|
Post by inthenose on Jun 24, 2022 16:13:26 GMT
This is always going to be divisive, and this conversation will happen again and again in the coming years...
I'm looking forward to a bloody great night of brilliant songs and dancing, and my opinion of Jackson as a man isn't going to be altered either way.
|
|
18,842 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 24, 2022 18:50:08 GMT
These are such juvenile arguments in my opinion. “What about these people that did horrible things?” You mean those people who were found guilty and as such shouldn’t be celebrated in any way? We can all agree that MJ had a messy and questionable life. And yes there were allegations that we are all very much aware of. But was he found guilty? No. Now you can go down your conspiracy theory holes and for all we know he could be as guilty as sin. So if you feel like you don’t want to support this show then it’s understandable. But I don’t think anybody else should be made to feel bad about wanting to see it either. Do you think any part of this discussion has been intended to make anyone feel bad for seeing it? I really don’t see that. I think we are just discussing how we personally feel about it.
|
|
793 posts
|
Post by stuartmcd on Jun 24, 2022 21:19:40 GMT
These are such juvenile arguments in my opinion. “What about these people that did horrible things?” You mean those people who were found guilty and as such shouldn’t be celebrated in any way? We can all agree that MJ had a messy and questionable life. And yes there were allegations that we are all very much aware of. But was he found guilty? No. Now you can go down your conspiracy theory holes and for all we know he could be as guilty as sin. So if you feel like you don’t want to support this show then it’s understandable. But I don’t think anybody else should be made to feel bad about wanting to see it either. Do you think any part of this discussion has been intended to make anyone feel bad for seeing it? I really don’t see that. I think we are just discussing how we personally feel about it. Absolutely. By throwing around names of convicted pedophiles and sexual offenders the suggestion is that people on this board would be happy to see musicals based on those people as well because they are interested in this show.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2022 1:58:02 GMT
I don't think it celebrates his life. I've seen it many times as I usher for it. It celebrates his musical talent. They allude to allegations (the show takes place when they were first starting to surface). They talk about the plastic surgery. They talk about his drug use. On that basis we can look forward to R Kelly The Musical? Yes he’s a sex offender but let’s celebrate the music. I can’t get that to work for me. Michael Jackson was never convicted. He was found innocent in a court of law. I'm not sure I agree with that. But that's a fact. I'd also argue that R. Kelly and Michael Jackson are on completely different levels of talent.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 25, 2022 11:18:48 GMT
Savile never faced the courts but there is no doubting his guilt. Although of a different nature, the allegations about Jackson are serious enough to leave question marks as to whether his life should be celebrated. I can separate the man from his music which is why a show like Thriller is less problematic as it is essentially a fancy concert. I meant Michael Jackson Jackson wasn't convicted for the same reason Savile wasn’t. Fame. If he’d not been famous he’d have been convicted long since. He’s also likely still be alive - the same fame and money that allowed him to get away with molesting boys also allowed him unfettered access to the drugs that ultimately killed him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2022 11:28:36 GMT
The problem is with Michael Jackson is there will forever be question marks. There are some kids that said he did do stuff, but also plenty who were in his company who said he didn't. There will always be the money argument, either he got away with it due to money and power or the people who are accusing him are going it for money.
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Jun 25, 2022 11:34:26 GMT
There is a very simple solution for those who have a problem with the idea of this show: don’t go!
Personally, after watching the Tony performance I can’t wait to see this show. I will leave the police and law courts to deal with crimes - I just want to enjoy art and Michael Jackson created a lot of art that they seem to represent well in this show.
|
|
6,334 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 25, 2022 11:47:26 GMT
Thriller ran for over a decade so I think MJ which looks far superior should find an audience,
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 25, 2022 11:49:08 GMT
These are such juvenile arguments in my opinion. “What about these people that did horrible things?” You mean those people who were found guilty and as such shouldn’t be celebrated in any way? We can all agree that MJ had a messy and questionable life. And yes there were allegations that we are all very much aware of. But was he found guilty? No. Now you can go down your conspiracy theory holes and for all we know he could be as guilty as sin. So if you feel like you don’t want to support this show then it’s understandable. But I don’t think anybody else should be made to feel bad about wanting to see it either. He was as guilty as sin. The star witness in his defence now admits that he lied on the stand and was actually abused. You wouldn’t be giving the benefit of the doubt to a non-famous adult who had 5 separate accusations of abuse that all matched so closely in the details of their testimony (Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Wade Robson, James Safechuck, Jason Francia) and who behaved how Michael behaved in public with young children, as well as admitting that he had them sleep in his bed. Even the accounts of boys who say they were not abused describe situations that are dodgy as hell, like sharing alcohol with them when they were underage. You wouldn’t let a non-famous adult who behaved the way Jackson did anywhere *near* children.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 25, 2022 11:59:11 GMT
The problem is with Michael Jackson is there will forever be question marks. There are some kids that said he did do stuff, but also plenty who were in his company who said he didn't. There will always be the money argument, either he got away with it due to money and power or the people who are accusing him are going it for money. Accusers were only paid off when Jackson was alive, to avoid criminal charges. No-one gets money from making accusations now. They get a huge amount of abuse instead from fans. There are plenty of cases where child abusers have been convicted who did not abuse every child they came into contact with. Savile didn’t, Barry Bennell and Bob Higgins (football coaches) didn’t. ‘Grooming’ functions to cultivate the relationship that facilitates abuse - it doesn’t work all the time, some kids and families are more vulnerable to it than others, and abusers often have a ‘type’, with other children (and charitable activities) being used as camouflage.
|
|
5,288 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 25, 2022 13:28:44 GMT
I totally respect anyone being set against this show for believing the worst in Jackson. Truth is we will never know the truth now.
And they don’t have to buy a ticket to see it, simple.
|
|
252 posts
|
Post by gmoneyoutlaw on Jun 25, 2022 13:44:30 GMT
It might do better if it had nothing to do with Michael Jackson either. Sorry MJ fans but I think this is highly questionable given the obvious circumstances. If this show doesn’t at least make reference to the problematic areas of his personal life then it’s worthless as far as I’m concerned. It does make mention of problems in his personal life, but takes place before the legal battles. You will be thrilled how they handle his relationship with his father Joe. The production values are incredible and MJ still has an international fan base.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2022 14:54:30 GMT
Jackson wasn't convicted for the same reason Savile wasn’t. Fame. If he’d not been famous he’d have been convicted long since. He’s also likely still be alive - the same fame and money that allowed him to get away with molesting boys also allowed him unfettered access to the drugs that ultimately killed him. You were in the court room? You were on the jury? You saw all the evidence? You studied the trial intimately? You witnessed him molest children? You were at Neverland Ranch? No. You weren't. You don't know anything definitively. The only ones who do are Michael and his accusers. If you don't want to see it, don't go. But you don't get to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent - the jury does that.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 25, 2022 16:09:34 GMT
Looks like today is the anniversary of Jackson's death
We will never fully know the truth of his life.
But the accusations are very persuasive and are enough to cast a huge shadow over his legacy.
The music does live on. But a stage show about his life is problematic for many. Understandably so.
London had Thriller for so many years. Too many years in all honesty. When there are many shows that would love a London transfer, why do we need another Jackson piece?
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jun 25, 2022 17:14:17 GMT
Looks like today is the anniversary of Jackson's death We will never fully know the truth of his life. But the accusations are very persuasive and are enough to cast a huge shadow over his legacy. The music does live on. But a stage show about his life is problematic for many. Understandably so. London had Thriller for so many years. Too many years in all honesty. When there are many shows that would love a London transfer, why do we need another Jackson piece? Why do we need any theatre? The show has done very well critically and commercially on Broadway, so it's as strong a candidate as any to transfer. It will also make a fortune, which is the producers and investors big concern, which is what big commercial theatre is all about. It's going to be there regardless, plenty of other shows to see for those with concerns.
|
|
6,334 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 25, 2022 17:38:23 GMT
MJ and Thriller are two different things, one was a tribute show that ran far too long in the West End and the other is a bio musical with top notch creatives.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 25, 2022 18:16:12 GMT
Jackson wasn't convicted for the same reason Savile wasn’t. Fame. If he’d not been famous he’d have been convicted long since. He’s also likely still be alive - the same fame and money that allowed him to get away with molesting boys also allowed him unfettered access to the drugs that ultimately killed him. You were in the court room? You were on the jury? You saw all the evidence? You studied the trial intimately? You witnessed him molest children? You were at Neverland Ranch? No. You weren't. You don't know anything definitively. The only ones who do are Michael and his accusers. If you don't want to see it, don't go. But you don't get to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent - the jury does that. In America the justice you get depends on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers, and on how much the jury likes you. In subsequent interviews jury members have said it was the demeanour of Arvizo’s mother on the stand that they disliked, that they did believe that Jackson had molested boys at Neverland and probably molested Arvizo, but they didn’t feel they could convict because there wasn’t physical evidence of the act (semen) or a video of it. web.archive.org/web/20110211055853/http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/8880663/ns/today-entertainment/larryharrietlive.blogspot.com/2006/11/exclusive-interview-with-jackson-juror_28.html?m=1This betrays a misunderstanding of what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means - they were looking for evidence that would remove any doubt at all (literally a video of Jackson having sexual with the boy) before they were prepared to convict. Expensive lawyers are good at causing this kind of confusion in jurors. What we do know, for sure: Jackson had large pictures of babies on display in his bedroom, as shown in the photographs taken after his death, and books of photographs of naked boys, some of them taken by self-confessed paedophiles. Technically legal because they don’t show sex acts, they are very popular among paedophiles. He also had piles of adult pornography magazines - of all types - that he kept in his bedroom where he slept with boys alone at night, that were covered in fingerprints that were not his or any of his staff’s, and could not be identified. Oh, and there samples of semen taken from his mattress that did not belong to him, in the bed that he admitted to sharing with young boys night after night. (Some of this stuff that was not allowed to be submitted into evidence in the Arvizo court case, some of it was. However as the interview from the juror above shows, some of it was just ignored by jury members…) Jordan Chandler’s drawing of the marks on Jackson’s penis matched the those in the photographs taken by the police, according to the detectives. That evidence was never submitted to court, because the Chandlers accepted a $20 million settlement. Jackson’s lawyer has spoken about this in a seminar about the case that keen be seen on YouTube: The entire trial testimonies from the Arvizo case are available online: www.mjfacts.com/2005-michael-jackson-molestation-trial-transcripts/And there’s www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdfFrom the Santa Barbara court website. This document outlines items that were seized by police in the 2005 case and exactly where they were found. Includes several books known to often be in the collections of pedophiles (Bill Dworin, the lead investigator and expert on pedophiles, explains this in part 3 of the documentary 'Michael Jackson's Boys), masses of pornography and two photographs. One photograph is of a young boy holding an umbrella, his bikini bottoms partially pulled down. The other is a fully nude photo of Jonathan Spence, a young boy known to Jackson, who he'd been pictured with intimately. Edit: I guess this is all to say that a tremendous amount of evidence about the Jackson cases are available to the public, I’ve spent way too much time looking through it, and I find it overwhelmingly convincing of his guilt. I honestly don’t know how anyone who examines it in detail can conclude that he wasn’t a preferential paedophile who groomed young boys in order to have sexual relationships with them, which he justified to himself as ‘loving’. There is so much corroborating evidence here beyond victim testimony - much more than Savile! But I will stop arguing about this now because I know some people will never be convinced. I also understand that there is a desire to separate the art from the artist, and to enjoy the talents of those who produced the show separate from the man who it is about.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 25, 2022 18:43:38 GMT
Thriller Live was never produced in the US let alone on Broadway as far as I can tell.
That would indicate that this piece was the first chance for US audiences to see a stage show with the music of MJ.
I grant you that it is a different beast but they are both vehicles for the music and some of the original choreography.
To my mind that means that it is far from guaranteed that the US success will be replicated here in the UK where audiences have had years to see this music in a theatrical setting. And indeed, Thriller Live is still out there touring.
Setting aside my personal feelings towards Jackson, I remain sceptical of this new piece being the same sort of success as the US original. UK audiences have had an alternative and tourism is not yet recovered to such a point that they can be relied on to fill out theatres.
|
|
6,334 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 25, 2022 19:01:04 GMT
I would imagine the Jackson estate will likely pull the music rights from Thriller Live once MJ is ready to come over. It's a bit of a stretch to say people won't see MJ just because they saw Thriller.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 25, 2022 19:08:53 GMT
I would imagine the Jackson estate will likely pull the music rights from Thriller Live once MJ is ready to come over. It's a bit of a stretch to say people won't see MJ just because they saw Thriller. I think it just as much of a stretch to think that more than diehard fans of Jackson will flock to see another show about him. We shall see. I would much rather have far fewer biographical musicals in West End houses. I understand the business case for them but they are not good for the long term health of musical theatre.
|
|
6,334 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 25, 2022 19:19:50 GMT
I think it just as much of a stretch to think that more than diehard fans of Jackson will flock to see another show about him. We shall see. I would much rather have far fewer biographical musicals in West End houses. I understand the business case for them but they are not good for the long term health of musical theatre. The alternative is dark theatres for months or years on end which no one wants.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 25, 2022 19:31:27 GMT
There are shows that could transfer in but can't find the right venue like Bedknobs and Broomsticks which got a decent reception out on tour at a difficult time.
By all accounts What's New Pussycat could have found an audience in London. Other people might have other names of shows that have been looking for London opportunities.
I know all theatres are struggling for audiences right now. I get the short term financial case.
But we have shows about Tina Turner, Bob Marley, Frankie Valli and his mates, the Drifters already running with possibly Michael Jackson, and the Temptations joining the list. That is a lot of biographical shows.
|
|
328 posts
|
Post by Figaro on Jun 25, 2022 20:46:23 GMT
Thriller Live was never produced in the US let alone on Broadway as far as I can tell. That would indicate that this piece was the first chance for US audiences to see a stage show with the music of MJ. l. There has been a Cirque du Soleil show bard around the music of MJ running for years. Very good it is too!
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Jun 26, 2022 8:32:51 GMT
I wonder if Cameron (or whoever) will get a lot of flak when it's announced he's hosting this
|
|
6,334 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 26, 2022 9:34:55 GMT
I wonder if Cameron (or whoever) will get a lot of flak when it's announced he's hosting this Cameron won't care as long as it brings in the dosh.
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jun 26, 2022 9:40:59 GMT
Again for the people at the back…if it came to light that Shakespeare was a serial paedophile, or John Lennon, would it reduce the quality of the work they had created whilst alive? All it changes is our reaction to it and how deserving it is to make that person money from it. Of course it will inform our processing of it, but it won’t stop ‘Smooth Criminal’ from being thrilling or ‘Man in the Mirror’ being so uplifting.
Listing the details of Jacksons misdemeanours does not make those songs lose their genius. They just add to a picture of a flawed genius who was a victim of his own different abuse. If nobody tells you no for long enough or you are allowed to buy yourself out of problems without consequence chances are you are going to do it. There is a huge team of people behind Jackson that should have similarly been held to account for enabling his behaviour and criminality.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 26, 2022 10:17:28 GMT
I still enjoy some of Jackson’s music - and his best work owes an awful lot to the genius of Quincy Jones.
It’s a hagiographic approach to him and his life (and trust me, there are absolutely still a contingent of Jackson fans who are convinced that he was a pure-hearted Angel and poor innocent victim) that is disturbing.
We as a society have a real problem separating the art from the artists - people’s love of the art affects their ability to judge the artists objectively, and allows the artist licence in their personal life they would not be granted otherwise. And some of them use that licence - and the money that comes with it - to get away with abusing people in various ways.
This is less of an issue once an artist is dead, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 15:54:43 GMT
You were in the court room? You were on the jury? You saw all the evidence? You studied the trial intimately? You witnessed him molest children? You were at Neverland Ranch? No. You weren't. You don't know anything definitively. The only ones who do are Michael and his accusers. If you don't want to see it, don't go. But you don't get to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent - the jury does that. In America the justice you get depends on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers, and on how much the jury likes you. In subsequent interviews jury members have said it was the demeanour of Arvizo’s mother on the stand that they disliked, that they did believe that Jackson had molested boys at Neverland and probably molested Arvizo, but they didn’t feel they could convict because there wasn’t physical evidence of the act (semen) or a video of it. web.archive.org/web/20110211055853/http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/8880663/ns/today-entertainment/larryharrietlive.blogspot.com/2006/11/exclusive-interview-with-jackson-juror_28.html?m=1This betrays a misunderstanding of what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means - they were looking for evidence that would remove any doubt at all (literally a video of Jackson having sexual with the boy) before they were prepared to convict. Expensive lawyers are good at causing this kind of confusion in jurors. What we do know, for sure: Jackson had large pictures of babies on display in his bedroom, as shown in the photographs taken after his death, and books of photographs of naked boys, some of them taken by self-confessed paedophiles. Technically legal because they don’t show sex acts, they are very popular among paedophiles. He also had piles of adult pornography magazines - of all types - that he kept in his bedroom where he slept with boys alone at night, that were covered in fingerprints that were not his or any of his staff’s, and could not be identified. Oh, and there samples of semen taken from his mattress that did not belong to him, in the bed that he admitted to sharing with young boys night after night. (Some of this stuff that was not allowed to be submitted into evidence in the Arvizo court case, some of it was. However as the interview from the juror above shows, some of it was just ignored by jury members…) Jordan Chandler’s drawing of the marks on Jackson’s penis matched the those in the photographs taken by the police, according to the detectives. That evidence was never submitted to court, because the Chandlers accepted a $20 million settlement. Jackson’s lawyer has spoken about this in a seminar about the case that keen be seen on YouTube: The entire trial testimonies from the Arvizo case are available online: www.mjfacts.com/2005-michael-jackson-molestation-trial-transcripts/And there’s www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdfFrom the Santa Barbara court website. This document outlines items that were seized by police in the 2005 case and exactly where they were found. Includes several books known to often be in the collections of pedophiles (Bill Dworin, the lead investigator and expert on pedophiles, explains this in part 3 of the documentary 'Michael Jackson's Boys), masses of pornography and two photographs. One photograph is of a young boy holding an umbrella, his bikini bottoms partially pulled down. The other is a fully nude photo of Jonathan Spence, a young boy known to Jackson, who he'd been pictured with intimately. Edit: I guess this is all to say that a tremendous amount of evidence about the Jackson cases are available to the public, I’ve spent way too much time looking through it, and I find it overwhelmingly convincing of his guilt. I honestly don’t know how anyone who examines it in detail can conclude that he wasn’t a preferential paedophile who groomed young boys in order to have sexual relationships with them, which he justified to himself as ‘loving’. There is so much corroborating evidence here beyond victim testimony - much more than Savile! But I will stop arguing about this now because I know some people will never be convinced. I also understand that there is a desire to separate the art from the artist, and to enjoy the talents of those who produced the show separate from the man who it is about. First of all, I'm American. Secondly, I appreciate you taking the time to put this all here. I have watched the documentaries, etc etc. I've followed it too, but there were things you mentioned I did not know. I'm a victim of sexual abuse as a child. I'm not really a big Michael Jackson fan. But after all of it, I'm still not convinced to either side. And I wasn't there, so I don't know. But regardless, I don't condemn this musical because it doesn't glorify him, or redeem him. It calls out a lot of bad stuff. I would never have gone to see it, but as I usher for it I've seen it a lot and I admire and respect what Lynn Nottage did with the book. The musical is a study of the artist, more than the man, but it doesn't shy away from critiquing the man, particularly his drug use. I just don't know what the answer to it all is. I understand why some are turned off by it, but I also understand why the show works despite who it's about. Sorry if I came across a bit antagonistic. Frankly, the news here in America this week has been horrifying and I think I was already a bit heated while on the boards.
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jun 26, 2022 16:57:32 GMT
I still enjoy some of Jackson’s music - and his best work owes an awful lot to the genius of Quincy Jones. It’s a hagiographic approach to him and his life (and trust me, there are absolutely still a contingent of Jackson fans who are convinced that he was a pure-hearted Angel and poor innocent victim) that is disturbing. We as a society have a real problem separating the art from the artists - people’s love of the art affects their ability to judge the artists objectively, and allows the artist licence in their personal life they would not be granted otherwise. And some of them use that licence - and the money that comes with it - to get away with abusing people in various ways. This is less of an issue once an artist is dead, obviously. So, are you saying that irrespective of time lines and being dead etc that people are morally wrong to enjoy Jacksons music? (And Quincy Jones had a hand in relatively little of MJ’s total output.). I can quite comfortably separate the man & the music and enjoy one but not the other. Yet apparently, thinking ‘Dirty Diana’ is a total banger makes me somehow responsible too does it? Am I so in awe that I don’t know the difference between right & wrong? Have a word with yourself.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 26, 2022 18:12:12 GMT
. Sorry if I came across a bit antagonistic. Frankly, the news here in America this week has been horrifying and I think I was already a bit heated while on the boards. No worries, it’s been a distressing week even for those of us who are not American. There’s a real hell-in-handcart feeling at the moment.
|
|