happydalek: (Default)
happydalek ([personal profile] happydalek) wrote2009-07-01 01:35 pm
Entry tags:

Yet another Michael Jackson post. (Obsessed? Me? Well, yeah. But only temporarily, I'm sure.)

Check out Jackson's 2007 interview in Ebony magazine.

Dudes, he's like...normal in it.  And shows just how shrewd, intelligent and abso-freaking-lutely brilliant he is/was.  (But whoa are those pics airbrushed!)  Over the past few days, the mass of crazy press about Jackson's final days, what people saw or didn't see, said or didn't say has just been insane, and it mostly just convinces me that most of us totally didn't understand the guy at all. Whether that was due to deliberate misinformation on his part (and he's done that in the past), or the fact that society just doesn't know what to do with people that can't be boxed and labeled except for boxing and labeling them anyway, truth be damned, will probably never be entirely clear.  That's a large part of why he's been so fascinating for so long.  I take the view that the truth is generally somewhere in the middle of the extremes, and it'll be interesting to see what Jackson's identity and legacy finally look like when all the dust has settled.

I have been forming my own theory on exactly what was going on with Jackson's face, too.  I think he definitely fibbed about the amount and types of work he'd had done, but I don't think he had as much work done as most people tend to think.  For example, check out the music video for "Dirty Diana."  (Embedded below.)  This was recorded in 1988 and while his facial structure was certainly exotic and not natural, as the majority of his female fan base will attest, it was still strikingly attractive.  He was also about 30 years old at the time, when his skin was more elastic and plump.  Take this face, add twenty years of aging, remove the plumpness and elasticity, (plus a new chin and maybe a mouth and eye job at some point) and bang, you have the Michael Jackson face of 2009.  Angular bone structures just don't tend to age well, especially when coupled with weight loss.  So yeah. 


Other conclusions I have drawn are:

A) He was not a pedophile.  Not at all.  He genuinely loved children, and was targeted and exploited for it because of his eccentric habits.
B) It seems likely to me that he was gay, or bi and not comfortable about it.  Which is totally understandable.
C) He was an incredible artist with a stage presence that is simply unmatched.  I can't believe it took so long for me to look pass the tabloids and see the talent. 

lumos: (Default)

[community profile] lumos 2009-07-01 07:16 pm (UTC)(link)
I read an article earlier that Lisa Marie did an interview for several years ago, and in it she talks about how surprised she was to learn how much of MJ's public persona was basically an act. She said he didn't even naturally talk in the higher-pitched voice and stuff. For some reason it never even entered my fool brain that it could all be an act. Which is, apparently, what he really wanted. But I think that perceived weirdness made people more apt to believe the child molestation charges.

I never once doubted in my life that he committed those crimes, until now. He was never actually convicted, meaning there was not enough evidence, and the parents of the kids were more than happy to go away after a fat payout. Is the adequate response to your child being molested to accept some money and let the perpetrator go unpunished?

All that notwithstanding, I think he did still have some hangups from his youth. He never had a normal childhood, and his dad was an abusive jerk, so I think that plus the isolation he's always felt kept him a bit obsessed with being and acting young, hence identifying with kids so much. But it's obvious he loved and revered children, and not in a perverted way. At least, it seems obvious *now.*

It's too bad it took his death for all of us to finally realize these things.