When MJ The Musical was poised to begin previews in November 2021, few remained oblivious to the prospect that theatre critics would not give the show or its arrival on Broadway an easy ride. Several rushed to get in their first glimpse during the previews, but since the official opening this week, the reviews have been piling up with an overwhelming sense of disappointment from the critics that there was no mention of the historic abuse allegations against Jackson.
It seems they genuinely thought that a jukebox musical produced by Jackson’s official Estate, should and would include this. It’s a request so bizarre that one can only assume these same critics went for a pre-show meal at a vegan restaurant – and asked for steak!
Almost in a decade in the making, the idea for the musical came to light when the Estate expressed interest in producing an official Broadway show under the Jackson brand, with a future vision of having Jackson-themed shows on both the east and west coast at the same time.
With the positive responses to Immortal and MJ One by Cirque Du Soleil, a Broadway show seemed like a shoo-in for success and based on the largely positive press Jackson was receiving in the years following his 2009 passing, it seemed that if there was any criticism to be found, it was going to be rooted in the production itself rather than the person or his art.
In 2013, new allegations were made against Jackson and the accusers sought a financial settlement from the Estate, who in a 12 month period (Oct 2012 – Oct 2013) made $160 million, more than any other artist dead or alive.
A civil case ensued over the next 5 years and media interest in its progress seemed limited as the Estate continued to win the cases and subsequent appeals. Perhaps the idea of reading through pages of testimony and transcripts was just too much for so many of today’s reporters who prefer to write at length about how they feel and not about what they’ve taken the time to research.
As the Estate continued to release projects such as Xscape, Off The Wall, Scream, The Diamond Celebration, and executed the likes of the Michael Jackson Lip Sync Battle and The MJ On The Wall exhibition, the critics looked at how they were compiled in relation to Jackson’s own creative standards and whether they were a deserving part of his legacy.
There was virtually no mention of the ongoing court cases or any attempts to tie the allegations to the new Jackson releases and the critics certainly didn’t seem disappointed that there was no mention of the allegations.
Fast-forward to 2019 where the allegations are adapted for an HBO movie and a huge, and no doubt expensive, PR campaign takes hold; supported by popcorn-filled premieres, private birthday screenings on a luxury yacht and a director, so intent on making himself a part of the story that he trounced between television networks and posed for photoshoots like some sort of ‘celebrity’.
And now suddenly journalists and critics insist that every Jackson project should be looked at through the lens of that movie as if there have suddenly been new revelations that should change the outlook on Jackson. Were they sleeping under a rock between 2013 – 2019 as the exact same claims were dissected in court? or did they just not care.
Added further, they now expect every official Jackson product to address it as well. In some warped mindset, the notion that this should be a talking point of the Jackson Estate when promoting an official product seems totally normal to critics now that they’ve watched a movie.
Let’s be clear, they weren’t interested in hearing all sides in the allegations in all the years prior and they still don’t care about its contents today. They couldn’t be bothered to read the court documents or follow the developments. They needed it blended down into a one-sided smoothie movie so they could then tell everybody what ‘we’ as a collective should think and feel because watching it has certified them as an expert on the entire case. Utterly ridiculous.
So, with this movie in their back pocket, they turn to MJ The Musical and used their review to lambast the Estate and the writer for not including its sentiments in the show.
Yes, it’s a loosely-based biographical show. But from the moment the show was announced back in 2019, it was made clear that the storyline would focus on Jackson’s creative process and how moments in his childhood influenced his attitudes to work. So when attending the show, critics already knew the approach that had been chosen, making this sudden and awkward complaint about the lack of allegations feel like it has an ulterior motive.
It’s not uncommon for a biopic to be selective about what to include in order to fit the time restraints and tell the story they want to tell.
Trying to understand this line of thought has been baffling, to say the least. First and foremost, why would the critics expect the Michael Jackson Estate to include allegations of abuse that they’ve fought against, in an official Broadway production? It’s illogical and nonsensical. Their position has been clear from the offset – that Michael Jackson is innocent and these allegations are complete fabrications that have no business in Jackson’s life story because they didn’t happen. Why should they deviate from this standpoint to satisfy the critic’s thirst for condemnation?
Furthermore, MJ The Musical captures a moment in time, set in 1992 before the beginning of the Dangerous World Tour. It was over a year later that Evan Chandler would give Jackson an ultimatum – Fund my movie-making dreams, or I’m going public with allegations of abuse against my son.
So the 1993 allegations have no business in a show set in 1992.
Then there are the claims made in the 2013 court case & HBO movie. Again, the Estate has fought these in court, and as Jackson had always done in life, the Estate maintained the same position – That nothing happened and he was innocent.
So these allegations have no business in the official show either.
But let’s look at this for a moment – What if the Estate had bizarrely chosen to have the circumstances surrounding the allegations included – what would the critics have said?
They’d have firstly accused the Estate of bias, claiming the presentation of them was done so in Jackson’s favour. Then they’d have claimed that the Estate was cashing in on the entire situation, using the allegations to make money. Finally, they’d have suggested that the Estate wasn’t taking it seriously and that these types of allegations should not be deduced to a stage musical for entertainment.
It’s a lose-lose situation for the Estate – If they had included it, they’d have been vilified for their portrayal and approach. They didn’t include it, and they’re still being vilified for their portrayal and approach.
Above all else, it’s just a frankly odd request. It’s almost as if the critics have this unquenchable thirst for lurid sexual abuse allegations surrounding Jackson and they want to keep hearing about them over and over and over…except of course, in court documents.
Why on earth would anybody want to pay to watch the process of (false) allegations played out, with actors, on stage, as part of a musical, set to Michael Jackson’s greatest hits? As it was a musical from the Jackson Estate, therefore from the perspective of his brand, would critics have gleeful clutched their Playbills if Nottage’s story covered the moment he was accused? the feeling of despair he felt, the developing of his addiction to pain medication, the full-body strip search and photographs in front of a room full of law enforcement? By the time it reached Thriller it would be hard to tell if the ghouls were on stage, or sat in the audience with press passes around their necks.
Let’s point to the obvious fact that a stage musical is not the place to find further details or watch a re-imagining of the moments surrounding the allegations – court documents are. People go to the theatre to be entertained, to be uplifted, to be empowered and to have a good time. The hope is that they’ll leave in better spirits than when they arrived.
It’s frankly exhausting watching critics and journalists clambering over each other looking to satisfy their appetite for the Jackson allegations while making absolutely no effort to read about what’s actually been happening in the courtroom since 2013.
Furthermore, if a theatre critic can only engage with the allegations if they’re presented through interpretive dance, dramatic lighting, set to a soundtrack, then they must lack the basic ability to understand the legal process, court proceedings and sworn testimony – and therefore have no business looking to discuss them with anybody whatsoever.
And then there was the premiere on 2nd February, the likes of Spike Lee, Kenny Ortega, Rev Al Sharpton and Jackson’s three children, Prince, Paris and Bigi were in attendance, and leading media outlets attended the red carpet wanting to talk about the allegations.
One such example is the case of a reviewer for Variety who was asked to leave, or as it was later dramatised – ‘kicked off’ – the red carpet for asking questions about the allegations. And rightly so. In an ironic twist the industry that was preaching about separating the art from the artist, suddenly wanted to re-tie the artist to the art, for the purpose of reviewing the musical.
And it’s just unprofessional. As a theatre critic, you’re there to cover the contents of the show, the technical aspects, the set design and the performance ability of the cast – What you’re not there to do is attempt to get the cast over a barrel with comments about the artist or to expect them to meet your personal expectations just because you watched one movie and believed it without being open or willing to challenge anything that was said.
The whole scenario is a huge twist of irony, seeing as the majority of media outlets were uninterested in what the Jackson Estate had to say in 2019 about the allegations. Added further, not one outlet condemned Leaving Neverland for its flat refusal to include commentary from the Jackson family or Estate or anyone connected to Jackson.
Anyone who did share their thoughts about the allegations in a line of defence for Jackson was dismissed as a ‘truther’, ‘apologist’ ‘silencer’ and ‘part of the problem.’ A firm echo chamber was created where any questions or comments that disagreed with the expensive PR campaign led by HBO & Channel 4, was deemed unwelcome.
Yet suddenly, everybody cares what team MJ has to say because they’ve opened a musical on Broadway? Despite being masqueraded as such, it’s really not the case.
Interviewers are looking for the ‘spin’, they’re looking to get the cast to commit to an off-hand comment so they can use it to take down the musical’s credibility. We’ve seen this happen so many times in relation to Michael Jackson as far back as the 80s that it’s no longer the rabbit-from-hat trick they think it is. And because they didn’t get that, they just resorted to the same old tripe of using the allegations to attack Jackson while having the audacity to question the moral compass of people who, by all accounts know more about it than they do.
Ultimately, is anybody surprised by the media response to MJ The Musical opening on Broadway? Not really. The obsession with the concept of the allegations and the refusal to look further than that movie has got certain journalists stuck in a loop of their own making. So now they’ve just resorted to throwing an almighty feet-stamping tantrum – because theatre-goers aren’t listening to their opinion articles on a subject that has so many more parts than they’d ever be willing to research, discuss, read or share.
Unfortunately, as much as many of us wish that critics and journalists would take the time to look into the full extent of the allegations properly so we’re all spared the periodic opinion pieces they extrude across news sites and blogs – we will need to keep having these discussions and presenting the facts of the case. And for those who are genuinely curious, the discussions can and should be had. But a Broadway musical is not the place.
The Estate knows this. The critics know this too. They just also know that pandering dramatically to the continued faux outrage is going to garner them scores of praise from their virtue signalling friends and peers.
Should the Estate have perhaps done more to tackle the impact caused in 2019 before opening their musical in one city in the world? Yes. I still believe that the Estate needs to do more on a universal scale to get into the homes of regular people who watched the HBO/Channel 4 movie and help them see the other side that it refused to include.
It’s abundantly clear, the Jackson brand isn’t going anywhere, nor should it. The wish of individuals to silence the Jackson side of any discussion or force it into one version of events, speaks volumes to a heightened desire to have one version of events in a singular narrative – which is ironic because so many aspects of our society thrive on education and thirst for more knowledge about a subject – until the subject is Michael Jackson.
© Pez Jax 2022
This article is not to be replicated or translated in whole or in part without permission.
