https://www.chicagotribune.com/ente...ael-jackson-musical-jones-0428-story,amp.html
Debating the new Michael Jackson musical: Why are respected artists participating?
Chris JonesContact Reporter
Chicago Tribune
Incredibly, the dangerously titled Michael Jackson musical, “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough,” is moving forward in New York. Its creators are using what I’ll call the complexity defense. It’s fascinating and has implications far beyond Jackson and his legacy.
First, let’s review. The Tribune first reported Jan. 23 that the Broadway-bound musical, a jukebox biography focused around Jackson’s “Dangerous” world tour, would try out in Chicago this fall. That engagement subsequently was cancelled, seemingly in the immediately wake of the HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland,” wherein two adult males, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, claimed, in withering detail, that the so-called King of Pop had abused them at his Neverland ranch when both were underage boys. However, the producers of the show, which include the Jackson estate, claimed that the cancellation was a result of a workshop session being delayed by a now-resolved dispute involving Actors Equity. Whatever the truth, the timing was certainly striking.
This week, though, news came that the show was, as promised, continuing to wend toward Broadway in 2020, albeit without an out-of-town engagement.
You can see why the Jackson Estate, which has attacked the allegations in the documentary as baseless, financially motivated slander, wants the project to continue. Many recent cases involving revelations or allegations of past abusive or inappropriate behavior have resulted in fevered debate over how to handle the disgraced individual’s previous works of art. Is it still OK to watch early Miramax films in the wake of Harvey Weinstein? What about the films of Kevin Spacey? Those are merely the two most obvious examples of countless actors, directors, writers and painters under new scrutiny.
But those are works in the past. In this case, the Jackson musical is yet unfinished. It is in the future. It is one thing to argue that the brilliant artistry of, say, Jackson’s album “Off the Wall” is not invalidated by the artist’s personal behavior, but another to actually create a whole new work around his brand. Estates, though, are trusted with both curating and maximizing creative projects building on the work of deceased artists, further defining their legacy. If “Don’t Stop” were to be cancelled, it would put a chill on any and all future Jackson projects. So wherever you stand on this issue, their persistence is logical.
And it explains why, say, Louis C.K. keeps wanting to do stand-up. There are two debates there, too. There is one set of arguments surrounding the dispensation of Louis C.K. in the past, and another surrounding what he should or should not do be allowed to do in the future. And for those who argue for so-called “cancellation,” it is the future work that is the more egregious.
Look at the recent scandals surrounding racially insensitive statues or murals in schools, depicting very different Americas from the past. Debate ensues about whether they should be removed. Imagine, though, that someone had suggested painting a new one. In the old way.
So what about Lynn Nottage and Christopher Wheeldon, the two creative artists charged with the Jackson project? In recent days, both have given interviews in which they try to thread a very fine needle. In the case of Nottage, the book-writer, she first told Baz Bamigboye of the Daily Mail that she “believed” Robson and Safechuck, following a now-common edict that reflects the argument that survivors of abuse historically have had great difficulty in being heard, and, therefore, now deserve to be believed. “I think they were telling the truth,” she said.
Which begs the question: Why then are you participating in a musical produced by an estate that is calling the two men liars?
The statement also infuriated Jackson fans, who called for Nottage to be fired. And, presumably, it upset the estate, given their public statements on the matter. Then, in a judicious subsequent interview with the New York Times, Nottage walked that back: “What I was saying, and what I was getting at,” she told Michael Paulson, “is that the men came across as very believable. But here’s the caveat: Were they ultimately telling the truth? I cannot 100 percent say so, because I’m not judge and jury, and it’s not my place to do that.”
That is a fair point: the documentary was not a court of law and its content, most fair-minded people would say, did not rise to the level of legal proof. And the accused had no chance to defend himself. But then again, very few of the recent cases discussed above have been fully resolved in a court of law. Weinstein is about to stand trial. But his detractors have not waited for a verdict to condemn. It is hard to imagine someone now making a musical about him, or his auteurship, or anyone buying a ticket.
In the Times interview, both Nottage and Wheeldon essentially said, look, trust us, we’re artists, we understand complexity, none of us are wholly good or wholly bad and we’re going to create an art work that reflects both those sides of Michael Jackson, a show that could be enjoyed by those who believed the young men’s accounts and those who took Jackson’s side. In other words, a complicated, truthful show that will reveal a fuller vision of Jackson.
To wit.
Wheeldon: “This is obviously challenging — it makes this not without its complications, for sure — but part of what we do as artists is we respond to complexity.”
Nottage: “I see the artwork that we’re making as a way to more deeply understand Michael Jackson and process feelings, and ultimately that’s what theater can do.”
I’ve long argued to young writers that critics should always be on the side of complexity and resist binary thinking, life being otherwise and human flaws and hidden agendas existing at every turn. Still, I’ve been wrestling mightily with whether I think these are fair arguments — as distinct from rationalizations from otherwise progressive artists now in a difficult set of circumstances — and whether it is even remotely possible for a musical featuring Michael Jackson songs to be, in Wheeldon’s words, “a show that’s balanced.“
There are several thorny issues. One is that the permission, the dispensing of grand rights, and much of the content of the artists’ paychecks, is coming from an estate that does not share this view, at least in public. Is it really going to allow any suggestion otherwise in the final product? There is no evidence that it will.
The second is that for “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough” to be a hit, it will have to rely on Jackson fans, and it will have to give them a good time. Many people now feel that it is inappropriate, given these allegations, to dance or sing along with music inherently tainted by biography. That is a very reasonable position.
Certainly, no jukebox show authorized by a living artist or an estate has ever dealt with anything quite like this. In Broadway biographies, peccadilloes and mistakes sometimes get a brief airing (as in “Summer, the Donna Summer Musical,” involving the subject’s controversial comments about gays), but they are quickly resolved. In an authorized voice. And then back to the dance party.
If the Jackson estate actually allows Nottage and Wheeldon to even hint at anything in “Leaving Neverland” in “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough,” that would make this the most remarkable jukebox musical in the history of Broadway.
On the other hand, what choice does the estate have?
From its point of view, cancellation would be far worse, putting a chill on the Jackson brand that might last for decades or forever. If they’re smart, they’ll let these two do what they feel they should. And as for Nottage and Wheeldon, they’re now under a moral obligation to at least partly sink their teeth into the hand that feeds them.
Chris Jones is a Tribune critic.
