Justin Timberlake starring in 'The Music Man' May Be Good For Him, But Bad For The Culture.

Greg Ehrhardt, OnStage Blog Editorial Staff

This week, the New York Post reported exclusively that Justin Timberlake is purportedly in talks to replace Hugh Jackman in the current rendition of “The Music Man” on Broadway.

FWIW, Hugh Jackman is kinda sorta refuting it, saying he is not being replaced “that he knows of”.

To me, if this story is true, this is a bit of good news, but mostly bad news, and the bad news also applies even if Hugh Jackman stays on in the title role.

The good news: if Timberlake agrees to replace Jackman, this frees Hugh Jackman up to do way more interesting projects, probably on screen, but maybe in theatre or streaming too. Some people don’t like him, but I’m firmly in the Jackman Stans Club, due to his likability and how much he gives every project his all. Jackman was, from a pure resume perspective, overqualified to star in a classically faithful adaptation of “The Music Man”, and while he was certainly a way for the investors to recoup their investment, he’s better off doing different things rather than entertaining rich white tourists who can afford “The Music Man”.

The bad news: Justin Timberlake is a bizarre choice to replace Jackman, and not really for the reasons one might think. If they started off the production with Timberlake instead of Jackman and made this production more modern instead of faithfully antiquated, this could have been an interesting show that added to the cultural conversation.

But, seeing as the show is in mid-stream, chances are Timberlake, if he agrees to do this, will stay within the role and be perfectly adequate, if not entertaining.

Therein lies the bulk of the bad news though: Timberlake as Harold Hill would be a waste of his talents due to the opportunity cost of what he won’t be doing while he’s devoting his efforts to “The Music Man”.

Timberlake tried his hand at being a box office star and failed in short measure. This wasn’t a surprise, as being a legit box office opener is harder than being an NFL quarterback, so the culture wouldn’t be missing any new cinematic contributions he might be making.

But Timberlake is for sure a legitimate music genius, and love him or hate him, his albums are events due to his innovation and his gift of the musical hook. Even if he could make new music while being Harold Hill, it is fewer hours spent developing music and lower odds of it being truly special as his previous discography.

I can’t tell him he can’t make this move. It’s a free country, and if this is something he really wants to try to professionally challenge himself, Godspeed.

But if he’s doing this purely for the paycheck, then it’s a sad day, because the culture could use him back in the pop music scene (or whatever music genre he wants to innovate).

Furthermore, Timberlake taking this role prevents another aspiring unheralded Broadway singer from getting their shot at stardom. If you’re going to bring back “The Music Man” (which we’re on record as saying it should have had a way more diverse cast), use it at least to give aspiring performers their shot. “The Music Man” is a draw unto itself, the extra tickets a Jackman or Timberlake will sell are not worth the potential payoff developing new stars, especially BIPOC actors.

You should save known stars for plays written by unknown playwrights and composers to bring those shows extra positive attention, not use them for well-established, antiquated, borderline sexist musicals that will draw crowds anyways.

From start to finish, this production of “The Music Man” has been a waste of time, money, and the culture’s attention. Hopefully, it’s just a blip instead of a future long-term trend.