My first thought glancing over the news today is, OK, after today can we move on? No more Michael Jackson this, Michael Jackson that, wherever I turn?
But then my second thought was, While I don’t want to delay the moving-on thing, could someone explain to me what everybody is worked up about?
I don’t get it, and I never will. It’s related, I think, to the phenomenon on reality shows in which the audience screams constantly — not when something remarkable happens on the stage, or someone shouts “fire!” — but at everything that happens, everything that is said. It drives me nuts, and my wife and daughters get tired of me complaining about it when they’re watching their dancing shows, but it still bugs me because I don’t get it. Why is it that exciting?
As for Michael Jackson — well, I don’t want to speak ill of the dead; I just look forward to when we’re not speaking about him at all. What I think about him now is what I thought four years back:
Tuesday, 14 June 2005
What’s WITH these people?
Celebrity worship is a mystery to me. This puzzlement is deepened by the case of Michael Jackson.
OK, I can sort of understand how someone might have become a fan of his at one point. In the early ’80s, he was a remarkably talented young black man. But now that he is no longer young, or black, or manly in any way you’d notice, and hasn’t put forth any striking evidence of talent lately, about all he’s got left is being remarkable. And not in a good way.
I’m not saying this to be mean or anything like that. I just don’t see how, beyond memories of some catchy tunes and dancing that seemed to defy physical laws, anybody would feel any sort of emotional involvement in anything that Mr. Jackson does, or anything that happens to him or doesn’t happen to him.
And yet there are people who really, really cared what happened in his trial.
They were willing to put their whole lives in suspense over whether he was found “guilty” or “not guilty.” They made it their business to be there at the courthouse, as close to his side as possible. They were ecstatic at the verdict.
What I want to know is, Why? It seems to me that even a cursory examination of the stipulated facts regarding Mr. Jackson would give any sensible person considerable pause. I mean, I can seeing pitying a man who lives in a fantasy world and sleeps with young boys to whom he is not related (even innocently), and has obsessively done bizarre things to his own body. But I can’t see how anyone would admire him, or hitch one’s own happiness to his fate.
I’d appreciate any insight that anyone out there has into this phenomenon. If I could understand this, maybe I could understand the whole celebrity culture.
Anyway, before we move on, does anyone have an explanation for me? Preferably, a brief one?
Related Posts
I am completely mystified. I have a friend, a very bright and otherwise sensible young woman, whose entire life has been disrupted. She has been beset by uncontrollable tears that show no signs of abating. To her and many others Jackson was an almost messianic figure rather than a sad and confused product of a horrible childhood. I don’t remember a similar outpouring since the death of John Lennon when at least one person leapt from a bridge and crisis counseling centers had to be set up. It says something rather sad about out society, not only its choice of heroes but in its intensity of devotion.
I, like you, just don’t understand.
Brad, that whole celebrity obsession thing is mysterious to me too, but my guess is it’s something to do with a certain emptiness in people’s lives, and the desire to fill that with a focus on something that connects you to millions of others who have decided to focus on the same thing.
But actually I think Michael Jackson’s death goes beyond that a bit, for various reasons. My first reaction was rather casual, “oh wow, that’s a shame” kind of thing. Then, oddly, I found myself thinking about it, and him, more and more a few days later, wanting to listen again to many of my favorite songs of his, from 1970 Jackson 5 days to the mid-90’s. I found myself feeling a little sadder about it all, to my surprise.
Even though he hadn’t done much artistically in the last 15 years or so, his productive period still spanned (for a popular artist) a huge period of time, 1970-1995 or so. You really have to acknowledge that. So his appeal spanned a wide age range. His music formed part of the soundtrack of a lot of people’s lives, mine included. My memories of 4th through 6th grade in Charlotte during the first three years of court-ordered desegregation, 1970-73, are inextricable from those 45s of the J5 that our black classmates at the formerly all-black school I was bussed to played—it was music that actually bridged the tense gap between the black and white kids at our school.
Other people may be hearing the 1979-84 period in their heads and thinking about what was going on in their lives when that music was so omnipresent.
Also at some level I think a lot of people are identifying with the sadness over seeing those old pictures of that beautiful talented child and thinking what a mess he made of his life in spite of tremendous success and wealth, or perhaps BECAUSE of it. Which then gets folks thinking about how the promise of childhood evaporates with the often sad compromises, defeats, and retreats of adulthood. We learn to cope, to put certain feelings in the back corners of our minds, to function well, and as a result we are able to still find many new sources of happiness—but that pain is still in there somewhere. Jackson, being sort of permanently trapped in childhood and having attained a level of spectacular success so early that was impossible to top, never could make those kinds of adjustments.
Elvis?
John Lennon?
Diana?
I “got” Diana b/c I was living in England when she got engaged and married. She was a few months younger than I. She went from shy to not so much. etc. etc. I related to her. She was beautiful and died young in a tragic and senseless way (as opposed to maybe by illness). I “got” her.
I think you have to be in some one of many demographic slices to “get” these icons.
Joe The Plumber
Sanjaya
Paris Hilton
Kim Kardashian
Susan Boyle
Jon & Kate
Sarah Palin
and on and on and on…
We’re a nation of idiots constantly striving to lower the bar.
But then I remember Tiny Tim getting married on The Tonight Show was also considered “must see TV”. There’s just more access to more and greater stupidity these days.
Doug,
I see you have Sarah Palin on the list. I suggest the following addition:
Mark Sanford
It’s embarassing to me as a resident of the USA. Entertainment news has exploded in the past few years-look at the coverage Anna Nicole received. I am more concerned about what’s going on in Iran & China than the extensive coverage MJ is getting and can’t understand those that don’t really care what is happening outside of Hollywwod.
Ralph,
Sanford’s a smart guy who did something dumb.
I’m still waiting on Palin to doing something that displays intelligence.
Sanford left his kids to visit his mistress. Palin dragged her kids into the national spotlight, including her unmarried pregnant teenage daughter. She put unadulterated ambition over family.
If you want to see the future of America, catch a TV show called “TMZ”. A bunch of stoners, slackers, and poseurs sit around commenting about paparazzi videos while the lawyer who used to be the “legal analyst” on People’s Court stands around acting as the moderator/prophet.
And what will become a milestone in the history of the death of mainstream media, TMZ.COM reported Michael Jackson’s death at least 10 minutes before CNN did… CNN was saying Jackson was in a coma when he was already dead — and was sourcing the LA Times for that “news”.
This psychological need actually needs serious examination. Human beings seem to have a craving for a kind of life narrative to project into. I think it’s something hardwired into the human psyche. We’re “naturally curious,” but that trait might be something psychologically necessary for mental health.
Obsessive celebrity-watching has replaced the role of religion in people’s lives.
Burl, we’re doomed if people need to look to Paris Hilton for a metaphysic explanation for life. Now, having got the snark out, I think you’re probably on to something.
In this case, though, I think it’s the anti-example that many are looking for. I’m no fan of organized religion. However, religious morals and ethics have given us value systems for living our lives in harmony with others despite our hardwired imperative to act and behave according to our own needs and desires. Religion has given us limits and boundaries within which we should live our lives.
The “cult of celebrity”, on the other hand, provides people with an ethic that absolves them of any guilt for their own personal actions. The people, who look to celebs for example and meaning, are the same people who desire to wash their hands of personal responsibility. They cede their power as humans to others who promise to take care of all the details, others who will show and dictate how the people should live.
The “cult of celebrity” eliminates all limits and boundaries in our social interaction and personal lives. If anything goes, then we have no responsibilities and are not accountable for the consequences of our actions. The followers of this “cult” believe that they have passed the responsibility for how they live along with the power for decision and can therefore live guilt-free for anything they do.
Unfortunately, these people don’t understand the enduring truth that while you can delegate or cede power and authority, you can never give up responsibility. Just because Hollywood and Washington will take you human power doesn’t mean that you are absolved of the responsibility for how you live your life. Nor, for that matter, are you absolved of the responsibility for how those you give your human power to use it.
Michael Jackson’s Never Land Ranch was aptly named.
The madness of crowds, delusion and worship of media creations – the same mentality that elected Hussein Obama.
Since we’re on the topic of celebrity worship I’d liked to be the first to say:
Stephen Colbert for SC Governor in 2010!
Actually the first person ever to mention the “Madness of Crowds” to me was Mark Sanford. He said it as we were standing next to each other at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. Bush was delivering his acceptance speech, the Republicans (most of them) were going wild, and Sanford mentioned the book as his way of distancing himself from the hoopla. It was for remarks such as that one that I used to be a supporter of the guy. But you can see how that attitude would make him a pariah in his party…
Oh, and as for Kathryn’s remark about Elvis and John Lennon.
Hey, I’m an Elvis fan. I’ve always been an Elvis fan. My parents have 8mm film of me singing “Hound Dog” at the age of 4 in 1957. Elvis was The King.
But the cult that grew up around him when he died has always mystified me. I lived in Memphis. Elvis was big, but he was also just this guy, you know? He rode his motorcycle around town, and bought Cadillacs for strangers, and sometimes rented out the Memphian movie house for himself and his friends all night, but other than that, he was just this guy.
Then he died, and the weirdness started. I was there, and wrote about it at the time. (In fact, I was one of the first people in the world to hear he was dead.) So don’t tell me about Elvis.
Then, in 1980, John Lennon was killed. I was shocked. I wrote an editorial on the subject for the paper I worked for then. But life went on. I was a grownup. I had a wife and three children. In other words, I had a life. I did not imagine (play on words there) that John Lennon was my friend. I did not go to Central Park and hold up a lighted candle. And I’ve always wondered about the people who did.