Speaker 1: What do you think can we cancel art? Should we
Speaker 1: cancel art?
Speaker 2: If you talk about canceling artists, generally it's a great
Speaker 2: loss to culture. But also these are important conversations to have.
Speaker 1: The Michael Jackson Musical is here, and so are some
Speaker 1: big questions. Jackson was definitely a genius. He was the
Speaker 1: survivor of an abusive childhood, an inspiration for Black Americans,
Speaker 1: a once in a generation performer. He was possibly also
Speaker 1: a pedophile. So as the joyful and acclaimed stage show
Speaker 1: MJ the Musical arrives in Australia, hot from a Broadway triumph,
Speaker 1: we ask some big questions about the man, his music,
Speaker 1: and where art meets real life. Everybody, let's get start it.
Speaker 1: Where do you want to begin from the top. Bridget
Speaker 1: Cormack is the deputy editor of Review, our Art section
Speaker 1: in the Weekend Australian.
Speaker 2: It was absolutely electric on Broadway. So I went there
Speaker 2: back in twenty twenty two during its premiere run and
Speaker 2: the audience was extremely vocal.
Speaker 1: Don Scar looking for everybudy keep going.
Speaker 2: So you know you had audience members yelling out go Michael,
Speaker 2: sort of chanting things and getting up and dancing in
Speaker 2: their seats. It's impossible not to get swept up in
Speaker 2: the excitement and the energy of these songs, songs that so.
Speaker 1: Many of us grew up with.
Speaker 2: So when I went to New York, I was a
Speaker 2: guest of Michael Castle Group, and now they've bought this
Speaker 2: musical to Australia. I went there on opening night to
Speaker 2: the Sea production, and there was definitely a sense of occasions.
Speaker 2: So there were so many people with sequin jackets on
Speaker 2: and beautiful gowns. At the end there was a standing
Speaker 2: ovation and people getting up to the dance to the
Speaker 2: encore number, which was great.
Speaker 1: So here's what we can say about Michael Jackson the person.
Speaker 1: He was born in nineteen forty eight and rose to
Speaker 1: fame as the ultra gifted child singer in the Jackson
Speaker 1: Five under the hand of his domineering father Joe. Jackson,
Speaker 1: as an adult didn't take part in the culture, he
Speaker 1: was the culture. By his death at the age of
Speaker 1: just fifty in two thousand and nine, Jackson was simultaneously
Speaker 1: celebrated as the greatest performer of his age and someone
Speaker 1: who had transformed our understanding of pop music, and also
Speaker 1: widely regarded as a highly unusual and idiosyncratic person. Allegations
Speaker 1: about sexual abuse had begun a rising in the early
Speaker 1: nineties when a thirteen year old boy said he'd engaged
Speaker 1: in sexual relations with Jackson. Jackson denied the allegations of abuse,
Speaker 1: but reached a multimillion dollar settlement with the boy's family.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and two, Journalist Martin Basheer, who would
Speaker 1: later become notorious for an interview in which he allegedly
Speaker 1: tricked Princess Diana into thinking the royal family was plotting
Speaker 1: against her, aired interview footage where Jackson talked about sharing
Speaker 1: a bed with a twelve year old boy. He was
Speaker 1: charged with multiple counts of child molestation, but was acquitted.
Speaker 1: In the twenty tens. After Jackson's death, two men came forward,
Speaker 1: alleging he'd abused them from as young as seven years
Speaker 1: of age. They tried, unsuccessfully to sue Jackson's estate. In
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, their allegations were aired in a documentary.
Speaker 3: Nearly a decade after his death. Renewed debate and grutiny
Speaker 3: tonight in the week of the explosive HBO documentary Leaving Neverland,
Speaker 3: where two men claim they were sexually abused by Michael
Speaker 3: Jackson for years, starting when they were just seven and
Speaker 3: ten years old.
Speaker 1: And in twenty twenty six the matter will return to court.
Speaker 2: When I was in New York, we were, as I said,
Speaker 2: guests of Michael Castle Group, and I was there with
Speaker 2: a bunch of journalists, and a couple of the journalists
Speaker 2: on the trip actually refused to go to see the
Speaker 2: music all over there. Personally, I felt, as a journalist,
Speaker 2: I should go and see the musical, to see what
Speaker 2: it's all about and see how it does or doesn't
Speaker 2: grapple with his difficult legacy. In Sydney, people were very
Speaker 2: much there for a good night out. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: the premiere, you know, you've got the red carpet and
Speaker 2: that sort of thing. But as with the friend that
Speaker 2: I attended with, I imagine there were a lot of
Speaker 2: people who went home and said, well, hang on, you
Speaker 2: know what about these allegations. These weren't really dealt with
Speaker 2: in this show at all.
Speaker 1: How did they handle that within the show itself.
Speaker 2: It's interesting that one of the narrative threads throughout the
Speaker 2: work is this MTV film crew who are there to
Speaker 2: get a behind the scenes look of Michael Jackson. Preparing
Speaker 2: for this dangerous world tour, and you know these are journalists,
Speaker 2: So journalists is supposed to uncover the truth, but they
Speaker 2: don't touch on these allegations at all. There is another
Speaker 2: moment in the musical where Michael's facing a throng of
Speaker 2: journalists and one of them says, what about the allegations?
Speaker 2: But that's it, and then the audience kind of is
Speaker 2: left to wonder what allegations are they referring to.
Speaker 1: And what about other aspects of traumaal difficulty in his life?
Speaker 1: His abusive childhood, for example, is that touched upon?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Actually, there's a huge storyline about his relationship with
Speaker 2: his father. So the musical goes back in time and
Speaker 2: looks at his childhood, his time in the Jackson five,
Speaker 2: and how his dad really really pushed him to perfection.
Speaker 2: And so in that sense, Michael kind of internalizes that voice,
Speaker 2: and he's seeking perfection for this upcoming tour. He's spending money,
Speaker 2: he doesn't want to cut corners. He wants everyone to
Speaker 2: be their best. He's even willing to throw Neverland on
Speaker 2: the line to financially save this tour. And I think
Speaker 2: it's that sense of wanting to prove himself to his father.
Speaker 1: Coming up, when, if ever, is it okay to cancel
Speaker 1: an artist? In review and throughout your career, you've covered
Speaker 1: all sorts of forms of art and a lot of
Speaker 1: artists who are now being reconsidered. George Orwell, for example,
Speaker 1: is the subject of a best selling book which reveals
Speaker 1: that he was kind of a creep to his wife.
Speaker 1: We've seen the same thing happen to Charles Dickens. We
Speaker 1: talk a lot about cancel culture, how it's very easy
Speaker 1: now for someone like a comedian to be canceled and
Speaker 1: kind of wiped from the culture. What's your sense of
Speaker 1: how Michael Jackson is treated in that context.
Speaker 2: Well, I read one interesting review that said, you know,
Speaker 2: audience members kind of need to compartmentalize in order to
Speaker 2: watch something like this, and that remains true. You can't
Speaker 2: dispute that this is fantastic, the fantastic performances. Roman Banks
Speaker 2: is amazing as Michael Jackson. He nails the moonwalk. He
Speaker 2: even gets his accent. I don't know if you can
Speaker 2: you can call it an accent, but you know the
Speaker 2: whispery way that he talks, and you know, these are
Speaker 2: performers at the top of their game and they put
Speaker 2: on a fantastic show. These performers shouldn't be punished for
Speaker 2: what Michael Jackson did or did not do. But you
Speaker 2: also can't ignore these allegations. It's something that sort of
Speaker 2: sits in the back of your mind. If you talk
Speaker 2: about canceling artists generally, it's a great loss to culture,
Speaker 2: but also what happens to the conversations that we're having.
Speaker 2: These are important conversations to have. So you know, you
Speaker 2: watch something like MJ and you go home and you
Speaker 2: have really important conversations about it and what does this
Speaker 2: art mean? And you know, is it okay that that
Speaker 2: I had a good experience, that I enjoyed this, So
Speaker 2: I think it deserves its audience.
Speaker 1: It's interesting about the passage of time, isn't it thinking
Speaker 1: about say George Orwell. I can appreciate George Orwell's work,
Speaker 1: his art at the same time as feeling like he
Speaker 1: was probably a bit of a misogynous prick, you know,
Speaker 1: And that doesn't mean that I don't want to read
Speaker 1: Down and Out in Paris and London or think about
Speaker 1: animal farm. Same with Charles Dickens. I'm fine with a
Speaker 1: Christmas Carol or the new adaptation of Oliver Twists, the
Speaker 1: spin off being shot in Australia, The Artful Dodger. It
Speaker 1: feels different about Michael Jackson to me, though, you know,
Speaker 1: it feels so recent, so fresh. Maybe it's because I
Speaker 1: see my own children falling in love with his music
Speaker 1: in the way that I did in the eighties as
Speaker 1: a kid myself. Is this something about the passage of time?
Speaker 1: Do you think that makes a difference.
Speaker 2: Well, I think some of these allegations against Michael Jackson
Speaker 2: are still in progress, aren't they. So I think that's
Speaker 2: the awkward factor, because we don't know what's going to happen.
Speaker 2: I mean, he wasn't convicted when he was alive, but
Speaker 2: we don't know the outcome of these allegations.
Speaker 1: If he were a pedophile. If it is found by
Speaker 1: a court that he did abuse them, the two men
Speaker 1: who accused him in the twenty tens, does that mean
Speaker 1: his musical is unviable? Do you think.
Speaker 2: I think the producers would have to answer some Yeah,
Speaker 2: some difficult questions. It's really up to audiences whether this
Speaker 2: is a production that they want to go and see.
Speaker 2: Whether for them the love of his music and the
Speaker 2: artistry of the performers that are on stage. I don't
Speaker 2: know if outweighs the right word, but whether they can
Speaker 2: compartmentalize the other aspects to enjoy what is a good show?
Speaker 1: Yeah, holding those two things together at once, that this
Speaker 1: person was flawed, but that he was also a genius.
Speaker 1: Does that happen a lot when you're out and about
Speaker 1: seeing you know, great works of art from history?
Speaker 2: Well, I think if you look at opera, a lot
Speaker 2: of opera productions are quite all the traditional storylines are
Speaker 2: quite misogynistic. I remember going to see Verdes Rigoletta the
Speaker 2: Opera House a couple of years ago and just feeling
Speaker 2: so disgusted by the character of the Duke. Who's this womanizing, misogynist,
Speaker 2: you know, his common refrain actually one of the most
Speaker 2: popular arias that everybody knows and loves. He's sort of
Speaker 2: chanting women are fickle. And I remember going home, I
Speaker 2: had the program book in my hand, and a couple
Speaker 2: of people who had also been at the opera noticed
Speaker 2: it and said.
Speaker 1: How's about the duke?
Speaker 2: You know, he hates women. So there's a lot of
Speaker 2: artworks that I think would fall into this category.
Speaker 1: And for you, did that spoil your enjoyment of Verde's
Speaker 1: beautiful music.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, I still loved the music, but I
Speaker 2: would definitely say the character of the Duke rubbed me
Speaker 2: the wrong way part of the part.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And is it fair to consider the duke as
Speaker 1: a you know, as a woman in twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: you know, looking with your empowered feminist kind of mindset,
Speaker 1: or do you need to think about him as you
Speaker 1: would have when you were observing that art in the
Speaker 1: era when it was created.
Speaker 2: It's definitely a creature of its time. But there have
Speaker 2: been some opera directors that have chosen to update these
Speaker 2: storylines for these reasons because they don't feel as contemporary
Speaker 2: and we shouldn't be, you know, celebrating art that degrades women.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what do you think? Can we cancel art? Should
Speaker 1: we cancel art or artists if they've done something terrible?
Speaker 2: I personally am anti cancelation, but I'm definitely pro honest conversations,
Speaker 2: because these conversations are important, whether you're talking about art
Speaker 2: or life, and by canceling something, maybe you lose that
Speaker 2: avenue for having these important conversations. Maybe this is holding
Speaker 2: the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator of such acts accountable because
Speaker 2: we're not forgetting what they've done.
Speaker 1: Bridget Cormack is Deputy editor of Review in the Weekend Australian.
Speaker 1: It's the home of all the best journalism about the arts,
Speaker 1: culture and entertainment. You can check it out anytime at
Speaker 1: the Australian dot com dot au. Thanks for joining us
Speaker 1: on the front. Our team is Jasper Leik, Kristen amiot Let, Sammerglue,
Speaker 1: Tiffany Dimack, Joshua Burton, Stephanie Coombs and me Claire Harvey.