Home > Essays > All

Sunday 22 November 2009

Michael Jackson Notebook

4 July 2009

The news cycle of a dead celebrity is a curious thing.

Hollywood

The news cycle of a dead celebrity is a curious thing. One minute I am calmly watching Kelvin Mackenzie laying into Julia Goldsworthy about a rocking chair on Question Time, the next minute Michael Jackson is dead and I’m on a plane to LA. Los Angeles is a terrible place for a celebrity to die. It is an 11-hour flight and an eight-hour time difference, which naturally runs the risk of the celebrity being too dead by the time you land. Locked in airspace — in ignorance — you never really know how a story is playing out on the ground.

12 hours later

We arrive to find the OMG! (ohmygod) text-speak of shock already gone, but the fans are out in full force. We head to Hollywood Boulevard where they cluster around his star on the walk of fame. They are a happy bunch, actually; his music is everywhere and his sudden death has liberated people to embrace the 1980s with a benevolent buzz of nostalgia. Overnight, white ankle socks and hush puppies will become de rigueur. The breakdancers on the strip are now moonwalkers, the T-shirts (RIP Michael — 1958-2009) are hot off the press and hawked on the streets as we pass, and people queue up to receive therapy by voxpop. They tell me how they grew up with Jackson, went through puberty with Jackson, broke up to Jackson, got married to Jackson — in essence he is part of who they are. Tonight, for 24 hours only, no one will mention court cases, his delight in the company of young boys and monkeys, or even his nose.

At the satellite truck next door to ours sits Marti, an ABC anchorwoman and long-term resident of LA. Is the atmosphere tonight so very different, I ask her. She sighs. ‘The skirts are a little shorter and the heels a little higher.’ To mourn Michael Jackson? I struggle to catch her drift. ‘Not for Michael,’ she explains, ‘for the TV cameras. They’re hoping to get talent-spotted by all the crews in town.’ Should I be shocked? It would seem a little hypocritical. If you can’t be shameless about wanting fame in Hollywood, then where can you?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Emily Maitlis | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (12)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

JohnAnt

July 2nd, 2009 6:08pm Report this comment

Why three main features in the 'Spectator' on the death of a pop star?
If you're trying to lure in the sensation-hungry celeb-addicts (as the cover implies) won't they be a bit disappointed by the writing of e.g. Charles Moore, Paul Johnson, Lloyd Evans, Michael Tanner, Robin Holloway, Melissa Kite, Matthew Parris, Fraser Nelson, James Forsyth, Rod Liddle and Susan Hill?
Just wondering what d'Ancona's playing at. But don't mind us, we're just ex-subscribers.

Gil

July 2nd, 2009 6:49pm Report this comment

Is no one going to say the obvious about this piece? Incredible isn't it?

Who, on earth, could find something of merit here?

JohnAnt

July 2nd, 2009 10:04pm Report this comment

Sorry, make that four features, not three.
What next, five articles on Ronaldo?
Or is this Ageing Hippies R Us Week?

Mitford

July 3rd, 2009 5:38pm Report this comment

This is such a boring issue. Dull Daily Mail worthy Political Scandals pull out telling no one anything they did not already know and other eyelid closers like this. We want insight into important home and world affairs not this

robert

July 3rd, 2009 7:29pm Report this comment

Great to see the return of the "thinking man's airhead". Whatever happened to nancy dell'Olio?

I Have a Tin Ear

July 4th, 2009 12:41am Report this comment

Repulsive, insensitive, tasteless, crass. And seriously over-promoted. Poor Newsnight.

Ruth

July 4th, 2009 8:15am Report this comment

I liked this article and thought it gave observations that I wouldn't otherwise have. I don't watch TV news so this gives a great picture. If you don't want to read about Michael Jackson don't read the article. Simples!

Mark Rowley

July 4th, 2009 8:54pm Report this comment

WTF is this all about? For God's sake, most Spectator readers couldn't care less about Michael Jackson. The only value of the piece is unintended, insofar as it raises the question as to why the BBC sees fit to waste licence payers' money sending Emily Maitlis and others to Los Angeles to 'cover' this grotesque modern day fable.

Jon B

July 5th, 2009 8:40pm Report this comment

Hey, a free trip to LA at taxpayers expense to overshadow the good BBC reporters already there, plus an extra bung for a tasteless, inconsequential and dumbed down blog. Nice little earner Emily - to echo a comment above - poor Newsnight.

Rupert Fotherington-Smythe

July 6th, 2009 6:24pm Report this comment

Terrible shame 'n' all that, but who gives a monkeys? And why send her (and others) out there on licence-tax money? What could she report being in situ that she couldn't reasonably report/recycle from London?

David Short

July 7th, 2009 5:38pm Report this comment

I wonder if this is quite the right time for a highly paid BBC presenter airing the news that the Beeb sends out to California at enormous expense a crew to report on the death of a faded American pop star with a dodgy reputation?

Did they do this for John Lennon, who at least was British?

Vikki

July 16th, 2009 5:43pm Report this comment

Well I love Emily's articles, even you lot don't seem to. I'm sure she can't control what she's being told to cover and no one asks you to read it if you don't like it.

Post comment