MJ The Musical - Prince Edward Theatre (2024)

Me: "Hmm, wonder what everybody's saying about that 'MJ' musical? Maybe something about the show itself?2

*After reading through the thread*

"...Oh boy..."









This meant to be a joke by the way, so no need to take it seriously

Well Thriller did pretty well didn’t it? People really do love his music. Although, having said that, I used to organise corporate events and so many companies would include ‘no MJ’ on the suggested song lists for live bands and DJ’s…

I totally understand the concern regarding MJ's legacy - especially as it lies in recent history.

But if we really look into the human rights issues and reputations of famous figures in ALL theatre - don't dozens of other shows fall into this concern too?

In six for example Henry the 8th killed many of his wives - why do we socially accept this? I doubt many of you even thought it was a problem.

If you make a list of every musical that could discuss human rights issues, gender inequality, slavery and murder - many the shows wouldn't be made or exist.

Of course comparing Michael Jackson's court cases towards children might be an odd comparison to Henry the 8th - but its a fascinating debate on what is or is not socially acceptable

I saw the show on Broadway and Myles Frost is amazing. They very smartly set it during the Dangerous tour before all the allegations so they don’t have to talk about it. They do infer drug use, but it’s never explicitly said. For some people, it’s hard to separate the man from the music and for others it’s not. I think it’s a personal moral choice that people have to make for themselves.

Hm, I think the distinction here is the effect that fandom has on the assessment of the person’s behaviour.

No-one is going to Six because they think Henry VIII was a swell guy or an innocent victim, or because they are such a huge fan of Greensleeves.

The fact is that people’s love for Jackson’s art motivates them to excuse his behaviour, which had really serious consequences.
The love for his art makes it hard to even accurately discuss his behaviour and its impact on people, and while he was alive it gave him license to act however he pleased, regardless of how damaging that was - for him as much as anyone else.

That is why it is uncomfortable. If we were all saying ‘terrible human being, but let’s separate the art from the artist’ that would be a different conversation than the one we have been having for the last several pages.

I'm just looking forward to hearing the music and seeing the show.

I'm shallow like that.

To the Broadway production a number of critics reacted that the dialogue was clunky, expositionary, and preachy. One quoted a line where Jackson says (in the show) 'If you want to understand, just listen to the songs', but the critic disagrees that Jackson reveals much of himself in his songs, so it's an empty show, and not much given to drama.

*Drug references*:

I thought Jackson's songs concealed more than they revealed, until I heard 1997's 'Morphine'.
The song is partly from the point of view of the drug: "Kick in the back baby, a heart attack baby...Kick in the face baby, you hate your race baby...I had to work baby, You just a rival, always to please, daddy.....Trust in me, put all your trust in me you're doin' morphine". Then in a change of musical style it's from people watching on in horror (as a breathing apparatus effect plays): "Demerol, Demerol, oh God he's taking Demerol...yesterday you had his trust, today he's taking twice as much".

Demerol is one of the drugs Jackson was addicted to. His personal physician used, as a defence, the idea that he'd injected Jackson with a different drug, but when Jackson woke in pain an unqualified aide injected him with Demerol at Jackson's request leading to heart attack. (I don't think this defence was upheld).

From 2'40" in particular. The kind of truth-bearing dramatic writing through song that you won't see in the show.

The jury stated that they were applying a much higher bar than would normally be expected in such a case, though. That’s my point - Jackson’s fame and his art gave him a leeway that a normal person would not get. Like saying the DNA is ‘flawed evidence’- it is evidence of sexual activity by multiple unidentified males in that bed, in a case where sexual activity with boys is being alleged to have taken place in that bed, when we know that lots of boys spent lot of time in that bed. We don’t have any evidence of adult males other than Jackson using the bed, we have lots of evidence of boys using it while Jackson was there.

It’s circumstantial evidence but it’s not ‘flawed’. One has to imagine scenarios which there is no evidence for in order to dismiss it entirely.



Jury members actively said after the trial that they were convinced Jackson was a paedophile, and had likely abused some children; one of the star defence witnesses now says that Jackson abused him, with a second accusation from someone who refused to testify in Jackson’s defence.

It baffles me that people can point to ‘he wasn’t convicted’ in those circumstances. No justice system is perfect and we know that many abusers escape conviction - particularly when they are rich and famous. Jimmy Saville was not convicted; R Kelly was acquitted in 2008 despite there being photo and video evidence of his abuse; he was not convicted of any crime until 2022 despite decades of allegations with really solid evidence.

Of course we will agree to disagree on this. I don’t expect to persuade anyone who has made up their mind.

I believe this musical is very much aimed at people who are content to disbelieve these allegations and are happy to ignore them as much as possible, rather than people who would acknowledge them but separate the art from the artist.

We don’t need to know if there where other men having used that bed. Did the DNA found match any of the boys claiming sexual abuse. When you realise the answer is no, then there is no evidence that suggests sexual activity with those boys.

As someone who has joined this discussion re his 'court case', I did mention it might require a seperate thread. The Admin disgreed and for very valid reasons. I think they also know that even if they had three seperate threads addressing his allegations/outcomes, the subject would still come up here regardless.

I think once the show begins previews you will see more comments re the content of MJ the musical and less (hopefully) about MJ's personal life.

MJ didn’t crow up as an reflected socialised man. And never lived independent. There’d been always people around who’d taken profit out of his work and career. The show is still a way to make money out of his music and work.

I’m looking forward to see the show. I’m not a fan but a friend of mine who joins me.
Saw the Budapest concert on DVD after he died. It gave me an impression why he became famous and I was really impressed.