At the Washington Post‘s On Faith section, Mark Judge argues in “Lady Gaga is no Madonna” that his fellow conservatives don’t understand pop music. He starts out making a defensible case before attemping a bizarre contrarian interpretation of pop-star Madonna’s infamous “Like a Prayer” video:
Madonna’s video for “Like a Prayer” is an intelligent and even devout meditation on grace, love and conscience. Lady Gaga’s is lazy trash.
As I will explore in my forthcoming book “A Tremor of Bliss: Sex, Catholicism, and Rock ‘n’ Roll,” Madonna’s video is actually a powerful depiction of the vitality of the Catholic saints and their ability to intercede in our lives and give us gifts of courage. In the video, Madonna witnesses a black man falsely accused of a crime. Terrified of the racists in the town, she flees into a church, where she prays to St. Martin de Porres, a black saint. She falls asleep and in her dream the statue of the saint actually comes to life, becoming her lover. She wakes up filled with a new bravery. She fingers the real criminals, and ends the video jubilantly dancing with a gospel choir.
When “Like a Prayer” was released, it was completely misunderstood by conservatives. A bishop condemned it. So did Donohue. On the other side, liberals mindlessly defended Madonna without understanding the message of the video. The only truly coherent analysis came from Fr. Andrew Greeley, a liberal Catholic priest. “Like a Prayer” was blasphemous, wrote Greeley in America magazine, “only for the prurient and the sick who come to the video determined to read their own twisted sexual hang-ups into it. Only for those who think that sexual passion is an inappropriate metaphor for divine passion (and thus are pretty hard on Hosea, Jesus, Saint Paul, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux and Saint Teresa of Avila).”
Judge claims that comparing Madonna to Lady Gaga is ” yet another sign of the pop culture (and even religious) illiteracy of the right.” But it’s Judge who appears to be confused about religion. I’m not a Catholic so I may be missing some essential nuance, but I don’t think that in the history of the Church saintly intercession entailed sexual intercourse. There is a profound differnce between using sexual passion as a metaphor and a saint actually having sex with a petitioner. I’m not sure if it’s blasphemous to depict Madonna fornicating with Martin de Porres on a church pew—but it is certainly disrespectful to the memory of a man who was not only a devout Christian but a life-long practitioner of celibacy.
I agree with Judge that conservatives need to be more well-informed about pop culture in order to provide more relevant criticism. In turn, Judge would do well to become more well-informed about the Christian faith.
(Via: Gene Veith)
June 16th, 2010 | 5:03 pm
I understand Mark Judge’s argument that a metaphorical aspect Madonna used was much “more respectful” even though it was packaged to be the most conspicuous provocation imaginable (at the time.)
But what I also recognize is that depravity is something metastasized over time. Madonna may be more akin to a child who uses imprecations to get the attention of adults, but because we allowed Madonna, we are now given someone who openly celebrates actual deviancy. Children who grew up with Madonna now idolize a performer who doesn’t just act ostentatiously, but worships and openly demands worship of their own vulgarity.
Conservative critics to these acts perpetually repeat the same mistake of sanctifying the past in accusations of the present- well X was bad but Y is much worse- which may be true, but in doing so, they are cooperating in obduracy and establishing the groundwork for ever worsening behaviors.
Venial sins lead to moral sins for a reason, which is why we shouldn’t condemn Gaga for Madonna; we should attempt to expiate both from our culture.
June 16th, 2010 | 5:13 pm
Would to God that we were half as well informed about our faith as we are about popular culture.
June 16th, 2010 | 7:08 pm
Here is (apparently) Madonna’s own description of the video, which seems . . . problematic:
“A girl on the street witnesses an assault on a young woman. Afraid to get involved because she might get hurt, she is frozen in fear. A black man walking down the street also sees the incident and decides to help to woman. But just then, the police arrive and arrest him. As they take him away, she looks up and sees one of the gang members who assaulted the girl. He gives her a look that says she’ll be dead if she tells. The girl runs, not knowing where to go, until she sees a church. She goes in and sees a saint in a cage who looks very much like the black man on the street, and says a prayer to help her make the right decision. He seems to be crying, but she is not sure. She lies down on a pew and falls into a dream in which she begins to tumble in space with no one to break her fall. Suddenly she is caught by [an African American woman] who represents earth and emotional strength and who tosses her back up and tells her to do the right thing. Still dreaming, she returns to the saint, and her religions and erotic feelings begin to stir. The saint becomes a man. She picks up a knife and cuts her hands. That’s the guilt in Catholicism that if you do something that feels good you will be punished. As the choir sings, she reaches an orgasmic crescendo of sexual fulfillment intertwined with her love of God. She knows that nothing’s going to happen to her if she does what she believes is right. She wakes up, goes to the jail, tells the police the man is innocent, and he is freed. Then everybody takes a bow as if to say we all play a part in this little scenario.”
June 16th, 2010 | 9:24 pm
Thank you for the postings about pop culture, metaphysics and other such to give us a break since the political life of a nation isn’t the most important concern we face.
June 17th, 2010 | 5:15 pm
1) It’s probably not true that saints don’t have sex; presumably St. Joseph, father of Jesus, had sex with St. Mary, mother of Jesus, at some point.
2) See our very lengthy remarks elsewhere in this blog, before the Post article?, defending “Spirituality without Spirits,” and specifically Ms. Gaga as another Madonna.
June 17th, 2010 | 11:15 pm
Michael:
I should say that Madonna’s description of the video implies that she is probably more spiritual and more attuned to a higher code of ethics than most religious leaders who criticize her (you included). As for the “allowing madonna” verbiage, I daresay no one allowed her to do anything. She pleasantly put herself on the map and controlled her own image and actions at every level of consumption. She was not the object, but rather the subject and as a female performer, this was seminal. She made it possible for a woman to be intelligent, sexual, provocative and ironic, without compromise and she ushered in a new wave of feminism by virtue of whom and what she is. You clearly are bound by the self-righteousness of your own religiosity. Thankfully–for the world–Madonna could see behind all that.
June 18th, 2010 | 12:10 pm
In a way, I agree with Mike Judge: Lady Gaga is no Madonna, and I say, thank goodness for that.
I’m not a Gaga fan, but I like Madonna even less.
Seems to me that Gaga has more in common with performers such as Grace Jones, Dale Bozzio, Devo, KISS, 1980s- era Cyndi Lauper, 1970s- era Elton John and Cher, and other theatric, wacky performers of the past than she does with your garden variety, sleazy, sex kitten type such as Madonna.
Therefore, I’ve never completely accepted all the “Gaga = Madonna” comparisons, (even if Gaga uses a rosary or crucifix in a video or two).
The commentator above me, Kevin, managed to work in just about every falsehood about Madonna that’s been propagated by the media and feminist college professors for the past 20 or more years.
Rather than address all the problems I see with Kevin’s views, I will respond to only one section.
Kevin said:
“She was not the object,”
Yes, Madonna was ‘the object.’ She made herself into a sex object.
That some believe Madonna was selling herself, rather than a man selling her, is beside the point. A woman degrading herself (especially for fame and money, as Madonna did) is no more lofty, acceptable, or “feminist” than a man degrading a woman.
In the end scheme of things, Madonna was using sex to sell herself, which is one of the few avenues historically given by men to women to succeed or to earn a living, so she was not doing anything new or groundbreaking when she grabbed her crotch in videos and so forth.
Secondly, Madonna sought fame and a break in show business by giving sexual favors to men and offering sexual favors to female movie producers (this has been documented in various magazine interviews and biographies over the years), she was signed on to her first record label by a man, men wrote all her biggest hit songs, and she continues to rely quite heavily on the talent of male producers, male video directors, male dance choreographers, and male fashion designers.
A heck of a lot of males have been involved in Madonna’s career and making her famous. Depicting her as some heroine who did it all on her own is, therefore, a little misleading.
Kevin said,
“but rather the subject and as a female performer, this was seminal. She made it possible for a woman to be intelligent, sexual, provocative and ironic, without compromise and she ushered in a new wave of feminism by virtue of whom and what she is.”
Madonna wasn’t the first to do these things, or pave the way for women in entertainment.
Long ago, in the 1950s, Marilyn Monroe broke away from the Hollywood movie studio system and made her own film production company.
Before Madonna, there were female singers such as Janis Joplin, Tina Turner, Donna Summer, Debbie Harry and others, who were making strides years before Madonna even released her first album.
And yes, there were times Madonna had to compromise, or give in, on various issues.
To name but a few instances:
Around 1985, Madonna was unhappy that her early nude photos, snapped in the 1970s, were going to be published in Penthouse and Playboy, tried to halt their publication, but could not.
In 2004, Madonna sought $200 million for her record label, but Warner Music executive Edgar Bronfman got her down to accepting a $17 million figure.
Back in 2003, when there was an uproar over Madonna’s original music video for “American Life,” Madonna caved in to public criticism, re-shot the video, and edited out all the controversial segments (such as a hand grenade being tossed at a George W. Bush look-alike).
In interviews in 2005, Madonna stated that she regretted being smutty in the past, and that she had done so only to create waves, and to rile the public for the sake of riling them up.
(Don’t believe me? Do a web search for the phrase “Madonna Regrets Sexy Past” and you’ll find news articles about it. One is hosted by Contact Music.com).
In other words, in these older interviews, Madonna did not claim that her sexually tinged performances of the past were expressions of feminism, or that they were meant to be artistic or profound.
In a 2008 interview, Madonna said she regretted making the “Sex” book (quotes by her from that interview are hosted on entertainmentwise.com).
At times, even Madonna does not stand by the previous sexually explicit material she produced, so it’s amusing to see some of her fans continue to defend that work, or insist it is deeply meaningful and feminist.
Kevin said,
“She [Madonna] made it possible for a woman to be intelligent…”
That is perhaps the most grating part of Kevin’s statement.
I’m a woman, and Madonna did not make it possible for me to “be intelligent” in any way, shape, or form.
There are plenty of women out there whose natural brains coupled with years of study is what got them college degrees, not Madonna grabbing her crotch in music videos!
Madonna did not show up to take my college algebra tests for me.
Please don’t credit Madonna for my successes or accomplishments in life. She is not my savior or female role model, and I think a lot of other women could say the same thing.
June 18th, 2010 | 11:07 pm
RE: Spiffy (Don’t credit Madonna for my successes…) What I meant was that Madonna made it possible for female performers to be all those things simultaneously.
The articles you site about her regrets quote her out of context and interpolate things that she is not saying. As does your posting, as it assumes that your rationale is the only reason she did those things. True she has said that at times her ego got in the way with certain things she did, and that sometimes she did things to illicit public reaction, but she never says this was her only ambition or that was the reason for everything she did. She never said that was the only or primary ambition behind her sex book. Madonna has said time and time again (and true to her Kaballah beliefs) that she regrets none of her decisions. She has also said time and time again she did the sex book because she wanted to show all the things I stated in my previous post, and to do so in an ironic format. This is not only well documented you can find the videos on YouTube of her expressing this viewpoint.
My point of being Madonna being the ‘subject’ is that men were not buying her nude photos to get off on them; instead her sexuality was one that she created and she totally owned. She was quite threatening to the mentality that consumed pornography depicting images of women.
As for sleeping her way to the top, the only thing I have read about those things come from highly suspect sources, and unauthorized biographies. Funny how when a women is all that Madonna is, it becomes important for the masses to destroy her character and question her ambition (critics, press and others including yourself have continuously put Madonna through the ringers). I find it also interesting that you are intent in your destruction of her image by pointing out that she did not do it on her own, but gained her fame through the virtues of men. I find your analysis in line with a lot of sexist and misogynist criticism discrediting of her. I agree with your assessment of Marylyn Monroe and Debbie Harry, etc, but Madonna paved new territory as well. To not give her credit for what she has done is ignorant at best. There is a reason a lot of gay mean love her, she championed gay rights long before it was fashionable or even acceptable. Moreover, she was one of a handful of celebrities to address AIDS in the mid-1980s.
If all you say about Madonna were true, she would not still be the relevant performer she is: she has sold more records than almost any other solo artist, her last tour (last two years) was the highest grossing, and she continues to land number one on the album chart.
And regardless of anything you say, she is a heroine to millions of women and men (including numerous feminist scholars) and there has been volumes written on her work. It is much more complex and nuanced than you are willing to get her credit for or possibly even understand.
Frankly, it does not matter what you think of Madonna, because I am sure she does not care, and she will thankfully continue to evolve and inspire and do whatever she desires to do. And if she pisses people of or pushes the buttons of others (which she clearly has yours), then thanks be to God.
p.s. Please ignore typos, I typed this quickly!
June 20th, 2010 | 9:08 am
I’m tired of Gaga. “Alejandro”, the music video is excessive. It is the kind of visual art that doesn’t know where to go, nor when to apply brakes when appropriate. One may say the same of her image. It just goes out there without any agenda, intending to smack every media consumer in the face.
There are no more questions asked nowadays; everyone just seems to have an ‘answer’.
June 23rd, 2010 | 9:28 pm
I’m tired of Gaga. “Alejandro”, the music video is excessive. It is the kind of visual art that doesn’t know where to go, nor when to apply brakes when appropriate. One may say the same of her image. It just goes out there without any agenda, intending to smack every media consumer in the face.
There are no more questions asked nowadays; everyone just seems to have an ‘answer’.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact