton is correct.

2. Then if you are not going anywhere near this show, maybe go somewhere other than this thread and vent about a show you haven't seen.

Back on topic... Jordan, you mentioned that the running time has been cut. Did you see it early in previous. If you or anyone saw it twice, I am interested in what they cut.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are we even having this discussion? Michael Jackson paid the people who accused him of molesting them. He frequently shared a bed with children he wasn't related to. We aren't talking about people being falsely accused sitting in jail.

OffOnBwayHi said: "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.)"

I agree with this as The Wrap review from Robert Hofler seemed to take particular pleasure in railing at Lynn Nottage like she wrote Oleanna and not a biomusical book for a paycheck. Why not put more of the blame on Wheeldon or anyone else? 

Aside from discussing the allegations and general jukebox musical criticism, at least the Daily Beast review made fair critiques of the book and remembered to review the performances. 

There are allegations. Innocent until proven guilty. That’s how our system works. Sure he slept in bed with children - weird yes -  but the rest is just they said / he said. I was never a fan of Mj he always just came off a bit odd to me. The plastic surgery, the white skin, and he just felt unsexual. I always thought instead of being this malicious man that was molesting children he actually had a mental illness where he just stop progressing. 

Color me intrigued.

Having not seen the show, Jesse Green and Peter Marks' reviews feel fair considering the subject matter. I remain appalled that Ayanna P is employed as a critic, when she continually churns out incompetent, adjective-filled consumer reports masked as "reviews"...shame on her editors.

Regardless, going into this project the producers had to know that this would not get critical praise, and I expect they have a plan to market the show without a need for anyone from the traditional theatergoing audience. Whether that plan works or not is another story.

Updated On: 2/2/22 at 09:24 PM

pagereynolds said: "Why are we even having this discussion? Michael Jackson paid the people who accused him of molesting them. He frequently shared a bed with children he wasn't related to. We aren't talking about people being falsely accused sitting in jail."

Since you're referencing my post, why don't you try reading what I'm responding to, which is a post about sexual assault in general. Here, let me help you out here: ""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."

Do you see the name Michael Jackson in the post to which I responded, yes or no? Also, to Mr. Hogan, who I've blocked but whose post somehow showed up when I made this response, the above applies to you, too,  buckaroo, but you knew that.

 

Updated On: 2/2/22 at 09:42 PM

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Color me intrigued.

Having not seen the show, Jesse Green and Peter Marks' reviews feel fair considering the subject matter.I remain appalled that Ayanna P is employed as a critic, when she continually churns out incompetent, adjective-filled consumer reports masked as "reviews"...shame on her editors.

Regardless, going into this project the producers had to know that this would not get critical praise, and I expect they have a plan to market the show without a need for anyone from the traditional theatergoing audience. Whether that plan works or not is another story."

Ayanna Prescod got roasted on Twitter for comparing MJ to Assassins, because they're both shows about controversial figures. Embarrassing.