Also The intellectualization of Michael Jackson as icon starts in earnest today
It's been going on for years. I worked with a graduate art history student a couple of semesters ago who was taking a (very popular) course on representations of Michael Jackson in modern art. There is a lot of work about him out there, much of it from international artists and writers.
@Imogen Quest (was Percy Bishounen Shelley): There's a fairly bizarre piece by Dana Schutz called "Autopsy of Michael Jackson" (2005).
Oh god. I thought that pic would show up much smaller. If you haven't completely lost your lunch already, there's a full photo here:
http://hragvartanian.com/2009/06/27/dana-schutz-mj/
To paraphrase Katt Williams, "When was the last time Michael Jackson was in a relationship you believed? Not never! When have you ever seen Michael with a woman and thought, 'I bet Michael is fucking the shit outta that bitch.'"
Look it ought to pretty obvious that Michael was, to put it in purely objective clinical terms, a "homosexual pedophile." That such people actually exist has long been one of NAMBLA's arguments. I think the Catholic church scandals have vindicated them as far as this goes. (Whether such persons ought to automatically be labeled criminal is another moral and political issue altogether. And one that I think our culture will eventually have to confront directly.) That's the source of MJs tragedy. He was the world's biggest entertainer who also happened to have a strong erotic predilection for sex with boys and he just didn't know what to do about it. Except find gullible parents who will let them sleep over at his house in exchange for a whiff of his celebrity and a little extra cash.
Sigh. Go read "Unmasked," by Ian Halperin before you make the bold statement that MJ wasn't gay. In fact, this whole site needs to just have a book club reading and discussion of that book or something. Fascinating stuff.
@Steverino Begins: Thanks for the recommendation. In light of recent events, I have been spending a little "quality time" with one of my all-time favorites: Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler. I left off at the part where MJ teaches his young lover the 6 wishes:
1. No wenches, bitches, heifers or hoes
2. Never give up your "bliss" (sex acts).
3. Live with me in Neverland forever.
4. No conditioning.
5. Never grow up.
6. Be better than best friends forever.
Far be it for me to pass judgment, but this was obviously somebody with an alternative agenda as far as sexual conduct is concerned.
Appearing on Hard Copy, Gutierrez [author of Michael Jackson Was My Lover] claimed that he had seen a 27-minute video of Michael Jackson having sex with a boy. Not just any boy, but Jackson's own nephew Jeremy--the son of his brother Jermaine with his former common-law wife, Margaret Maldonado. [...]
Margaret Maldonado, who is estranged from the family, paints an unflattering picture of the Jackson clan in her book, Jackson Family Values. Nevertheless, she is eager to set the record straight about what she calls an outrageous lie: [...]
"The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I'd never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period." [...]
A Los Angeles jury ordered Victor Gutierrez to pay Michael Jackson $2.7 million for slander. At the trial, Gutierrez failed to produce the alleged tape or name his source."
@Steverino Begins: Honestly, that particular anecdote does not appear in this book, so I can't comment on its veracity. But the premise of his work is that Jordie Chandler was basically a willing participant in a consensual relationship with Michael Jackson. It deviates from the hysterical coverage of the case that was featured on Hard Copy in that respect. His exhaustive research does seem well-documented and it has a valid ring of truth to it. I don't see why this journalist would have any motive to fabricate because not only did he not make a dime from his book due to it's underground nature. He actually went into debt defending himself from all of the litigation from the Jackson family. (I wasn't aware of the 2.7 slander verdict). For the record, I don't believe the story about the nephew. But the details of the "romance" with the young boy is so incredibly detailed, VM would have to be a bigger fabulist than James Frey. Perhaps, the "essence" is true!
@SeaBassTian: You should read the new book. It puts it all into context better. The 1993 case is so tricky. It's like an extended version of Law & Order: SVU. Very disturbing.
Gutierrez was obviously out for money. I have no sympathy for him going into debt. Also, I believe the court ruling incorporated the book itself (which is why it went out of print). But I could be wrong about that.
Hey, Gawker, I have a request in the vein of further shitting all over this ridiculous New Yorker intellectualism: Find the James Baldwin essay entitled "Freaks," the one that's about Michael. (It may be called Here Be Tigers, or something weirdly esoteric like that now, but it was originally called "Freaks".) That is a brilliant piece of analysis and insight into Michael's person, and his persona. Let's forget this sexuality bullshit, shall we?
OMFG! Living with Michael Jackson is on TV right now. Forget about the gay issue, he completely denies having had plastic surgery. That comment alone should destroy any shred of creditability he has left. I have to say the guy had major cojones, he is sitting there, looking like a less subtle version of Jocelyn Wildenstein and denying that he has had any work done. And talking about how ignorant people can be. This is all too much.
@SeaBassTian: "Unmasked," by Ian Halperin makes it sound like he was basically doped up during that entire period (baby dangling, interview with Bashir, etc.). One friend claims he was "high as a kite" during the baby dangling.
It's tough to watch for that reason; also because that documentary basically led to the 2003 charges against him by the (by all accounts, extortionist) family featured in the doc.
@Steverino Begins: Yeah, I thought he seemed high during the baby dangling stuff and the Bashir interview, too. I mean, I saw how he held his first son when he was still a baby -- like a normal person holds a kid. But in the Bashir documentary, with his third kid (Blanket)? It was really bizarre, especially when he was feeding him the bottle. He definitely seemed high and out of it.
MICHAEL WAS NOT GAY. A music arranger for the Jacksons and my adopted dad, Gene Page, wanted to set me up with Michael in 1980. We were the same age, both of us were quiet and something about me just reminded him of Michael. He'dknown Michael since Michael was a boy, having arranged "Never Can Say Good-bye"and Daddy'sHome, etc.
You are unkind. He was a wonderful, misunderstood soul, a true giver and didn't deserve the crap he's gotten. Shame on you!
@KathyGreel: Okay, so what the fuck is the rest of this story, if you're so intent on defending the poor, misunderstood, child-hunting international sleepover arranger and "regressed 10 year old".
You guys went out for malted milkshakes in tall frosty glasses? You watched Star Wars in theaters? you wore poodle skirts and he wore spats and he was a perfect gentleman and he leaned in to kiss you as the night was over? You two dated for years and he showed passionate interest in you? I mean, obviously this is where this story is going. Obviously you have some sort of evidence of what you're splutting out all over this page, obviously you have some sort of proof more than a ridiculous story and a pointless bias based on some sort of family connection to one of the stratospheric riches.
@KathyGreel: I wanted to do the adult thing and dissect the logic of this comment, but then I saw that this was in '80 and so instead I will just say I genuinely hope that against all probability you totally smashed that shit
@magnets: You can't. We're like some freakish reverse of Superman where all we can do is pull criminals and the insane out of the Phantom Zones of Redness and Greyness and subject them to the dazzling light of our merciless mockery.
Michael Jackson may or may not have been gay, but I doubt it. Lisa Marie Presley talked a bunch of shit about him after their divorce, and yet has maintained that they had normal husband/wife intimate relations. Call me naive, but I don't see why she would lie about that if she was more than willing to reveal other unflattering, private information. Plus, when the police raided Neverland in 2003, they confiscated a bunch of heterosexual porn. XD
And I think it's unfair to say that Michael Jackson was attracted to, and molested, young boys . . . or rather, it's unfair to state it as fact.
The 1993 trial was a joke. The boy's abusive father drugged him with a "controversial sedative" that makes patients extremely susceptible to suggestions, in order to illicit a supposed confession. The father was also recorded in a phone conversation saying how it was a win-win situation for him, how he wanted MJ's career to be over, how he didn't care how the trial/situation would effect his son, etc. Hell, the boy's mother even said that she believed Michael Jackson was completely innocent. The boy's father was in huge debt, and settled for the money -- something I don't think many concerned parents would do if their child had truly been molested -- and that''s pretty much what the entire thing about, I think. Money.
The 2005 trial is iffy, too. The parents were known scammers; various other celebrities claimed that the family had tried to get money out of them, too, before starting on Michael Jackson (an easy target as he was a very eccentric person). And both Jackson and the accuser spent hours being examined by a mental health professional, who, at the end of it all, concluded that Jackson did not fit the profile of a pedophile (indeed, police interviewed 40+ kids who had visited Neverland, and found no corroborating stories), but that he was in fact a "regressed 10 year old." In the end, he was not found guilty of anything, and was acquitted of all charges.
Just something to keep in mind before you go stating that Michael Jackson was indeed a pedophile. =/
@Pope John Peeps II: Well, you would know about typing comments nobody cares about, now, wouldn't you? XP LOL, I'm not trying to start anything. If you think it's boring, don't read and scroll onwards?
@badasscat: He originally didn't want to fork over cash to the Chandlers to settle it out of court. But it was during all of the allegations that he became depressed and started becoming dependent on various drugs, and stopped eating. According to Wiki, "Eventually [Lisa Marie] Presley, Taylor, and Jackson's team all agreed that the singer should settle out of court; it was their opinion that the entertainer's health had deteriorated to such a degree that he could not endure a lengthy trial." So who knows. He seemed like a very fragile, childlike person who couldn't deal with a lot of stress all at once (hence the drug dependency); in interviews he kept saying he just wanted it all to poof, go away . . . and I guess that's what he did. At least the first time around.
@Tenbinzan: We've been over this time and time again in other threads. Nobody gives a shit what happened in those trials, and to be frank, almost nobody actually believes that Jackson was innocent. If you want to believe he was innocent, you can. But you're basically just admitting that you refuse to believe that someone you admire is guilty. Like people still do with OJ Simpson.
And now that he's dead, arguments about whether he did, or whether he didn't are getting really hackneyed and stupid. When he just died, it was great. But now? Now it seems dumb to carry on.
@Pope John Peeps II: Well, good for you. I thought he was guilty of the molestation charges, until I started browsing through the Wiki articles about it, and then picked up some books on the subject. I don't think of it as willfully believing he's innocent in the face of hard cold facts. I think both the accusers had holes in their stories and shady, money-grubbing families behind them. I think people saw an eccentric guy who, yeah, had inappropriate relations with kids (because innocent or not, it's always weird and wrong when a 40 year old man wants to just play games with kids all day long instead of building friendships with people his own age), and decided to exploit it for money.
Anyway, I guess I'll just leave it at that. You've said your piece, and now I've said mine . . . and yeah, it's dumb to carry on. =/
I quote it often, but I'm gonna quote it again: as Tallulah Bankhead said, when someone asked her if Monty Clift was gay, "I don't know, darling -- he never sucked MY cock."
Rumors that Michael Jackson was gay will never ever go away. And the gossip sites that frequently bring them up are far more likely to reach your audience of homo=pedophile advocates.
Obviously, there is no connection between being a homosexual and being a pedophile. Regardless of whether the molestation charges are true (and lets be honest they probably are) it is undisputed the MJ was obsessed with childhood and children. That obsession has nothing to do with his alleged homosexuality but it probably had a lot to do with any molestation that went on.
But the fact is just because a man has qualities that you don't want associated with homosexuality doesn't mean we can't talk about it. The whole thing is like saying the gays have to hide and not bring attention to themselves. Just because you don't give people a chance to say it out loud does not mean they aren't already thinking it.
Being able to have the conversation about whether he was gay and why that doesn't have any bearing on child molestation charges is valuable. Chances are you won't convince anyone but you aren't introducing the idea to people for the first time either. Gays are never going to be equals until society treats them as equals. Admit that some homosexuals are murderers, thugs, car jackers, pedophiles etc. Just like any subset of human beings will have some of those people mixed in. I understand that gays will prey on your children is a hurtful and pervasive myth that has been used to bash gays since biblical times. I understand that its just a very touchy subject for anyone fighting for their very basic rights. But forcing everyone to just go along with the idea that MJ was straight isn't going to work or help.
Its just not a mature or appropriate reaction to say that everyone should just shut up about it and maybe it will go away. It won't.
@Cheruth: I understand your points, but what makes a person gay? I don't recall any man coming forward claiming that they were Jackson's ex-lover. He may have been asexual in terms of relations with adults.
He was extraordinarily effeminate. For many people that may automatically translate to mean "he's gay," but I think that history has shown that there isn't any real correlation between effeminate behavior and homosexuality. Although some traditions may have evolved around that concept.
@ChillbearLatrigue: The point is not that effeminate always = gay. The point that Als is trying to make in this article is that when you look at Jackson's career in a textual way, a lot of things might jump out at you as a man struggling to cope with a lifetime of repressed homosexual desire. Those desires, along with the pathological need to hide those desires, the need to be loved, the lack of a family, contributed to Jackson's slide from a person who was capable, even an artist who transcended the norm, into a mask of a person - someone desperately trying to hide.
The article isn't about gayness per se, but gayness is where the whole issue certainly starts and for these purposes, ends.
I find this post surprising given that Gawker recently gave coverage to Ian Halperin's allegations that Jackson was gay, touting the article from the Sun as "the one Michael Jackson article you have to read." The evidence from that article seems conclusive, and goes into detail regarding his trysts with young men.
@Helennellieforsythe: Hmm, do you have info about Halperin? He does seem kind of strange (saw him on morning talk show wearing pink-tinted glasses and such), but his book seems credible and honest to me. He actually questions the motives of his sources occasionally, which most of the others almost never do (hello, Diane Dimond).
I come to this with a bit of a bias, 'cos I think Als is probably our best working critic (and his book, The Women, one of the best American books of recent years -- one which deals in depth with related issues of race and sexuality), but I'm sort of on Pope JPII's side here. It makes sense in public, in the trail of all of the terrible Phillis Schlafflys who existed and still exist, to disclaim any connection between a suspected pedophile and a gay man -- to say that those are two totally different species. But I think the more complicated answer is that while most of the time they ARE separate, there's a terrible Venn Diagram to all that (the same is true for heterosexuals! who also often feel weirdly repressed and confined, or so I've heard -- 'cos sexuality is weird like that), and maybe Michael fell in the overlapping territory: sometimes gay dudes who come up in -- and live in -- severely repressive circumstances, fuck around with boys, because they perceive it as their easiest outlet. It sucks, and it's horrible and sad and deserves both pity AND jail time, but this post feels a little knee-jerk, to me.
Maybe we don't want him, but maybe he's ours, ya know? (Not just "gay ours" but "societally ours" -- 'cos how sad if he was gay that he couldn't just roll like that from that get-go.)
(Also: though I've always thought he was gay -- maybe he wasn't! It's not like I know!)
(And: like the vast majority of the people on this planet, I don't know for a fact what went on between Michael and those children, so of course all assumptions in this comment that Michael abused them are very grain-of-salt.)
Anyhow, it's a fascinating article, well worth a click-through.
@Pope John Peeps II: Yep. Als essays -- esp. in a venue like NYRB, where he gets to stretch out more than in the New Yorker -- are a model for how expansive, strange, authoritative and personal you can be in the essay form. (His hobby-horses are as weird as, say, DFW's, he just writes in a more classical form.) Wish I could write like that.
Sidebar: "the gays" is still a funny tag if you're not super-deep in the Gawker weeds. Scale back yr visits to 3 to 4 times a wk -- it'll seem charming and droll.
While I certainly agree that it's unfair to base a reading of Jackson's career on the assumption that he was gay, I don't know how you're so sure he wasn't ("...but it didn't come from being gay"). Suppose, for a second, that he was. Given all of the complications Als cites (fame, family, race), it's not inconceivable that Jackson would hide his sexuality/express it indirectly. I understand not wanting to force the label onto him, but it kind of sounds like the "we don't need any negative role models" impulse is more important to you than the truth.
With regard to Harry Homophobe: he already thinks MJ is a big homo pedophile as it is - avoiding discussion of his sexuality is not going to help anybody. Also, I'm not sure how religiously Harry reads the NY Review of Books.
P.S. The whole "the gays" thing is getting old, Gawker. Does it still seem clever, or do you just not want to change the tag?
It's surprisingly common to mistake queer-theory analysis of a work or a biography for the "gotcha" approach of tabloid journalism, and its stories on celebrities that are declared outright to be gay. The two couldn't be more different.
I don't see anything in Hilton Als' piece arguing that Jackson was a homosexual. It mostly focuses on themes in his work and life commonly thought of as "queer," and their meaning to a large audience of black men who identify themselves as gay.
@Veillantif: I haven't read the article in question, but if you can discern an actual credible thesis, then, right or wrong, Mr. Als is already ahead of 99.9999% of queer theorists.
07/27/09
The intellectualization of Michael Jackson as icon starts in earnest today
It's been going on for years. I worked with a graduate art history student a couple of semesters ago who was taking a (very popular) course on representations of Michael Jackson in modern art. There is a lot of work about him out there, much of it from international artists and writers.
07/27/09
@Imogen Quest (was Percy Bishounen Shelley): There's a fairly bizarre piece by Dana Schutz called "Autopsy of Michael Jackson" (2005).
Oh god. I thought that pic would show up much smaller. If you haven't completely lost your lunch already, there's a full photo here:
http://hragvartanian.com/2009/06/27/dana-schutz-mj/
07/27/09
Look it ought to pretty obvious that Michael was, to put it in purely objective clinical terms, a "homosexual pedophile." That such people actually exist has long been one of NAMBLA's arguments. I think the Catholic church scandals have vindicated them as far as this goes. (Whether such persons ought to automatically be labeled criminal is another moral and political issue altogether. And one that I think our culture will eventually have to confront directly.) That's the source of MJs tragedy. He was the world's biggest entertainer who also happened to have a strong erotic predilection for sex with boys and he just didn't know what to do about it. Except find gullible parents who will let them sleep over at his house in exchange for a whiff of his celebrity and a little extra cash.
07/26/09
07/27/09
1. No wenches, bitches, heifers or hoes
2. Never give up your "bliss" (sex acts).
3. Live with me in Neverland forever.
4. No conditioning.
5. Never grow up.
6. Be better than best friends forever.
Far be it for me to pass judgment, but this was obviously somebody with an alternative agenda as far as sexual conduct is concerned.
07/27/09
Appearing on Hard Copy, Gutierrez [author of Michael Jackson Was My Lover] claimed that he had seen a 27-minute video of Michael Jackson having sex with a boy. Not just any boy, but Jackson's own nephew Jeremy--the son of his brother Jermaine with his former common-law wife, Margaret Maldonado. [...]
Margaret Maldonado, who is estranged from the family, paints an unflattering picture of the Jackson clan in her book, Jackson Family Values. Nevertheless, she is eager to set the record straight about what she calls an outrageous lie: [...]
"The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I'd never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period." [...]
A Los Angeles jury ordered Victor Gutierrez to pay Michael Jackson $2.7 million for slander. At the trial, Gutierrez failed to produce the alleged tape or name his source."
07/27/09
07/28/09
Gutierrez was obviously out for money. I have no sympathy for him going into debt. Also, I believe the court ruling incorporated the book itself (which is why it went out of print). But I could be wrong about that.
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
It's tough to watch for that reason; also because that documentary basically led to the 2003 charges against him by the (by all accounts, extortionist) family featured in the doc.
07/26/09
07/26/09
MJ was gay, however he felt the African American community was so homophobic that he preferred to identify as a pedophile.
07/26/09
You are unkind. He was a wonderful, misunderstood soul, a true giver and didn't deserve the crap he's gotten. Shame on you!
07/26/09
You guys went out for malted milkshakes in tall frosty glasses? You watched Star Wars in theaters? you wore poodle skirts and he wore spats and he was a perfect gentleman and he leaned in to kiss you as the night was over? You two dated for years and he showed passionate interest in you? I mean, obviously this is where this story is going. Obviously you have some sort of evidence of what you're splutting out all over this page, obviously you have some sort of proof more than a ridiculous story and a pointless bias based on some sort of family connection to one of the stratospheric riches.
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
And I think it's unfair to say that Michael Jackson was attracted to, and molested, young boys . . . or rather, it's unfair to state it as fact.
The 1993 trial was a joke. The boy's abusive father drugged him with a "controversial sedative" that makes patients extremely susceptible to suggestions, in order to illicit a supposed confession. The father was also recorded in a phone conversation saying how it was a win-win situation for him, how he wanted MJ's career to be over, how he didn't care how the trial/situation would effect his son, etc. Hell, the boy's mother even said that she believed Michael Jackson was completely innocent. The boy's father was in huge debt, and settled for the money -- something I don't think many concerned parents would do if their child had truly been molested -- and that''s pretty much what the entire thing about, I think. Money.
The 2005 trial is iffy, too. The parents were known scammers; various other celebrities claimed that the family had tried to get money out of them, too, before starting on Michael Jackson (an easy target as he was a very eccentric person). And both Jackson and the accuser spent hours being examined by a mental health professional, who, at the end of it all, concluded that Jackson did not fit the profile of a pedophile (indeed, police interviewed 40+ kids who had visited Neverland, and found no corroborating stories), but that he was in fact a "regressed 10 year old." In the end, he was not found guilty of anything, and was acquitted of all charges.
Just something to keep in mind before you go stating that Michael Jackson was indeed a pedophile. =/
07/26/09
07/26/09
Which is not something I would do if I were not guilty of that particular crime and had the money to defend myself, would you?
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
And now that he's dead, arguments about whether he did, or whether he didn't are getting really hackneyed and stupid. When he just died, it was great. But now? Now it seems dumb to carry on.
07/26/09
Anyway, I guess I'll just leave it at that. You've said your piece, and now I've said mine . . . and yeah, it's dumb to carry on. =/
07/26/09
07/26/09
Anyway, Michael was queer, his actual sexual orientation is irrelevant.
07/26/09
Obviously, there is no connection between being a homosexual and being a pedophile. Regardless of whether the molestation charges are true (and lets be honest they probably are) it is undisputed the MJ was obsessed with childhood and children. That obsession has nothing to do with his alleged homosexuality but it probably had a lot to do with any molestation that went on.
But the fact is just because a man has qualities that you don't want associated with homosexuality doesn't mean we can't talk about it. The whole thing is like saying the gays have to hide and not bring attention to themselves. Just because you don't give people a chance to say it out loud does not mean they aren't already thinking it.
Being able to have the conversation about whether he was gay and why that doesn't have any bearing on child molestation charges is valuable. Chances are you won't convince anyone but you aren't introducing the idea to people for the first time either. Gays are never going to be equals until society treats them as equals. Admit that some homosexuals are murderers, thugs, car jackers, pedophiles etc. Just like any subset of human beings will have some of those people mixed in. I understand that gays will prey on your children is a hurtful and pervasive myth that has been used to bash gays since biblical times. I understand that its just a very touchy subject for anyone fighting for their very basic rights. But forcing everyone to just go along with the idea that MJ was straight isn't going to work or help.
Its just not a mature or appropriate reaction to say that everyone should just shut up about it and maybe it will go away. It won't.
07/26/09
He was extraordinarily effeminate. For many people that may automatically translate to mean "he's gay," but I think that history has shown that there isn't any real correlation between effeminate behavior and homosexuality. Although some traditions may have evolved around that concept.
07/26/09
The article isn't about gayness per se, but gayness is where the whole issue certainly starts and for these purposes, ends.
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
Maybe we don't want him, but maybe he's ours, ya know? (Not just "gay ours" but "societally ours" -- 'cos how sad if he was gay that he couldn't just roll like that from that get-go.)
(Also: though I've always thought he was gay -- maybe he wasn't! It's not like I know!)
(And: like the vast majority of the people on this planet, I don't know for a fact what went on between Michael and those children, so of course all assumptions in this comment that Michael abused them are very grain-of-salt.)
Anyhow, it's a fascinating article, well worth a click-through.
07/26/09
07/26/09
Sidebar: "the gays" is still a funny tag if you're not super-deep in the Gawker weeds. Scale back yr visits to 3 to 4 times a wk -- it'll seem charming and droll.
07/26/09
With regard to Harry Homophobe: he already thinks MJ is a big homo pedophile as it is - avoiding discussion of his sexuality is not going to help anybody. Also, I'm not sure how religiously Harry reads the NY Review of Books.
P.S. The whole "the gays" thing is getting old, Gawker. Does it still seem clever, or do you just not want to change the tag?
07/26/09
I don't see anything in Hilton Als' piece arguing that Jackson was a homosexual. It mostly focuses on themes in his work and life commonly thought of as "queer," and their meaning to a large audience of black men who identify themselves as gay.
07/26/09