Blogcritics: Comments on Jackson and Spector: Pathologies Bred In Isolation

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:17:08 EST

This topic isn't about the musical offerings of Michael Jackson. If that were the topic, this site's contributors could talk longer, more accurately and passionately about his contributions to music than any one human would ever want to read. The point of this article was to discuss the legal situation he is in right now. It is about coming up with a different opinion based on some factors. In this case Eric made an unlikely connection between two different people. It's called thinking critically. If we all just sat around here and waited for the facts to be decided and avoided any controversial opinions, we wouldn't have anything to talk about. You start that site. I don't want to visit.

Comment by kristoffe brodeu

Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:02:35 EST

So seemingly obvious, suddenly Eric is now a pathologist and an English major...not. Blog complaint #1, you are now insulted and you are yapping about how it's not normal to wear a costume back from a set, which MANY people do. Disfigurement, hehe, interesting, how you waste your time talking about Michael Jackson's problems and not his positive moments. Well, even angry pseudo intellectuals like yourself have to look at yourself in the mirror and the assesment is this, focus on your own shortcomings, I'm sure you would have a hard time comparing yourself to what Michael Jackson has done for the world, and for many individuals. Have a better life and try to remember you're not in an Unreal Tournament game, don't be so busy to play smarter than, if you were ready to positively analyze you might have more fruit from your 'harvest'.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:44:53 EST

And you can whine about it in a frightfully naive way.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:41:11 EST

What amazes me is how far some people are willing to go to ignore what is SO FREAKING OBVIOUS to the rest of the world. I didn't say Michael going home in costume was wildly freakish or bizarre or dangerous - I said it might be a very telling first sign that he was veering down a different path, the path that has led to where he is now. Lots of performers become caught up in roles, but few go to the lengths Jackson has to turn themselves into such a character. So, Kristoffe, who eschews paragraphs, you can choose to ignore all the signs of pathology, the obsessive behavior with children and childhood, the addiction to disfigurement, the grotesque irresponsibility of hanging a baby over a balcony, and the like, but I will choose to look at these patterns and try to come to some conclusions on where they came from and why.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:26:15 EST

Nobody is forgetting the nice things that Michael Jackson has done and whether Eric understands the idea of character acting (I am pretty certain he does) I understand it. It's about internalizing a character like Jim Carrey reportedly did with Man on the Moon when he acted like Andy Kauffman and Kauffman's various alter egos off-camera. There is something different about Michael Jackson in a heavily made up role like a scarecrow in a musical remake of a children's movie. That doesn't strike you as odd? That's just a normal part of character acting? Do you think most actors who are playing characters who have to wear cumbersome and heavy makeup leave set in their costumes? Did Schwarzenegger go home from the Batman set as Dr. Freeze? Did Robert Englund go home from the set as Freddy Krueger? How about Jim Carrey as the Grinch? How about Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca? I don't know what straw you are grasping for, but going around dressed as the Scarecrow is MORE THAN LIKELY never a normal thing to do.

Comment by Kristoffe Brodeur

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:07:51 EST

I came to this blog site from www.msnbc.com where a blogger here states and was captioned remarking that during "The Wiz" Michael Jackson went home in the scarecwrow outfit he wore on set. So, in 1978, this is a sign of his 'strangeness', which seems extremely blinded in the view of a performance artist. Many people, myself included, wear our costumes off set because it is fun to give something to friends to react to. Sometimes walking around in a character can make you fit better the next day in the piece you are playing, its a rough version of 'method acting'. I presume the writer knows nothing of character acting, and has taken truth from the strangeness of Michael Jackson and was reaching for threads to create a definite start and finish of MJ. This is known as noise, like the random chaotic static you see on a television screen while viewing a broadcast. THere is the clarity obscured by falseness of particle noise, which in my opinion is what this person has done. Incorrectly written something roughly slanderous about MJ because he cannot understand why someone would do something as fun and innocent as wear a cool exciting costume back home because they are elated to be in a large musical production. The Wizard of Oz, an Afrocentric version, how cool is that, in 1978 no less, the apex of performance art film before its descent no more than 5 years later. The sprawl of opinion that is woven past that caption and assumption on a highly read site is one particle of so much contorted logic which creates the vacuous noise drawing humans away from accuracy in their investigations. Too many times this is a common occurence and comes in the guise of witchhunting, red scares, misinterpretation of goodness and kindness, albeit propotional per societial manifestation. Simply put, a few ignrant words from a hater or pseudo-elitist can ruin the charm of a kind and what seems to be innocent artist. One last thought, remember LiveAid, and the people all over the world that MJ has helped over the decades. Don't rely on noticing his halloween appearance, and don't forget 99% of hollywood and anyone in media wears as much makeup and has as many surgeries as he does, it just looks a little different when you focus on it.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:54:54 EST

Not all. I kick my own ass just fine, thanks, and regularly. And lord knows, no one kisses it.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:52:21 EST

excellent point Chris, isolation can be dangerous and being surrounded by nothing but lickspittles doesn't help much, either.

Comment by Chris

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:59:27 EST

Get to the other end of the economic spectrum and you end up with the same type of people: the fabeled mountain men. I actually know of a few guys who really do live alone, and poor, in a cabin deep in the woods. And, they are crazy. Not bad crazy, just crazy from the isolation. Rich, Poor, or In Between, what Eric points out is we all need someone in our lives, as Bono told Sarejevo: not to kiss our ass, but kick it.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:49:17 EST

They are of course very different individuals, but I think their pathologies were fostered under similar circumstances.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:36:50 EST

The two guys are also very different too now that I think about it. Jackson has been consistently in the spotlight and never really dropped out of our view completely, where Spector has really been out of the public eye for at least the last decade, right?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:32:29 EST

I am fairly confident of my diagnosis as to how and why this happened, but i agree what should happen, apart from legality, is a diffferent matter.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:31:34 EST

We -- and I include media -- ought to be more careful about making fun of people. Imagine walking through this life with people calling you "wacko Jacko" or "skank." (Mea culpa, Christina. I apologize.) I'm called delusional all the time because of the way I live my life, and that hurts -- and I am not famous in any way. Imagine the plight of "stars": Perhaps that is why Ms. Aguilera is lashing out at her peers. Perhaps that fuels the intensifying and increasing isolation of folks like Mssrs. Jackson and Spector and helps drive them to situations wherein dangerous allegations arise. There is nothing wrong with being a loner or forging one's own path. But when people are vilified publicly and on a wide scale for doing so, who knows what the results can be? Why does my mind float to the Columbine kids? Smaller scale, yes, but massively dangerous outcome. I'm just thinking "out loud" here... Lots to consider.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:22:51 EST

I don't think we should tell people how to act either, but I think it is also fair to point out what could possibly happen to people when they create a world around them pretty much without anyone's rules but their own. The isolation that these guys have put themselves in with their compounds and large bank accounts has made it possible for them to not have to deal with a lot of different people and issues that are in our society. It is interesting that in these two separate cases that if these two guys are guilty that maybe it is a result of their consistent subtraction of reality from their surroundings. One guy maybe took on the task of becoming the "mad genius" label he had been given and the other proclaimed himself the "King of Pop" and then falsely accepted the artist of the millenium award at last year's MTV Music Awards. It sure sounds like some serious delusional side-effects as a result of reclusiveness. It's all speculation, but it is somewhat logical in my mind.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:10:01 EST

Good point about changing skin color, many of us do it - I guess it seems a lot more extreme from the inside out. I understand the reaction the normative demands of the media, including me. We are never afraid to tell people how they should act. There are a few different issues here: anyone is allowed to give an opinion on how people should best live their lives - as long as there is no attempt to enforce these suggestions, that is fine, everyone is allowed to express opinions, even normative opinions. But it is a different matter when these "suggestions" are enforced, either by law or by strong social action. I agree we need to be very careful and circumspect about where and how we choose to enforce these norms.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:03:07 EST

The article is quite good, Eric, as always. I just have trouble with the message that seeps through everything surrounding coverage of Jackson, and now Spector: Conform or else. Be "normal." Don't climb trees. Act like everyone else. Be what we tell you to be, do what we tell you to do, define yourself as we insist. It all gets on my nerves and always has. As for changing one's color, what's with bronzers and tanning salons and makeup? And why is painting one's face makeup strange if one has a Y chromosome and practically mandated for those with XX chromosomes? Society ought to, ahem, make up its mind.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:50:42 EST

Okay then, you tall pacifist.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:48:01 EST

Well, as I said, aside from the physical mutilation. That I find a sad indictment of society. If people hadn't remarked on his change in appearance, it would not have been an issue. Michael is not responsible for others' reactions, only for his own behavior. I wish he had made friends with psychiatrists rather than plastic surgeons -- and also, I believe the vitiligo explanation may have some truth to it. In any case, the whole thing just underscores for me how fucked up society is and how stupid the concept of "race" is. Oh -- and how stupid Jermaine Jackson is.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:42:06 EST

Nat, he was an "eccentric loner" 20 years ago, no problem there, but now he is something else entirely. And doesn't purposely changing one's skin color - in its startling extremity - in fact emphasize race, unlike say, you, who simply refuses to be defined by it?

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:38:08 EST

Rather -- both Jackson and Spector. Hit send before excising the "of" that originally was part of "both of them."

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:36:44 EST

Right. He should stay with a group solely because society says so. The physical mutilation and alleged kiddie-diddling aside, I am with him for being who he wants to be rather than what people tell him to be. But pooh on both of Jackson and Spector for giving isolation a bad name. Being a loner does not mean being sociopathic.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:30:02 EST

Thanks Craig! In the specific case of Jackson, race is only a factor to the extent that he has running screaming from his own.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:24:55 EST

Excellent exploration, Eric. I think this also would be an excellent argument for some of the racial issues that have been brought up in relation to the Michael Jackson case. While I would never say that the justice system is racially sensitive, in the MJ case we are quick to fry him because he has proven to be such a strange figure over a long time period, not because he is of color. I don't think anyone feels comfortable with how the last episode ended with a large sum of money and a young boy and his family refusing to testify.