Michael Jackson: Grasping the Spectacle - Chris Smit (ch. 3, 4, 5)

1. Name of author, name of essay/chapter reporting on:

Christopher Smit, Michael Jackson: Grasping the Spectacle, chapters 3, 4, 5

2. Your articulation of their thesis:

Chapter 3 talks about the way Michael queered (or bent the accepted norms regarding) different things: age (with his lifelong passion for Peter Pan, leading to his construction of Neverland Ranch and his many cosmetic surgeries), gender (with his androgynous clothing choices and, again, cosmetic surgery), race (with his shift from black to, if not white, then at least not-black), and sleep/dreaming (with the way he did all of his work at night, had acute insomnia, and wanted to make his audience be unable to sleep after seeing him perform).

            Chapter 4 discusses the issues that Michael faced as a black man in a white-dominated world and the lack of a real  sense of “self” because of this. He was torn between trying to fit into a very white world and trying not to “betray” his African-American roots and the accusations from critics that he wasn’t “black enough.” He ended up almost raceless, somewhere halfway between black and white, with such an ambiguous race that it was qualified as inhuman – without a box to put him into, he lost his appeal to both white audiences and  black ones. He couldn’t pass for white because of his underlying “blackness” – no matter the color of his skin, he couldn’t assimilate into the culture, so he ended up rejecting race altogether.

            Chapter 5 focuses on the duality of the images projected by many celebrities, especially Michael: the good and the bad, the art and the person, the victim and the hero. The stars sell each part of themselves equally, and fans become invested with the same duality – they become equally invested in the star’s failures and successes, consuming each with the same voracity. Either unconsciously or purposefully, Michael inserts this split into his art and his performances, with contradictions in his music and movies. He attempts to sell himself as a good person, fearing judgment and rejection, leading to a split – his fans want the good person, but they also see the bad aspects because of his desperation to cover them so thoroughly.

3. At least three links or images that illustrate the ideas of the article:

1. Chapter 3 described (among other things) Michael’s genderqueering through his body type, multiple cosmetic surgeries, and androgenous clothing choices. Everything that the author discussed reminded me strongly of Lady Gaga and the way she opposes social norms for the female gender – she wears outrageous clothing often (her infamous meat-dress being just one example), and has no problem queering gender norms in other ways, such as dressing up as a man for the MTV Video Music Awards.

2. The discussion of race in chapter 5 reminded me strongly of Barack Obama’s struggle with the black community in his 2008 race for president, as portrayed in the movie By the People. Obama struggled with convincing the black population of the United States that he was truly an African-American – that he was “black enough,” and that he would advocate for their benefit. Michael underwent the same type of thing – the black community rejected him for being too white, while the white community did the same for being too black.

3. In chapter 5, the author describes a split in the attitude of fans toward celebrities; on one hand, they want the star to have fame, be successful, and achieve happiness, but on the other, they want to be spectators on the sideline of their crashing, burning failure. To me, the reality TV show Wipeout is the perfect example of this: we’re rooting for the different, quirky, odd contestants to win against the obstacles and the gamemakers, but on the other hand, we love watching them plunge into the muddy water below the obstacle structures!

4. At least two discussion questions that will help your reader develop the ideas of the article:

1. The author of chapter 3 concludes that one cannot be fully queer in today’s world – to do so makes one otherworldly. What does it mean to be utterly, completely queer – does one simply not fill any expected roles in any areas of one’s life? Do you think Michael Jackson achieved ultimate queerness?

2. Why do we need people to fit so nicely into “boxes” (black, white, heterosexual, homosexual, male, female, etc.)? / Why are we so uncomfortable when we can’t fit them into one? (Is it because we lose our ability to relate to them? How can this be, when a person is so much more than their individual parts?)