Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums

Madonna for New York Times Mag (Madonna NOT happy)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 457
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

11 hours ago, slam3000 said:

You would just end up with fluffy PR pieces, that would very quickly become tiresome for the reader.

This thread started out with many people praising the article and was only when Madonna posted on Instagram that to some extent, the tide turned.

What's potentially interesting with a celebrity, is reading someone else's take on them and the  place they occupy in pop culture, and that's what the NYT article sought to do.  I still have fond memories of the  Vanity Fair cover profiles in the early 90s - 'White Heat' and 'The Misfit' - neither of which would have existed in the form they appeared if Madonna had had full editorial control.

 

The tide didn’t turn. Her fans have been debating cause, context and consequence in light of Madonna’s response. Naturally as avid consumers and admirers of her work we would all be curious and enthralled to have such a monumental think piece on Madonna from a world-renowned publication. It was a fascinating read, but as many have contributed since their initial synopsis under the influence of the novelty of the scope of the article, there was a subtext to the journalist’s approach that seemed both lacking in focus and somewhat pernicious. 

Personally, I drew parallels with the last Vanity Fair profile Madonna sat for. It seemed that journalist found her evasive and inaccessible, although in revisiting it now it is much more interview-driven in comparison to Vanessa Grigoriadis’ work. What I think has puzzled many of us is why someone would fail to take the opportunity to cull the experience of spending a great deal of time with Madonna to deliver something more insightful, and to instead focus her writing so much upon her personal feelings and inability to find ground for interest if it wasn’t limited to Madonna's relatability. It truly did seem as if she got no more than an hour to sit with her, and so many of the quotes she used were pre-existing.

I agree that there was something extraordinary about those earlier Vanity Fair profiles, and they were not particularly biased in any way. They positioned Madonna as an almost unknowable, deftly self-aware object of fascination, and any objectification mostly stemmed from the analysis of her constantly evolving career.

However, the nature of celebrity has changed so enormously since then. Mystique and myth are not natural qualities for a star to hone in this era, and perhaps that’s what these more contemporary profiles seem to fail to grasp. Madonna is of multiple eras. She may always seek to present herself as contemporary, and we are all acutely familiar with her lack of desire to wax nostalgic in terms of her actual artistry, but one has to approach the task of interviewing her with extreme intelligence and self-confidence, something that Grigoriadis seemed to lack entirely. More irritating still was the fact that she was aware of this, and essentially made this the predominant focus of her article! To give her the benefit of the doubt and establish that maybe her editor chopped a much larger work down to this narrative doesn’t help to defend her either, as it implies she failed massively at accomplishing something distinguished and worthwhile: In terms of the measure of success of celebrity profiles, it is not the journalist’s role to conform to the rigid restrictions of a publicist, but to study, analyze and contextualize their subject in a way that piques the reader’s curiosity and offers him or her unique angles of insight. She may have accomplished the former just because it is Madonna and most Sunday Times readers will be glad to read the piece whether out of thirst for blood or genuine interest. However, the lack of the latter is an utter embarrassment of a misstep, and she should be held to account for that at least...not by Madonna, but by anyone who takes the time to read the profile. It doesn’t negate the value of the article. It just reinforces that expectation is always our worst enemy, and this seems to apply to both Madonna and her fan base. I’m hopeful that An Evening With Graham Norton will offer us more of what we would like in terms of a Madonna fan-centric profiling experience!

Edited by Herfaceremains
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, slam3000 said:

You would just end up with fluffy PR pieces, that would very quickly become tiresome for the reader.

This thread started out with many people praising the article and was only when Madonna posted on Instagram that to some extent, the tide turned.

What's potentially interesting with a celebrity, is reading someone else's take on them and the  place they occupy in pop culture, and that's what the NYT article sought to do.  I still have fond memories of the  Vanity Fair cover profiles in the early 90s - 'White Heat' and 'The Misfit' - neither of which would have existed in the form they appeared if Madonna had had full editorial control.

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madonna gave this rag access to her life and they wrote something she didn’t like. If she didn’t like the story it’s her right to say so. If someone writes something about you, right of reply is very important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gus said:

 

 

BS

What celebrities expect from journalists? They pay them off to begin with, especially the younger generation of them. Except Madonna who has always been averse to this perverse doctoring Payola mechanisms, unlike many of her contemporaries as well I might add

But God forbid she isn't happy with the editorial choices of one particular piece and says so, after she's allowed a stranger into her house

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Herfaceremains said:

The tide didn’t turn. Her fans have been debating cause, context and consequence in light of Madonna’s response. Naturally as avid consumers and admirers of her work we would all be curious and enthralled to have such a monumental think piece on Madonna from a world-renowned publication. It was a fascinating read, but as many have contributed since their initial synopsis under the influence of the novelty of the scope of the article, there was a subtext to the journalist’s approach that seemed both lacking in focus and somewhat pernicious. 

Personally, I drew parallels with the last Vanity Fair profile Madonna sat for. It seemed that journalist found her evasive and inaccessible, although in revisiting it now it is much more interview-driven in comparison to Vanessa Grigoriadis’ work. What I think has puzzled many of us is why someone would fail to take the opportunity to cull the experience of spending a great deal of time with Madonna to deliver something more insightful, and to instead focus her writing so much upon her personal feelings and inability to find ground for interest if it wasn’t limited to Madonna's relatability. It truly did seem as if she got no more than an hour to sit with her, and so many of the quotes she used were pre-existing.

I agree that there was something extraordinary about those earlier Vanity Fair profiles, and they were not particularly biased in any way. They positioned Madonna as an almost unknowable, deftly self-aware object of fascination, and any objectification mostly stemmed from the analysis of her constantly evolving career.

However, the nature of celebrity has changed so enormously since then. Mystique and myth are not natural qualities for a star to hone in this era, and perhaps that’s what these more contemporary profiles seem to fail to grasp. Madonna is of multiple eras. She may always seek to present herself as contemporary, and we are all acutely familiar with her lack of desire to wax nostalgic in terms of her actual artistry, but one has to approach the task of interviewing her with extreme intelligence and self-confidence, something that Grigoriadis seemed to lack entirely. More irritating still was the fact that she was aware of this, and essentially made this the predominant focus of her article! To give her the benefit of the doubt and establish that maybe her editor chopped a much larger work down to this narrative doesn’t help to defend her either, as it implies she failed massively at accomplishing something distinguished and worthwhile: In terms of the measure of success of celebrity profiles, it is not the journalist’s role to conform to the rigid restrictions of a publicist, but to study, analyze and contextualize their subject in a way that piques the reader’s curiosity and offers him or her unique angles of insight. She may have accomplished the former just because it is Madonna and most Sunday Times readers will be glad to read the piece whether out of thirst for blood or genuine interest. However, the lack of the latter is an utter embarrassment of a misstep, and she should be held to account for that at least...not by Madonna, but by anyone who takes the time to read the profile. It doesn’t negate the value of the article. It just reinforces that expectation is always our worst enemy, and this seems to apply to both Madonna and her fan base. I’m hopeful that An Evening With Graham Norton will offer us more of what we would like in terms of a Madonna fan-centric profiling experience!

 

Perfect post

Nailed it completely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never liked this interwiev, from first read. She has every right to be offended and feel violated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     She must have had a bad day and overreacted. A journalist has a right to give her opinion, comments and present things the way she sees. M may be not happy and critisise quality, but that attack was too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mrsz said:

     She must have had a bad day and overreacted. A journalist has a right to give her opinion, comments and present things the way she sees. M may be not happy and critisise quality, but that attack was too much.

Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2019 at 4:34 PM, DreamTheater said:

Please. Establishment media such as NYT and the BBC assume a very PC stance partly to compensate for their total indifference to social issues in the past. The fact that sexual assault cases took so much time to be reported speaks volumes. It's totally ridiculous for them to want to school Madonna on feminism, which is what the writer did. I'm surprised that fans do not see it. Perhaps we are too used to negative articles that a semi-positive piece seems good.

I think this is exactly right. When I first read the article, I was excited because it was long and there were so many interesting details that were revealed about Madonna. However, I still felt the sting of the journalist's backhanded remarks, the tiresome focus on her age and the odd judgement of Madonna from someone who purported to be a feminist. But I said to myself, this is what we get with articles about Madonna. We get a fair amount of juicy details, mixed with all of the usual negative baggage that people project onto Madonna.

I was surprised at Madonna's reaction at first but like @DreamTheater said, I think I was just used to these kinds of negative articles and so I just accepted it as par for the course. Like Madonna said, the patriarchy is deeply woven into the fabric of our society and a great deal of the time, we just accept it. I think it's brave of Madonna to call the journalist out. I'll bet the smug editors at the NYT thought they were getting away with something until she posted her disappointment about it on Instagram.

Edited by Priceless
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Priceless said:

I think this is exactly right. When I first read the article, I was excited because it was long and there were so many interesting details that were revealed about Madonna. However, I still felt the sting of the journalist's backhanded remarks, the tiresome focus on her age and the odd judgement of Madonna from someone who purported to be a feminist. But I said to myself, this is what we get with articles about Madonna. We get a fair amount of juicy details, mixed with all of the usual negative baggage that people project onto Madonna.

I was surprised at Madonna's reaction at first but like @DreamTheater said, I think I was just used to these kinds of negative articles and so I just accepted it as par for the course. Like Madonna said, the patriarchy is deeply woven into the fabric of our society and a great deal of the time, we just accept it. I think it's brave of Madonna to call the journalist out. I'll bet the smug editors at the NYT thought they were getting away with something until she posted her disappointment about it on Instagram.

 

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Flip The Switch said:

 

I wish she would hire Michael Houtz as a designer, watching this makes me miss seeing her name designed by top class designers who understand the value of typography. Reminds me of her days with Fabien Baron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, coco said:

I wish she would hire Michael Houtz as a designer, watching this makes me miss seeing her name designed by top class designers who understand the value of typography. Reminds me of her days with Fabien Baron.

Absolutely. Typography Design is wonderful. At this point she should have her name with a trademark font like many artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, XXL said:

 

BS

What celebrities expect from journalists? They pay them off to begin with, especially the younger generation of them. Except Madonna who has always been averse to this perverse doctoring Payola mechanisms, unlike many of her contemporaries as well I might add

But God forbid she isn't happy with the editorial choices of one particular piece and says so, after she's allowed a stranger into her house

I'm glad you mentioned this. Madonna has enough money and stature where she could, easily, pay for nothing but puff pieces and pieces where she is highly praised to ridiculous heights like sooooo many others do. I won't name names but we all know who does this. Articles where she isn't criticized, where they praise her as the most gifted songwriter of all time and start creating a narrative around herself like the other payola celebs. 

Madonna never does this. She should but I respect she doesn't. We've all had to read hundreds nauseating payola'd articles on countless celebs.She knows they do this and it would really be something if she actually called it out at this time. 

On the flip side, we know articles are paid for to trash others. Madonna seems to be the #1 target of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this reaction somewhere on Facebook . I'll re-post it here .  "Well, I have read the article , I have read Madonna's disappointment and the paper's reaction . ( I say this because I feel like some react without even reading them or totally understanding English) . First I'm sorry but the article is well written , quite inspired and come from ... a fan. So stop the hate. Madonnna probably has the right to feel betrayed by the writer, though . We were not there during the meeting and arrangements. But clearly , the writer has a few points . Personally, I also feel embarrassed by Madonna's focus on beauty products ads and tricks. On the other hand I totally understand what Madonna is saying about life and its paradoxes . The author is just not as enlighted as Madonna is . I also think the writer never intended to be malicious . And yes Madonna has been in some kind of phase that makes me wonder if she's not a bit ... disconnected . I mean , I 've felt quite perplexed about this new era; the interview with MTV was awkward, her eye patch ,etc  few get it . The Eurovision fiasco and its dull impact ...(that some fellow fans dare to deny !!!) ; now the latest video ... ok is pure art , so intense but disappointed the song hasn't evolved much since its Beautiful Game name and phase ... And as fans we want her to also be successful, to connect to music lovers. I'm afraid It won't be the case with anything I've heard or seen from the Madame X project.yet. At least I do love the songs. She needs new perspectives and to listen to sensible people. I fear she's not well surrounded anymore ."  Or only by the kind of people you find here  who can't find fault in what Madonna offered at the Eurovision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've spent the past few weeks thumbing through all of Madonna's major magazine appearances over the past 35 years and there's something almost surreal about this new one.

It is stunning printed with the silver cover...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shaun said:

Just bought mine! It looks way better in person. The silver cover!

I got myself a copy...the images alone are worth it.  Many of us wanted the exposure and album to come simultaneously with her 60th in August 2018...it didn’t happen...we got a piece titled MADonna at 60 in 2019 with her album. The subtext is annoying but as a fan I am happy that she can still get the exposure, denounce it and get exposure for that too!  Living Legend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2019 at 10:50 PM, jamesshot said:

I'm glad you mentioned this. Madonna has enough money and stature where she could, easily, pay for nothing but puff pieces and pieces where she is highly praised to ridiculous heights like sooooo many others do. I won't name names but we all know who does this. Articles where she isn't criticized, where they praise her as the most gifted songwriter of all time and start creating a narrative around herself like the other payola celebs. 

Madonna never does this. She should but I respect she doesn't. We've all had to read hundreds nauseating payola'd articles on countless celebs.She knows they do this and it would really be something if she actually called it out at this time. 

On the flip side, we know articles are paid for to trash others. Madonna seems to be the #1 target of this. 

 

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...