(The transforming image of Michael Jackson: 1978 (Jacksons), 1983 (Beat It), 1984 (King of Pop))
This past weekend, as I was reading Mercer's article "Monster Metaphors", I continually found myself jotting down notes in the margins that pertained to a thesis project I am developing on Sci-Fi/Fantasy Teen Genre film of the 1980s (Night of the Comet, Teen Witch, The Labyrinth). What kept striking me about Mercer's article was its approach to Michael Jackson not as simply a celebrity but as a complex code of self-reflexivity and genre blending. It became clear to me that the inspiration of the article for my seemingly unrelated project was not nearly as fleeting as I had assumed. Michael Jackson's performances during the 80s and immense cultural impact, I realized, is writ large over the pop-centric musically-fused ultra-stylized teen films I am analyzing and vice versa. The question, of course, was then which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did Michael Jackson's Thriller success propel the teen camp film genre or did the desire for the genre propel Jackson?
In so many ways, Jackson can be read like the text of a film - especially in terms of the ideology and codes represented in the films of the New Hollywood Blockbusters. Jackson's fame was fostered from the "safe" musical traditions of Motown (The Jackson 5) in the early to mid 1970s and, then, with the release of "Off the Wall" (1979) and "Thriller" (1982) he rocketed into superstardom with the advancement of his own hybridized style (both physically, fashionably, and musically) with futuristic fashion, synthesized sounds of the latest audio technology, and borrowed dance and visual elements from avant-garde and experimental artists (sophisticated miming techniques, bold makeup, and pioneering Hollywood cinematic practices). Considering the trajectory of Hollywood cinema at the same time, the comparison is ripe for investigation. The Blockbuster developed out of a basis in Classical Hollywood Theory but achieved its mega appeal through the adoption of New Hollywood principles of style and genre codification. Not to mention that the target audience of both the Blockbuster and Jackson was increasingly profitable American teenager market through the genre of, as mercy terms it, the "teeny-bopper pop." (p 300) In this way, Jackson can be seen as a star equivalent to the Blockbuster film. The commercial success of each reliant upon each other and each creating, when synthesized with High Concept marketing, unstoppable in fan consumption.
Keeping in mind the question of cross-medium influence, I think that one characteristic made overtly clear in the difficulty of identifying a source of inspiration is that the 1980s really mark a convergence of popular culture into an almost indistinguishable amalgamation of constantly breeding and branching metatextuality. As Mercer lays out, the Thriller music video was constructed by the director of An American Werewolf in London and thus could be said to be a bi-product of cinema alone (and the horror genre) but even within that film, pop music plays a key role in the communication of the American culture represented in the narrative. From this point on, pop music and teenage narratives become inextricably linked (the litany of John Hughes films amongst them). The chain of influence goes far beyond these two mediums alone. I seem to remember a time when the line to Star Tours (or was it Spacemountain) in Disneyland even had a video cameo by Jackson as a sort of guide (not to mention his own featuring spot in the 3D Captain Neo attraction) and his brief appearance in Back to the Future: Part II). Within Jackson's iconography alone, one can read the transformations of the culture and the dreams/desires of his audience. He borrows from not just an American tradition of music and film but from many diverse spheres of influence and, more importantly, in consciously challenging the accepted conventions represents a specific 1980s ideology - a forward projecting fantasy of the future (toward a globalized culture where art is pop and race, sexuality and gender are pooled into a homogeneous ambiguity). I don't think it would be too far fetched to say that the complexity of Michael Jackson's stardom derives from the diversity of his image and, in many ways, its metaphorical standing as an embodiment of the confounded arrangement of a disenchanted yet commercial teenage youth culture of the 1980s. But is he a product or a leader in this context? His amazing physical and vocal performances seemed to inspire and awe his fans to respect his almost superhuman (revolutionary? evolved?) talent and his flare for creating new styles and pushing boundaries of all conventions presented him as an idol (if not ideal) of a generation growing in size and scope but without any unifying direction or goal (unlike the preceding 'Hippie' generation). But what of his "fall from grace"? Did Michael Jackson the "King of Pop" disappear because his image was no longer favored; no longer needed? Did he simply push too far in his unconventional choices and finally pass the line of acceptability? What do his changes to personal appearance and style suggest about his High Concept viability from his early career to the height of his reign? (Did he truly create a bridge between the racial divide as Mercer suggests or does his preference for a "Europeanized" look subvert a further appropriation of Black culture by socially dominant Anglo culture? Could Jackson have preserved his individuality in style if his represented ideology of homogenization was realized? Was the idea of the future Jackson fostered a future of equality or a future of anonymity?)
No comments:
Post a Comment