BEFORE: I'm back on the music beat - a couple more days of pop music, and then I can venture back to rock and roll. And a couple of days with acts that became famous in the 1980's, then I can get back to the 1970's, but I'm comfortable in both of those decades. Once I venture into 90's music or anything later than that, that's where I feel I'm a little out of my depth. I feel like I know much more about someone like David Bowie or Mick Jagger than I do about Lady Gaga or Amy Winehouse. But of course, the whole point of this is for me to learn more, regardless of the subject or the decade they performed in.
Tony Bennett carries over - that's four in a row for him. It was very kind of him to record duets with Amy Winehouse, Lady Gaga and George Michael, which ultimately made this part of my chain possible.
THE PLOT: A frank and honest account of George Michael's professional life and career, made by the man himself with various artists adding to the narrative.
AFTER: Throughout this whole documentary chain, I've had a love-hate relationship with the IMDB. Obviously that's what makes my linking possible, knowing in advance who's going to appear in each film, I could not have done this without that resource. But many of the listings are incomplete, particularly when it comes to archive footage or otherwise "uncredited" appearances. That's where I've been stepping in to try to pick up the slack, so if anyone comes along this way after me (and I don't know why they would) at least they'll have more of a road map, a more complete guide to who's in each movie. Now, sometimes the omissions make sense, in a case like today's film somebody cleared put all the names of the people who were interviewed in the credits and on the IMDB. It follows, those people spent time appearing on camera, so naturally the director or the production company would want to publicly thank them for their efforts in the credits on-screen and on the web.
But very few people whose images appeared in archive footage received credit - either someone didn't take the time to include them, or didn't feel the need because they weren't personally involved in the creation of the film. And that explains why, despite appearing in every piece of footage in the first 10 minutes of this film, Andrew Ridgeley, the other half of the pop duo WHAM!, was not listed in the credits or in the IMDB. I hope it's just an oversight, and not an intentional snub - imagine making a documentary about Simon and Garfunkel, spending the first 15 minutes on their time together as a duo, and then not putting Garfunkel anywhere in the credits, that would be unthinkable. So I've stepped in and submitted additional archive footage credits to the IMDB, not only Ridgeley's name, but also 19 other people, including famous duet partners like Aretha Franklin and Paul McCartney. The full list hasn't appeared yet, but based on my track record from the last 2 weeks, I'm very hopeful that these wrongs will be made right.
Now, five people who DO get credit for appearing in this film are famous models - you might remember the famous video for the song "Freedom '90" that consisted solely of beauties like Cindy Crawford and Linda Evangelista lip-synching to the song, instead of George Michael doing that. It certainly had a bunch of people in 1990 scratching their heads, because they might check out the video to see their favorite singer, and then they were presented with something entirely different. (As a 21-year old man, I certainly wasn't complaining about seeing beautiful women for four minutes, but I really didn't understand why it was the way it was, either.) The song was all about George struggling with his identity (no, not that one, his artistic identity) so it seemed weird that when given a chance to appear in the video for a song about that, he wasn't there at all, he refused to appear in the video. But then again, he WAS in the video, they kept showing the same shot of him looking through a movie camera, as if he were directing the video, only he didn't direct the video, David Fincher did, and then there was an end credit that read "Directed by ???" so it seems the main intent was to confuse everyone.
All five models were interviewed (separately) for this film, and I have to say, I didn't understand the video then, and I still don't get it. Somehow it was supposed to be sexy, but the fashions were all very weird, like a corset with motorcycle handlebars on it, and that made no sense. And the models were strutting down this runway, then some of them were fighting, while others were singing in bedrooms or bathtubs, it was just all over the place. It seemed like it might be trying to be futuristic, or at least progressive, but what's less progressive than treating women like sex objects or merely eye candy? And then being interviewed all these years later, the models have nothing constructive to say about the experience, except to relate what exactly happened ("I was sitting in a bathtub, covered in glycerine...") That's OK, honey, don't strain yourself trying to think about what it all meant. Just sit there and look pretty.
Of course, now with some more background information, I understand that George Michael was feuding with Sony Music about what obligations he had to do to promote his work, because he felt that as a music creator, he had the right to dictate the way he could promote himself, and how much work that would entail. So he did not agree to appear in his own music video (except there was footage of him in there, as I said, so I still don't understand it...) and suggested the models as an alternative. Unfortunately, by not appearing he created a piece of film that then has no meaning at all. It seems that he'd done so much work promoting his previous album that he wanted to pull back a bit, to keep from going insane. The record company did not agree with his plan of promoting through non-promotion, the case ended up in court, with George Michael claiming that the standard record contract, by virtue of the clauses that dictate what a recording artist must do to promote an album, was a form of modern slavery. Yeah, he lost that case, then had to buy himself back from Sony so that he could release more records on another label and have more artistic freedom.
The film also mentions the controversy that occurred when George Michael won a Grammy award (and a couple American Music Awards) for best R&B performance (Duo or Group) for a duet he recorded with Aretha Franklin, and it seems that no white man had ever won an R&B Grammy before, so the black community didn't take that well. George fell back on the "I grew up listening to black music" line (known as the "Eric Clapton Defense") but still managed to piss off black artists, like Gladys Knight, who pointed out that it wasn't fair, because you don't see as many black artists achieving success on the "white" charts. Oh, you mean like Michael Jackson? This was a non-winning debate for all sides involved, because it just made people seem either petty or not apologetic enough. It never works when you're a white guy and you claim some form of reverse racism is involved, you just sound like a crybaby.
(And if you've offended the black community before, by accepting an award traditionally won by only black people, maybe avoid using the term "slavery" later on when you sue your record company. Just a thought...)
The best line of the whole film comes from interviewed subject Stevie Wonder, presumably when asked to weigh in on the controversy over George Michael winning an R&B Grammy, when he says, "Wait a minute, do you mean George Michael is WHITE?" The most insightful comment on racism ends up coming from a man who literally cannot see the color of people's skin. That's both funny and meaningful, we could all learn a lesson from that. Why can't musicians be judged for their music, regardless of their color or any other issue? Why does the record company have to pigeonhole everyone in order to market them?
Well, on the other hand, you're talking about a large corporation with many decades of experience in selling records, many people working on those issues with an eye on the marketplace, and maybe on some level they do know what they're talking about. Yeah, maybe they should have given George Michael more artistic freedom and respected his right to not do interviews or appear in music videos. Or maybe they were on to something, and he should have just sucked it up, it's tough to say. Sure, it stinks to have to do the same interview, answer the same questions, again and again for a large number of TV bubbleheads. But at least the performer gets to control the narrative this way, they can choose which questions to not respond to, they can even come up with creative answers to bring about an intended result.
Here's what I would have recommended, back in what, 1990? George Michael should have contacted his rep at Sony Music and said, "OK, I'll do the press interviews, because I really want to talk about my boyfriend, how he's the love of my life and my domestic partner, and how we would get married if it was only legal, and by the way, it's a shame that gay marriage is not legal, and efforts should be made to correct that, ASAP." There's a fair chance that the Sony Music executives would have gotten back to him and said, "Well, this is a controversial subject matter, and we've decided that it would be better if you didn't do any interviews to promote the new album." See, that way everybody wins! The artist tried to fulfill his publicity obligations, but the record company waived their promotion demands, and the relationship between artist and management is maintained.
Because you can say whatever you want about the work produced during George Michael's contract with Sony, but at least I've HEARD of it. I may not be a fan, but I know those songs, like "Freedom" and "Faith" and even "Kissing a Fool". Everything after "Listen Without Prejudice", I haven't got a clue. Gee, maybe a big record company does know something about successfully doing publicity, after all. He released two albums on Virgin and Dreamworks labels, then went BACK to Sony for his final album - but I've never heard of anything from that album, either. The problem with indie-type artistes when they work for major distributors (and I know this from working in indie animation) is that they always find some way to shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak, and not achieve mainstream success.
Like, my boss is off to L.A. this weekend to promote a movie that's opening in Santa Monica. As a known animator and artist, he feels that he has to be there in person to greet the audience, introduce the film, and then lead a Q&A session after. That's all well and good, but as his business manager, it falls on me to tell him that after he pays for his airfare, four nights hotel, and a car rental while he's in L.A., there's very little chance of making a profit from these screenings, not unless every screening is sold out every day for a week, and his cut from the theater somehow exceeds his travel expenses. See, if you just look at the bottom line all the time, there are many things in the publicity world that don't make much sense, unless you factor in that all of those people he meets in person will feel more connected to him after meeting him, and after having a positive interaction they may be more likely to buy his movies in the future, whether on DVD or Netflix or in the theater. That MIGHT make the trip worth it in the long run, but probably not on the balance sheet. This is why we stopped going to San Diego Comic-Con, because outside of the publicity we got from being there, the convention, travel and shipping expenses were exceeding any profit from selling merchandise at the booth.
So at the end of the day, doing publicity really sucks, but nobody's come up with a better way to let people know about your product, whether it's an album, a film or a new toothpaste. You've got to spend money (and time) to make money. Complaining about that just isn't productive.
NP: What was up with that weird turntable (a Gyro SE, it seems) that was sitting next to all of the musicians being interviewed? And then Stevie Wonder had some weird electronic instrument that allowed him to play along with it? This might have been some strange sort of interviewing technique, but it was never explained, and I'd love to know what the heck was going on here. Maybe the interviewed people were asked to play the record of George Michael's songs, and then tell whatever stories that the music evoked? Why did the record have each person's name on it, were the song cuts different for each person? Why did the record have to be on that strange platform, that made it look like a spinning cake? My best guess is that this was some kind of experiment that just didn't pay off.
Also starring George Michael, Stevie Wonder, Elton John (last seen in "Gaga: Five Foot Two"), Mark Ronson (ditto), Nile Rodgers, Clive Davis (last seen in "Janis: Little Girl Blue"), Mary J. Blige, James Corden (last heard in "The Emoji Movie"), Liam Gallagher, Ricky Gervais (last heard in "The Little Prince"), Cindy Crawford (last seen in "54"), Naomi Campbell, Linda Evangelista, Kate Moss, Christy Turlington, Emmanuelle Alt, David Austin, Tracey Emin, Jean-Paul Gaultier, Tatjana Patitz, Paul Russell, Tony Russell, Andy Stephens and archive footage of Andrew Ridgeley, Anselmo Feleppa, Whitney Houston, Aretha Franklin (last seen in "Elvis Presley: The Searcher"), Paula Abdul, Gladys Knight, Flavor Flav, Chuck D, John Lennon (last seen in "27: Gone Too Soon"), Paul McCartney (ditto), David Bowie (ditto), Freddie Mercury (last seen in "How the Beatles Changed the World"), Brian May, John Deacon, Roger Taylor, Liza Minnelli, David Frost, David Geffen, Prince (last seen in "Graffiti Bridge"), Björk, Jellybean Benitez, Margaret Thatcher.
RATING: 5 out of 10 pairs of sunglasses
No comments:
Post a Comment