ReportWire

Tag: celebrity-industrial complex

  • In The Wake the Lizzo Debacle, One Is Reminded That Madonna’s Own Behavior Toward Her Dancers Might Not Have Sat So Well With People Today

    In The Wake the Lizzo Debacle, One Is Reminded That Madonna’s Own Behavior Toward Her Dancers Might Not Have Sat So Well With People Today

    [ad_1]

    As Lizzo has gone expectedly silent amid a climate that doesn’t take so kindly to emotional abuse anymore, one can’t help but think back to a time when it was easier to “get away with” being both a bit bawdy and “bullying” with their dancers. For example, no one was about to cry “sexual harassment lawsuit” or “failure to prevent and/or remedy hostile work environment” in 1990, the year Madonna spent touring the world with her coterie of hand-picked gay male dancers. Many of whom contributed to making the subsequent Truth or Dare documentary as entertaining and eye-opening as it was. Indeed, they tended to feel the same way. Which is why select members of the troupe did decide to sue her after the film’s release. Those members being Kevin Stea, Gabriel Trupin and Oliver Crumes. 

    Funnily enough, it was also three dancers (Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez) from Lizzo’s The Special Tour who decided not to take any further abuse from the erstwhile Svengali formerly pulling the strings. In Stea, Trupin and Crumes’ scenario, the affront came when they realized the extent to which they and their personal lives were paraded in Truth or Dare. With the lawsuit also filed in California, the dancers cited the emotional detriment of Madonna featuring scenes in which the dancers “discuss[ed] intimate facts about their personal life not previously known to the public.” Chief among them, the fact that Kevin and Gabriel were gay, and did not necessarily want that information to be so public at a time of peak homophobia in the U.S. Of course, Madonna would likely insist that she did them and the world a favor by committing something akin to “immersion therapy.” Getting viewers accustomed to seeing more gay men onscreen, as well as forcing Kevin and Gabriel to be “open” about who they were, etc. Where was the “harm” in that (apart from to the eyes of Republicans “hate watching” the documentary)? 

    What’s more, this height of Madonna’s career (so oversaturated that she eventually quipped that she only ever felt overexposed at the gynecologist’s) did not exist at a time when “consent” was such “a thing.” Not sexually or otherwise. And, to that end, it does bear noting that Truth or Dare was produced by Harvey Weinstein’s Miramax Films, therefore it was also named in the suit against Madonna and her company, Boy Toy Inc., as well as Propaganda Films (co-founded by “Madonna music video director,” David Fincher). 

    The lawsuit itself arose at the beginning of 1992, which was evidently already establishing itself as a tumultuous year for Madonna. And yet, the dancers weren’t about to, well, dance around the issue at hand. While Stea and Crumes were more concerned about rightful compensation for their images being used, Trupin was most harmed by the personal life damage it did, stating that he had to undergo therapy afterward because it “exposed him to contempt and ridicule.” Just as Lizzo’s own dancers are at this moment in time by those who refuse to believe their “god” could do any wrong. And they, too, are being asked, “How could you?” Not just by Lizzo fans, but Lizzo herself, who claims to have been “blindsided” by the dancers’ complaints. Even though said dancers stated that multiple attempts were made to get Lizzo’s attention re: the severity of the matter, and the lawsuit was the last-ditch effort to do so. In which case, mission accomplished. 

    With Madonna, the relationship with her dancers was a bit different. Not just because they were gay men who themselves thrived on sexual energy coursing through their veins the way Madonna did (and still does), but because Madonna “cultivating” them for her tour was considered more groundbreaking in that period due to their sexual orientation. While some (including Lizzo herself) would point out that Lizzo hiring “fat” dancers is also groundbreaking, it doesn’t hold the same political gravity as what Madonna was doing in 1990, and at an apex of the AIDS epidemic no less. And so, with this in mind, the dancers were likely “just grateful” to be considered for such a major world tour at all. In fact, their presence in Truth or Dare was one of the first mainstream instances of homosexuality displayed onscreen, prompting many men to come out afterward. 

    Nonetheless, that wasn’t “enough” to keep Madonna’s trio of dancers from speaking up about their violation of privacy. With Trupin’s experience being that “director Alek Keshishian told him he could delete any footage he believed was an invasion of privacy, and says that when he asked that the scene in which he kisses the other dancer [“Slam”] be removed from the completed film, Madonna shouted, ‘Get over it, I don’t care!’” Something, of course, that Lizzo would never be free to say today. Though we all know she wants to. Because the thing about major celebrities hiring “backup” is that they become mere brushstrokes in the painting of the “star” herself. Who wants the painting to look a certain way without considering the, shall we say, painstaking strokes it takes to make it look that way. 

    We may never know if the dancers of Truth or Dare were genuinely “okay” with Madonna’s sexually charged presence both onstage and off (see: the Evian bottle scene) during the Blond Ambition Tour, or merely responding to it “positively” because they were a product of the time they lived in. When you really were expected, especially as a dancer, to just be grateful to have work with such a big star, and one who paid so well. Plus, as Madonna was sure to point out, most of the dancers had never been given the chance to “see the world” as the Blond Ambition Tour was about to enable them to. Something that Madonna felt proud of in terms of her ability to “give that” to them, which, in turn, allowed for effortless emotional manipulation. Manifest in the more than somewhat problematic voiceover of Madonna saying, “The innocence of the dancers move me. They’re not jaded in the least. They haven’t been anywhere. This was the opportunity of their lives. And I know that they’ve suffered a great deal in their lives, whether with their families or just being poor or whatever. And I wanted to give them the thrill of their lives. I wanted to impress them. I wanted to love them.”

    Taking in such scenes and presentations as this prompted bell hooks to write, “Given the rampant homophobia in this society and the concomitant heterosexist voyeuristic obsession with gay lifestyles, to what extent does Madonna progressively seek to challenge this if she insists on primarily representing gays as in some way emotionally handicapped or defective? Or when Madonna responds to the critique that she exploits gay men by cavalierly stating: ‘What does exploitation mean?… In a revolution, some people have to get hurt. To get people to change, you have to turn the table over. Some dishes get broken.’”

    It was obvious that, more than viewing her dancers as “dishes” to be (further) broken, she saw them as her little dolls. To play with and “position” as she wanted. All while assuming that the dancers would be ecstatic merely for the privilege of being around her. And for a time, they were. To boot, every dancer has ostensibly “made peace” with what happened, with Madonna even joined onstage by Jose Xtravaganza for her Finally Enough Love Pride event in June of 2022. The dancers also “expressed themselves” regarding the Blond Ambition Tour via their own 2016 documentary, Strike A Pose. So who knows? Maybe Lizzo’s dancers will one day make their “catharsis doc” as well, and could even end up saying they harbor no ill will toward the self-proclaimed “Big Girl.” Who, in a similar fashion to Madonna, expected nothing but gratitude.

    In that spirit, Lizzo was reported as saying something to the effect of, “You know dancers get fired for gaining weight; you should basically be grateful to be here.” Where once (including in 1990) this “logic” might have gone largely unquestioned, it’s becoming less and less acceptable to put up with abuse just because someone is a “major pop culture fixture.” In other words, celebrity/pop icon privilege is slowly but surely starting to unravel. And one tends to believe that the recent barrage of onstage attacks has something to do with that. Not just because fans feel entitled to a “piece” of the celeb or want to create a viral moment with them, but because they no longer seem to believe a celebrity is an “untouchable creature.” Wanting to prove that point by more literally knocking them off their pedestal. 

    The modern genesis of this may very well have started with what Madonna’s dancers did. In J. Randy Taraborrelli’s Madonna: An Intimate Biography, the revelation about the trio suing her is described as follows: “Madonna was angry about the suit. ‘Those ingrates,’ she said to one colleague. ‘To think that I made them who they are, then they treat me like this.’” A line that reeks of Norma Desmond-level delivery. Taraborrelli added, “Shortly after the suit was filed, Madonna happened upon Oliver Crumes at a party. ‘If you want money,’ she told him, her tone arctic, ‘why don’t you sell that Cartier watch I bought for you?’” Everything about this exchange (whether “lore” or not) exhibits what’s wrong with how celebrities view the people in their employ. 

    Regardless, some can still only see it from the celebrity’s side, with Keshishian defending Madonna back then by saying, “…it was extortion, in my mind. They’d signed the releases and it wasn’t as if we were filming it in secret. The cameras were there all the time. They did the interviews. What did they think was being filmed—a home movie!? I didn’t respect that. I felt bad for Madonna because she really did love those kids and they turned around and did that. That’s why celebrities grow more and more weary of getting close to anybody.”

    By the same token, that’s why people in the arts grow weary of working with celebrities: the expectation that they can be treated “lesser than” just because they’re working for some post-modern equivalent of a deity. Even so, there’s no denying that the current trio of dancers’ lawsuit against Lizzo is a harbinger of change. A warning to other singer-industrial complexes that what might have eked by largely unpublicized (with Madonna eventually settling out of court), therefore unchecked, is not going to anymore.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Not Commenting on People’s Bodies Would Eradicate Way Too Many Industries: Why the Ariana Grande Body Shaming Speech Is Ultimately Hollow

    Not Commenting on People’s Bodies Would Eradicate Way Too Many Industries: Why the Ariana Grande Body Shaming Speech Is Ultimately Hollow

    [ad_1]

    To exist is, unfortunately, to be perceived. And, in this world, there’s no shortage of people who would like to comment on their perception of you. Being a celebrity takes that phenomenon to an nth degree that no civilian can likely imagine. However, it is (and long has been) considered part and parcel of “the fame game.” For if a person wants to be in the public eye for the sake of disseminating whatever their talent is to the masses, the inevitable fallout is the curse of public opinion. Not everyone is going to “love” you or automatically embrace everything about you, least of all when it comes to appearance.

    Lately, the frequent criticism of fans themselves is that they are not “real” fans if they deign to condemn anything about their so-called god. That’s where the modern fandom-fame dynamic has gone terribly askew. For the die-hard fans (of a Swarm variety) are of the belief that no “ill word” should ever be spoken of the “deity” they worship. This extends to fault-finding of any kind—read: straightforward perceptions of the body. Remarking on if a celebrity has lost or gained weight is at the top of the list (as Britney once put it, “I’m Mrs. She’s Too Big Now She’s Too Thin”). This includes Grande’s increasingly “heroin chic” look. And yes, she was already objectively thin to begin with. Such “objectivity,” however, is something that Grande wants people to feel “less comfortable” commenting on, even if it’s coming from a “well-intentioned” place. Which it was, as what prompted Grande to release a video chastising this form of body shaming in the first place was the barrage of comments that came in the wake of her cameo at Ronnie Scott’s Jazz Club in London, where she and Cynthia Erivo went to see their fellow Wicked co-star, Jeff Goldblum (who will be, of all things, the Wizard of Oz), play the piano. Alas, all eyes were focused on her ever-diminishing body shape rather than the music.

    A similar incident occurred in May of 2005, when Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan (then in greater cahoots perhaps because of a shared mutual contempt for Paris Hilton) were photographed looking utterly anorexic as they swam in their floor-length dresses with arms that mirrored those of a starving African child. Cue the onslaught of tabloid headlines. While Richie would later state that her weight loss was a result of stress and anxiety rather than any eating disorder, she still admitted of her 00s self, “I see a girl that is obviously going through something and is much too skinny [and probably on drugs, went the unspoken conclusion].” Lohan, in turn, copped to battling with bulimia (and drug addiction) around this time. Both women had no issue in discussing their bodies or addressing people’s continued concerns about the message their shared (lack of) figure was sending. At the height of tabloid “culture,” maybe it was too “normalized” to be okay with dissecting headlines that dissected one’s body. But, at the same time, Lohan and Richie were in on the joke. And relished the then-revered “skinny bitch” physique. So much so that Lohan even wore a shirt that said “Skinny Bitch” and Richie threw a Memorial Day barbeque that barred guests over a hundred pounds (“There will be a scale at the front door. No girls over 100 pounds allowed in. Start starving yourself now”). Such acts would invoke immediate cancellation in the present, to be sure.

    Left: Lohan lapping up her skinny bitch era before it really happened on the right, with Nicole Richie

    Perhaps because Grande is, in her own way, an honorary member of Gen Z (as a result of her vocal advocacy for mental health), she’s drunk from that Kool-Aid for too long to remember what she truly is: a millennial. Of the Lohan and Richie generation, even if slightly younger than they are. This forming the weird chasm to become part of a microgeneration (something that never needed to exist before everything and “trend” started to accelerate at such a rapid speed due to waning attention spans spurred by the internet). And Lohan and Richie know better than anyone that trying to steer the public away from their opinions is fruitless. If anything, it makes them cling to those “freedom of speech” rights all the more.

    But what’s most glaring about Grande’s “earnest plea” is that she’s trying to tell a society that traffics in the financial profits of various forms of body shaming (including, at the top of the list, beauty products) that they should no longer be so critical. The thought of such an amendment to human (nay, consumer) behavior actually occurring is not only absurd, but entirely far-fetched. Especially within the celebrity-industrial complex that Grande operates within. Not to mention Selena Gomez, another recent victim of the body shaming discourse that led to her own clapback at “fans” (again, as they’re so derisively put in quotation marks when they speak ill of their god) the same way Grande did on TikTok Live. Establishing the blueprint for Grande, Gomez declared, “I just wanted to say and encourage anyone out there who feels any sort of shame for exactly what [you’re] going through, [when] nobody knows the real story… you’re beautiful and you’re wonderful.” Grande echoed the same sentiments with, “You never know what someone is going through. So even if you are coming from a loving place and a caring place, that person is probably working on it. Or has a support system that they are working on it with and…you never know. So be gentle with each other.” She added, “I just wanted to extend some love your way and tell you that you’re beautiful no matter what phase you’re in…no matter what you’re going through, no matter what weight…no matter how you like to do your makeup these days, no matter what cosmetic procedures you’ve had or not…I just think you’re beautiful.” Of course, that’s easy to say when you can’t actually see who you’re talking to.

    As for the specific mention of makeup, it bears noting that both Ariana Grande and Selena Gomez make a large chunk of their profits off that industry via their R.E.M. and Rare Beauty lines, respectively. Whatever the makeup is being marketed as (“inclusive,” “natural,” etc.), it’s still ultimately designed to be used as a tool to mask one’s “authentic” self. For if that’s truly what we all wanted to be, makeup wouldn’t be a billion-dollar industry. Or plastic surgery. Or fashion, for that matter. And, speaking of, Grande is “the face” of one of the most elitist names in haute couture, Givenchy. Also a brand that has long worshipped at the altar of Audrey Hepburn-level thinness (spoiler alert: Hepburn got that thin by being malnourished as a child during World War II). Indeed, Grande is meant to be some sort of “2.0” version of Hepburn’s waif-based poise and elegance. But no, she insists, we should not comment on bodies—even as she proceeds to make much of her bag on the discourse that surrounds them. This, too, cuts straight to the issue that no one’s addressing (least of all a celebrity): capitalism.

    The only reason to comment on bodies and create a “narrative” centered on what’s “hot” and “not” in that “realm” (e.g., Kim Kardashian’s physique usurping the rail-thin one of Paris Hilton’s after the 00s) is because it’s profitable to multiple industries. And it’s not just limited to beauty and fashion. It creates a ripple effect in every facet of purchasable existence—from foods consumed to exercise habits that can be paid for. And it’s something every celebrity benefits from financially. Even the much-exalted Lizzo, who has also entered the chat again as a result of Grande’s video, with people bringing up her own anti-body shaming tirade from January of this year in which she announces, “The discourse around bodies is officially tired.” “Tired” or not, it’s still a source of major income to many involved in the fame racket. And even selling “body positivity” is a part of that. The weaponization of language (such as censoring people from stating the obvious in a way that makes them feel fearful to speak at all), of course, is one of the first steps in fully activating 1984. Yet our society is bifurcating into a separate territory from that Orwellian nightmare as well, one in which the jettisoning of the body seems to be related to the increasing reliance on “uploading consciousness” (as Grimes said, “Come on you’re not even alive/If you’re not backed up on a drive”).

    In a Nightline special addressing Gomez’s defense of her body, an archival clip of Lizzo being interviewed was included as she said, “We as a society have normalized cruelty to a point where we have internalized cruelty.” Again, does everyone need to be hit over the head with the obvious reason why? C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M. Apparent cuntiness sells. In tabloid-oriented form as much as fashion and makeup form.

    Despite this, an ABC news contributor who appeared on the special, Kelley L. Carter, concluded, “I don’t think people want perfection out of celebrities anymore. I think they want celebrities that they can see themselves in.” Or at least, “the raw material” of themselves. For “fame as a profession” (a.k.a. going viral) has never been more lusted after than it is in the present climate. And if people—“real,” “average-looking” people—can see themselves in a celebrity, then yeah, that’s still a goldmine for the capitalist cause. Which has thrived on body shaming for centuries (see: the below ad as one of countless examples).

    Selling shit by shaming people is an American tradition that won’t be quelled with any hypocritical celebrity pep talks

    All of this talk about “not commenting on celebrity appearance” also plays into the idea that it isn’t safe to say anything anymore, and certainly not to call a spade a spade (i.e., a fat person fat or a thin person thin). At least, in U.S. culture. But imagine telling a culture as hyper-critical and in-your-face as the Italians to keep their comments to themselves. To that end, it was Stefano Gabbana who outright called Gomez “brutta” in 2018. This leading to another conversation about why he should be lambasted for expressing an opinion since, as it is said (often falsely when it comes to selling fashion through models), “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

    Whatever “effect” Grande’s video might have inflicted for a brief twenty-four-hour period in the news cycle, it’s not likely to shift the bottom line: if celebrities truly want to stop the “body shaming” they’re faced with, then the only thing to do is 1) use their fortune to go back in time and not become famous or 2) retreat into the “wilderness” like J. D. Salinger. Or better yet, renounce capitalism to be a truly commendable role model. As both Grande and Gomez have been branded for their stance against shaming…never acknowledging that all shame stems from our collective commitment to prostitution.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link