Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums

Madonna for New York Times Mag (Madonna NOT happy)


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Amelia said:

I think that's part of the reason she is pissed.  According to Madonna, the author spent several hours with her and then pretty much printed very little conversation with Madonna, while talking about herself, how she felt interviewing Madonna or concentrating on superficial nonsense such as Madonna dealing with aging.   

I felt from the start of the article, reading through it, there was a lot missing.  I just wish the author shared more of the actual conversations she had with Madonna. 

 

This!!! And again, bringing up the Madonna doubles was unnecessary and confusing! Pointing out how one of the doubles was Asian AND also younger. Omg really? Younger? Wow! 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 457
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The article was way too long and there wasn't enough Madonna in it, it was more about writers views on everything related to M. But the women who wrote was overall very positive about her. 

That said, I think Madonna is overreacting and to publicly shame someone like that is nasty. Maybe she had a bad day, did the label send her numbers for albums presales or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Crux said:

Oh, she snapped!!!

I shouldn't laugh but I almost died when M said she seemed more focused on trivial and superficial matters such as the fabric of her curtains etc:lmao:

 

Me too  :rotfl:

I didn't read the entire article tbh

But my first impression just skimming through it was that it's a fair and positive piece. If Madonna is saying this something about the article really bothered her. Got to read it all and in depth to find out the clues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Supernatural said:

I didn't think the article was bad my first read, but I got the impression the writer spent 5 minutes with Madonna and had to fill the piece with stuff about herself, or pieces from past Madonna articles, which I thought was odd. So to hear Madonna may have spent considerable time with the writer, I can understand why she's pissed.

 

That's interesting

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jazzy Jan said:

Karbatal,  just my view but I thought the writer was clearly supporting her.  She was saying that men's ages are not used against them.  We can't pretend that every single article written about Madonna does not mention her age.  We talk about that on this forum all the time - how unfair it is.    I think this writer was supporting Madonna being the women in pop music to not have to age gracefully etc and not glossing over it with glib comments but examining it and praising Madonna for it. 

Interesting discussion though.  As everything Madonna,  we all see things differently. 

 

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Flip The Switch said:

Well, I get M’s point. Probably she shared more than we saw on that article and felt disappointed. Probably the journalist lost the notes and came out with this lol. 

 

True

We don't have the entire perspective

It's a rather curious thing

 

I was not expecting her to take issue with this article in particular or the journalist who wrote it at a first initial glance

But like I said I have yet to read the entire piece properly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly didn’t think the article presented her in a negative way, it was more a collection of the paradoxical nature of Madonna’s actions vs what she says and how that’s changed over time (which she even said regarding “her truth”), which made sense. But overall it was a positive article.

Madonna being critical of it is one thing. Her overreaction to it sounds excessive and makes her come across as a bit of a lunatic, with the whole patriarchy bit in the end. It just doesn’t help her case. Disappointing all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, karbatal said:

Well, as I said in previously, it was a very strange piece. It was very positive and all that, but had very, very little real information about the real interview. I really do think the person lost the tape of the interview :lmao:

 

:dead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought, if anything, M would not like the reference to work she's had done on her face. Overall, though, it wasn't a negative portrait of M. I enjoyed it. M doesn't like how aging is more of a women thing that some focus on, hence no surprise she didn't like that part. As the other trivial matters.

NYT magazine feature articles are  always pretty lengthy, by the way. There  are more M comments than just a few soundbites, but, yeah, it was more than a "regular" profile or Q&A. I wonder if they let M know that the piece would be called "Madonna at 60."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that is the same writer of the infamous Britney article for Rolling Stone in 2008. The article is very similar except the Madonna one is absolutely positive. I can see why M is pissed. You're granting someone so much access for your fans and then to reduce it to an opinion piece with a few sound bites? She is livid, i would be too!

63869.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Monsieur X said:

The article starts off well but it becomes more about a 'quest' for the journalist to relate with Madonna rather than Madonna's own story and journey. All of the journalist's own projections / fears / ideas are thrust onto Madonna and why should she accept them as the subject of the interview? It's typical lazy journalism if you ask me. 

I can see why Madonna is disappointed particularly as it looks like she opened herself & home up to the journalist who turned in a piece that was just as lazy as any of the tabloid pieces written about her and Madonna could have spent that time doing something useful - that is probably why she is so hurt. Another wasteful opportunity.   

 

Interesting take

I wouldn't want to be in the journalist place right now, that's for sure

It reminds me of when Madonna uttered the name Camille Paglia in her 2016 Billboard speech and all hell broke loose in the press for the following weeks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpop said:

Madonna is short, and the art was hung low, for her own appreciation.

Sure, she did not like that, I would not either.

 

:lmao:

Well, that reads like great journalism doesn't it .... Elegance galore

And this myth that Madonna is sooo short, there are shorter women, and men. 164 cm or 5ft4 and a half

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They probably lied and told her it was going to be one way and it wasn't 

she probably won't allow something like that to happen again

I fear that she will go in full seclusion after Madame X for a long time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FreeMySoul said:

They probably lied and told her it was going to be one way and it wasn't 

she probably won't allow something like that to happen again

I fear that she will go in full seclusion after Madame X for a long time 

 

No way. Nikki and Susan are too in your face and defiant to allow that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MLVC82 said:

Don't you think QUEEN MADONNA isn't thrilled by how the "rape" comment was portrayed in the article? basically making it seem like MADONNA is not entitled to speak like that....not knowing it's significance....and chastising her for it in the article?

THIS! The rape comment made me so mad, especially because it was tied to the age issue. So condescending. Also I do agree that there was way too much focus on her age, and I also think that the journalist seemed envious. They way she wrote about her young lovers and big houses and social media photographers. It felt like a part of her is a fan and a part of her hates Madonna because she is privileged. There certainly was a mean streak in the article, even though I did enjoy some of the analysis. All in all a disturbing read, and the rape comment was a massive brain fart.

The photos I love. Especially the one where she’s hugging her younger self is so touching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Pera said:

The article was way too long and there wasn't enough Madonna in it, it was more about writers views on everything related to M. But the women who wrote was overall very positive about her. 

That said, I think Madonna is overreacting and to publicly shame someone like that is nasty. Maybe she had a bad day, did the label send her numbers for albums presales or something.

Are you sure M was the only nasty here?..your comment is nasty, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Pera said:

The article was way too long and there wasn't enough Madonna in it, it was more about writers views on everything related to M. But the women who wrote was overall very positive about her. 

That said, I think Madonna is overreacting and to publicly shame someone like that is nasty. Maybe she had a bad day, did the label send her numbers for albums presales or something.

sis, I really think u should check yourself

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LVX said:

It’s not the best article ever but Madonna’s reaction seems a little extreme. :huh:

Put yourself in her position they lied to her about what kind of article it was going to be took advantage of her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FreeMySoul said:

Put yourself in her position they lied to her about what kind of article it was going to be took advantage of her

How do we know this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Amelia aka Neutrocks
34 minutes ago, StrikeItUp said:

I honestly didn’t think the article presented her in a negative way, it was more a collection of the paradoxical nature of Madonna’s actions vs what she says and how that’s changed over time (which she even said regarding “her truth”), which made sense. But overall it was a positive article.

Madonna being critical of it is one thing. Her overreaction to it sounds excessive and makes her come across as a bit of a lunatic, with the whole patriarchy bit in the end. It just doesn’t help her case. Disappointing all around.

But is that what Madonna was told when being interviewed?  I think the fact that Madonna claimed they spent a few hours together and it was reduced to a piece more about the author than the person she was interviewing and when she did speak of Madonna, it was subtle shade on her aging, and other mundane things. 

Let's think about this, that was quite a lengthy article.  There was very little Madonna conversation/interview for such a lengthy article.  Yes, it was generally positive, but even so if the two were speaking for a few hours, certainly there had to been more interesting things to share than what was in this article.

And to even title the article "Madonna at 60" seems a bit shady to me especially knowing how Madonna specifically scolded the interviewer somewhat for focusing on age way too much.  For someone who spent that much time with Madonna and was schooled on not focusing so much on age, went out of her way to make that article all about Madonna's age. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, karbatal said:

Madonna is referring to rape because of the rape part of the interview. Before you come all SJW, at least read the article.

I had already read the article before posting - but thanks for checking, karbatal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, StrikeItUp said:

I honestly didn’t think the article presented her in a negative way, it was more a collection of the paradoxical nature of Madonna’s actions vs what she says and how that’s changed over time (which she even said regarding “her truth”), which made sense. But overall it was a positive article.

Madonna being critical of it is one thing. Her overreaction to it sounds excessive and makes her come across as a bit of a lunatic, with the whole patriarchy bit in the end. It just doesn’t help her case. Disappointing all around.

THIS! Completely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought it was hysterical how she accused NYT of being with the founding fathers of patriarchy.:lol:

They're super PC and very progressive, so the staff must be WTF.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Amelia said:

But is that what Madonna was told when being interviewed?  I think the fact that Madonna claimed they spent a few hours together and it was reduced to a piece more about the author than the person she was interviewing and when she did speak of Madonna, it was subtle shade on her aging, and other mundane things. 

Let's think about this, that was quite a lengthy article.  There was very little Madonna conversation/interview for such a lengthy article.  Yes, it was generally positive, but even so if the two were speaking for a few hours, certainly there had to been more interesting things to share than what was in this article.

And to even title the article "Madonna at 60" seems a bit shady to me especially knowing how Madonna specifically scolded the interviewer somewhat for focusing on age way too much.  For someone who spent that much time with Madonna and was schooled on not focusing so much on age, went out of her way to make that article all about Madonna's age. 

 

We’ll never really know what the terms were agreed upon in the article. And yes it did lack a more linear, consistent dialogue with Madonna. It’s just the social media optics never look good when she comes for the journalist with rather incendiary language, and she’s well aware of that.

There’s a fine balance of bucking the trend while using conventional wisdom to critique others. But then Madonna was never really known for subtly I suppose (shrugs). Madonna is the new Joni Mitchell. Cantankerous and ornery as ever. 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The disgrace Weinstein's statement:

Quote

Madonna said Weinstein had been "incredibly sexually flirtatious and forward with me when we were working together."

"He was married at the time, and I certainly wasn't interested," she added. Truth or Dare was distributed by the film mogul's Weinstein Company, which filed for bankruptcy last year, having fired him as chairman in 2017.

"I was aware that he did the same with a lot of other women that I knew in the business.

"We were all 'Harvey gets to do that because he's got so much power and he's so successful and his movies do so well and everybody wants to work with him, so you have to put up with it'."

 

Weinstein dismissed the allegations in a statement to the BBC, which included multiple references to her hit songs.

"Madonna is such a maverick it is surprising that she conformed to what's in Vogue. This new narrative was not the nature of my relationship with her, and I will not Justify My terrific feelings for her. It was significant, Material and fun.

"She was that Ray of Light whom I will always Cherish. Anyone who knew her well back in those days, appreciates that she knew how to Express herself, she was fun, flirtatious and genuinely engaging, but if getting on this bandwagon helps her sell records, Turn Up the Radio," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48540263

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the writer tried to come across as overly intellectual and spent too much time justifying how she was a "fan" despite this and that Madonna did, which is a condescending way of passing judgment.  The unnecessary commentary about the writer's opinion about the rape comment was also condescending and overly PC.  Overall, for a piece that was meant to be a reflection of Madonna and how far she has come, it was quite superficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...