Much has been written and said in the last fews days about the life and death of Michael Jackson. Even I look upon his final years with a mocking attitude as I saw his physical appearance and "reported" behaviours slide into ridiculousness. But maybe there is something we are forgetting.
There are few people with any understanding of the arts who will deny that the only way to forge ahead and create magnificence in this field is experimentation and a healthy dose of eccentricity. Michael Jackson did just this from outlandish costumes, dance moves never seen before, a stage presence that captivated his audiences, and most importantly amazing music. Much modern day pop music owes a debt of gratitude to his creations. He chose to work in a field that has no roadmaps, no distinct plan or recipe for success. Like all great artists, he simply tried what he thought would work.... and it worked.
Was Jackson a terribly flawed person? You betcha, but he is part of an enourmous list of just such famous people.
Today's shout out goes to Michael Jackson. I still don't know how someone can be so right, yet so wrong at the same time.
Today's shout down goes to the monotonous media coverage we are getting on his death. One day after his death and I was already sick of their stupid, uncomfirmed allegations and frenzy.
(I've decided that my attempts at poetry published in previous emails will take a short hiatus. They may return).
Not eccentric and not flawed. Let's not gild the lily Dan.
ReplyDeleteHe was a complete fuck up. Not born that way, but he became that way. Such is fame, such is untold talent and wealth.
What I do find confronting at this point, gut-wrenchingly sad, is the footage of his last rehearsal,taken a day or two before he died. Magnificent. As a performer (if not as a person) he was in top form, elegant, energetic, perfection. Certainly not many 50 year old men could carry off a performance like that. I had doubts that he could 'pull off' those London concerts. So much scuttlebutt is published, and who knows what is true, but he was going to do it, he was up to it: it would have been dazzling.
He should not be dead. Simple as that. I thought a week ago that his doctor should be charged with manslaughter, and I'm even more sure now, as bits & pieces come to hand.
None of which takes away from the criminal charges, the likely pedophilia. So hard to reconcile with the talent, the performer, but there we have it, he was what he was, the dazzling and the truly ugly.
I keep drawing a parallel between the drug situation of Michael Jackson and Heath Ledger. The reports keep saying "prescription" drugs that caused both deaths.
ReplyDeleteThere certainly could be a call for manslaughter charges, or at least a statement of gross negligence by these doctors. Is it possible that when a person is a high priced personal doctor they lose the ability to practice common sense medicine (ie. take 2 aspirin and get some rest) that normal people receive, and instead go overboard treating their famous clients hypochondria?
In Ledger's case, I'd figure he had multiple doctors, and he was self-medicating, so no one had sole oversight. Also in his case, it was "a tragic accident", and not an unusual one at that. More people die every year from licit drugs than they do from illicit drug use. That's before you add in the millions of people admitted to hospitals each year from the ill effects of prescription drugs. Accidental overdoses are mundane, as are the frequent deaths that follow.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be the cases where doctors are closely involved and aware are pretty much concentrated in the US, from what I can tell. This goes back all the way to Elvis. He had personal doctors, as did Anna Nicole Smith. Four people are awaiting trial over Smith, but that case is very murky, so many drugs, so many names on the drugs, and seemingly drugs being almost literally shoved into her ... she didn't seem to have any particular input into things, a passive recipient, poor dear.
The MJ case, to my mind, is much more straight forward. I reckon what happened is that the doctor injected Jackson with something, he collapsed, the doctor crapped himself - and who wouldn't "OMG I just killed Michael Jackson" probably isn't a moment for much cogent thought or action - thought he could revive him without help, without having to tell anyone what happened. No such luck.
The 999 call claimed that there was a feint heart beat, but seven minutes later when the ambulance arrived MJ was stone cold, they wanted to call it a DOA right there, but the doctor insisted that they try to revive him. Jackson was already dead when the call was made. A body doesn't go cold in only seven minutes, not if there was still a heart beat.
The doc buggered up big time, and that's before the tox report comes out, which is still a month away. I'm figuring an awful lot of drugs were in his system, administered by that same doctor.
He was on a drug used to knock people out for SURGERY for gawd's sake! Beggars belief. People die under that sort of anesthetic even in the best of hands in a hospital. There's no reason for any person to be given a drug like that and sure as heck not a drug people have sitting around their bathroom at home.
Which all still begs the question of WTF is wrong with American doctors???!!! Why does this sort of stuff happen in the US? Blinded by celebrity and the dollars? That's just too lame, too prosaic. It's also probably true.
Perhaps another shortcoming (of the many) concerning the American health system. I guess if your rich and famous in America and you need to see a doctor it's best to attend the appointment in disguise.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how in all this media coverage about Jackson's life, so few people have talked in detail about his 'flaws'. That's a big change from, say, a month ago when Jackson was fair game.
ReplyDeleteNothing now about the surgery, the fact that he got whiter and whiter, and the bizarre and unlikely claims by Jackson that he had a skin condition which made him that way.
Nothing about the paedophilia trials.
It's as if the past two decades hadn't happened.
Hell, it's not as if celebrity journalism was about *facts*, I guess...
No, no, no. I have to take issue there Timmy.
ReplyDeleteA very rare case of "balanced" reporting going on with Jacko, whether in the print or electronic media.
Hell, an entire telly "special" during the week focused solely on the pedophilia charges - and it was pretty ugly, so much evidence against him.
Other specials and certainly print media have gone out of the way to show his transformation from a little black boy to the whiter than white reconstructed middle aged man who bore no resemblance to the rest of us. One show made the point, repeatedly, that his features were not human, not what normal people or any colour look like.
Many "psychological profiles" in all media, trying to do their bit to provide insight to what the hell happened to him.
Every show I've seen - US coverage and in Oz - have mentioned the criminal charges and the white skin, and the hideous facial transformation, as well as mentioning his insistence the that he is the biological father of his two eldest children, when clearly he isn't.
All up, it's difficult to separate the talented man from his deeply deluded and likely criminal behaviors, but I guess we do. I know I admire his early work and music, how could I not? But, but, but ...
What's really screwed up, I think, is listening to "people in the street", who, despite a huge amount of fairly honest, even brutal, media coverage over the last TWO DECADES, defend Jackson.
Only yesterday I heard an educated, supposedly quite normal, young woman explaining to her friends that his skin was what because of the disease ... she believed Jackson's line, without applying any judgment of her own, and having ignored all commentary to suggest that there is no such genetically inherited disease in his family.
Just adds proof to my theory that, very often, the public insists on being utterly stupid, despite the best efforts of the media.
Is it possible that the media outlets report stories with a bias in order to source additional information at a later date. For instance, if you were seeking an interview with one of the Jackson family members (gold for a journalist at the moment), you would publish stories that gush about his talent and success rather than dwell on the dark details of his life. If however you had no hope of such an interview, then you would happily publish the dark details because you have nothing to lose.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps I'm just being cynical....again!
Oddly enough, the other Jacksons aren't that difficult to get a hold of, and for the most part don't make great copy.
ReplyDeletePappa Jackson has been an almost daily fixture in front of the media mikes, Janet has done a public tribute, one of the brothers turned up at Neverland and talked to the media. I guess a lot of them would "kill" to get an interview with with Mumma Jackson, but I don't think that will happen any time soon, if ever.
The real gold was MJ, and the only interview any of them ever really wanted was with him, which is now a tad out of the realms of possibility.
So, yeah, maybe now they're prepared to be honest - across the board. Certainly some journo's have been blunter, less guarded about their comments, more forthcoming about details that have never been published about the child molestations. I don't think that points to past lies necessarily, for those with real knowledge, probably more a concern over being sued, I guess.
So, yes Dan, with nothing left to lose, no exclusive interviews to be had, finally the journo's who have known so much for so long feel the urge to be honest in their coverage.
In this case, maybe they should have done so a long time ago. It's not as though we're talking about consenting adults, he was sexually assaulting children.
But, such is the media and such is the entertainment industry.
More trivially, it's a notable and deeply irritating thing to me that so many publications will gush about someone's dress sense (when they hideous), or their depth and family values (Dennis Richards?!), or the brilliance of their latest reality show/film/walk down the street ... it's so much bilge, public arse-licking on a grand scale, clearly so that they don't miss out on future interviews, or interviews with other famous folk.
Cynical? Nah, you're not being cynical in the least Dan. That really is how it operates, and it's an ugly, dishonest industry, of which the journalists are one half.