ReportWire

Tag: Madonna controversy

  • Madonna and the Wheelchair Debacle

    Madonna and the Wheelchair Debacle

    [ad_1]

    While many things unrelated to the remarkable nature of the tour itself have made headlines (including a certain tumble in Seattle) since Madonna kicked off The Celebration Tour in London back in October of ‘23, one of the least likely to be foreseen on the proverbial bingo card was wheelchair-shaming by none other than Madonna herself. Unintended of course. But it nonetheless still made for some cringeworthy content. During which Madonna, upon approaching the audience to get a closer look at who dared not to stand up when she told them to, made the quick apology, “Politically incorrect. Sorry about that.” Ironically, though, Madonna has made her entire career out of being politically incorrect—perhaps only now coming to realize that it no longer works as effectively in the rigid, faux-woke climate of the present. 

    The foray into needlessly putting a spotlight on an audience member using a wheelchair started “innocently” enough as she shouted to the Los Angeles crowd, “…take this ride with me! What are you doing sitting down over there? I—what are you doing sitting down?” Appearing genuinely affronted by the perceived “lack of enthusiasm” where most performers might have left it alone, Madonna, ever the “pushy broad” she’s known for being, kept pursuing the matter, subsequently taking her mic off the stand so she could walk to the edge of the stage and better berate the person. 

    Alas, upon closer examination—and as the crowd cheered her on for her beratement (themselves not knowing the whole story either)—she saw the reason why the person “chose” to remain seated, immediately reacting with, “Oh. Okay.” She then added, in something resembling a Valley Girl accent (it was, after all, at one of her L.A. performances), “Politically incorrect. Sorry about that.” She quickly followed that up with the insistence, “I’m glad you’re here.” Which somehow came across as more demoralizing than welcoming, as though calling out the fact that somebody in a wheelchair shouldn’t be able to engage in such “regular person” activities as concert-going. Not “shouldn’t” from, like, a “societally shunned” perspective, but “shouldn’t” from a “oh it must be so hard for you to get by at all” perspective. Something that not only invokes the kind of pity Madonna herself would abhor, but also fails to take into account that California—the milieu where she was performing—is among the most accommodating states for people with a physical disability (with San Francisco and L.A. topping the list of the most wheelchair-friendly cities in the United States). However, considering that Madonna is still of an era when it was acceptable to say “handicapped” and managed to fall into the trap of being the very thing she once accused Lady Gaga of being (“reductive”) by calling Californians at the March 9th show, “You flip-flop, short-wearin’ motherfuckers!,” perhaps her view of the physically disabled is still entrenched in the past. Hence, her surprise at seeing someone of the kind at her show. 

    Funnily enough, it was also during the March 9th date at the Kia Forum that Madonna mentioned the importance of having an avatar, so to speak, of her 1982 “incarnation” onstage with her so as to remind herself what she stood for, and what she has always stood for. This, in theory, is tolerance and acceptance for everyone—making everyone feel as though they belong and are in a “safe space” so long as they’re with her (whether via her music or in person at a live show). Unfortunately, the exact opposite of that was displayed by Madonna in this brief but mortifying (for all involved) exchange.

    And it’s not just  people who use a wheelchair that Madonna might end up making feel uncomfortable with such behavior, but also anyone with the “gall” to enjoy a concert without standing up or screaming/singing along to every word throughout the show. Sometimes, even a select few performers admit to despising this, as it prevents their own ability to sing the songs very well over the din of the crowd (something Lorde went viral for a while back, during an instant when she shushed the audience while trying to sing an a capella version of “Writer in the Dark”). 

    The performer’s argument, though, usually aligns with Madonna’s long-standing spiel about how she feeds off the visible/audible energy of the crowd, hence her contempt for anyone she sees in the audience and instantly clocks as “not having a good time” (these reactions immortalized in Truth or Dare when she tells her manager of the L.A. crowd, “Somebody stuck some big fat man up in the front to give me dirty looks. I swear to God. There was only industry people in the first two rows… They totally bummed me out. They sat there with their arms folded, dirty looks on their faces. I swear to God… It was so distracting and so depressing to me to have two rows of people looking like they weren’t there to have fun”). But what if some people don’t feel that displays of “having a good time” need to mean that you’re screaming or smiling like a goddamn idiot?

    Indeed, that’s one of the worst parts (nay, the worst part) about concert-going for introverts and generally shy people—the pressure to conform to how you’re “supposed to” act at a show (some people will even opt to miss out on seeing their favorite musician precisely because of these warranted phobias). Especially when the very performer putting it on is directly pressuring you to do so. Madonna and the “wheelchair debacle” highlights many important conversations about how to amend the concert-going experience in the future for those who don’t fit into the so-called norm of what’s “right,” or “expected” of someone just because the majority acts a certain way at a show. 

    Interestingly, at the March 5th date, she shaded L.A. once more by remarking, “This is probably too intellectual for a show at the Forum.” But Madonna proved herself to be unwittingly anti-intellectual by making “one size fits all” assumptions about her audience members. This, again, being the very thing her brand has gone against since its inception. Dichotomously, though, Madonna’s music has reached so many people and become so popular over the decades that she herself has become “one size fits all,” the way most juggernaut icons do (e.g., the increasingly problematic yet still pervasive Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson). Perhaps when that happens, it does an icon some good to be rudely awakened by a scenario such as this.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Madonna Takes A Bigger Risk on Dredging Up the Sex Book in the Present

    Madonna Takes A Bigger Risk on Dredging Up the Sex Book in the Present

    [ad_1]

    While it’s nice to see #JusticeForErotica happening after thirty years, Madonna’s decision to dredge up her accompanying project of the day, Sex, proves, perhaps more than anything else, that she might truly believe herself immune to cancel culture. Presumably because of the “carte blanche” that is imagined to come with being amid the last of the living legends. But as a film like Tár recently proved, it doesn’t matter who you are or what you’ve contributed to society—there’s always an occasion to be cancelled.

    As something of the “companion” to the Erotica album, Sex was originally published in October of 1992 by Madonna’s then-new company, Maverick, in collaboration with Warner Bros. and Callaway. And the images and excerpts pulled from it caused even more of a stir than Madonna getting her drag on in the “Erotica” video as a riding crop-toting dominatrix named Dita (an alter ego inspired by actress Dita Parlo). Although her publisher was concerned about unleashing the content—afraid that they had possibly given Madonna too much “free rein” (no riding crop pun intended)—the coffee table book was an immediate success.

    In mere days, it sold over a million copies worldwide (no small feat considering its cumbersome design) and topped The New York Times Best Seller list for three weeks. It all seemed to prove what Madonna wanted to hold up as a funhouse mirror to conservative America (itself the biggest “undercover” batch of pervs) worked like a charm. She would go on to assert in a 1998 episode of Behind the Music (complete with a talking head segment from Harvey Weinstein), “I was really being explicit about my own sexual fantasies, turning my nose up at the whole idea that, you know, women aren’t allowed to be sexual and erotic and provocative and intelligent and thoughtful at the same time.” Yet, that was a bit of a “smokescreen” for a more authentic underlying motive. As for the “fantasies,” Madonna has appeared to execute one of them throughout most of her real life—this being a strong penchant for younger, non-white men. Which she’s displayed with every boy toy since her divorce from Guy Ritchie, from Jesus Luz to Brahim Zaibat to Timor Steffens to Ahlamalik Williams.

    Within the pages of the Sex book itself, this is where she continues to take the greatest risk in the present in terms of having her words used against her in a more crescendoing way than before. Specifically, such assertions as, “One of the best experiences I ever had was with a teenage boy… He was Puerto Rican.” The specification of his ethnicity adding to the notion that this isn’t really “just” a fantasy. For Madonna was known for prowling the Lower East Side in the 80s to pick up underage Puerto Rican boys with her then go-to cohort, Erica Bell.

    In 1998, when Madonna was still in the process of perfecting her “softer” side in the wake of all that bond-age rage, she positioned the Sex book in the same Behind the Music interview as being less a political statement and more an act of rebellion, noting, “It was an act of rage on my part. In the beginning, everyone agreed that I was sexy, but no one agreed that I had any talent. And that really irritated me. And the Sex book was sort of the pinnacle of me challenging people and saying, ‘You know what? I’m gonna be sexually provocative and I’m gonna be ironic and I’m gonna prove that I can get everybody’s attention and that everybody’s gonna be interested in it and still be freaked out by it.” Yet, hadn’t she already done that many times over by 1992? From “Like A Virgin” to “Like A Prayer” to “Justify My Love,” her visuals had consistently been sexually provocative while incorporating an ironic tone. Which is why the excuse she gives for doing it doesn’t quite track. Complete with her assessment, “And it was sort of like my way of saying, ‘See? The world is hypocritical.” But who among any of us is truly immune to a little hypocrisy? Which Madonna engaged in a lot during the early 90s when she grafted much of her work from other, far less famous people (usually BIPOC and/or queer).

    Enter another reason the book is a sore/risky subject to bring into the light again so flagrantly: the salt in wound it might add to someone like Judith Reagan. An editor at Simon & Schuster in 1991, it was Reagan who approached Madonna with the idea for the book. Madonna likely thought what she had in mind was too “staid” and decided to take the bare bones of the project and go to another publisher: Callaway. The entity that would also go on to publish Madonna during her children’s book phase in the 00s. Reagan would later state in one of the few comprehensive biographies of Madonna (written by J. Randy Taraborrelli), “She had obviously taken my concept, my photos and ideas and used it as a proposal to secure a deal with another publisher. I never heard from her, not a word of gratitude, or an apology, or anything. Frankly, I thought it was in poor taste.” But, as is no secret by now, Madonna has never given much of a fuck about “good” taste when it comes to advancing her career.

    Indeed, by essentially admitting, beneath all the posturing about making a political statement, that she wanted the attention, Madonna played right into her long-standing psychological analysis. The one that dictates when a child loses a parent too early, they’re destined to spend the rest of their lives testing boundaries, seeking approval and wanting to be lavished with an amount of adoration that only fame can vaguely fulfill. You know, interminable void-wise.  

    With the reissuing of Sex in conjunction with Yves Saint Laurent curating an exhibit for it at Art Basel, Madonna, once again, appears to be courting the attention she can’t resist, even at such a dangerous time in the history of U.S. witch-hunting. To be sure, the book does continue to push the envelope, even to this day. Unfortunately, its “reboot” comes at a time when the Gatekeepers That Be would prefer that envelope to remain firm in its place—ironically, even more so than in 1992, at a theoretical height of oppression. However, with only eight hundred copies reprinted at a price of almost three thousand dollars, maybe Madonna is actually playing it safe. Re-releasing Body of Evidence, on the other hand… that would be bold.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link