An icon herself, Madonna too has
been the paparazzi's prey. In the aftermath of the Princess's death,
she decided to speak to The Times. Interview by Alan Franks
'I hope that now she is free'
Whenever Madonna saw photographs of Diana, Princess of Wales,
she detected the look of a hunted animal, cornered by the enormity
of her fame, and too petrified to flee. It took one to know one. And
when Diana's life hung between the news of the crash and the
announcement of her death, the 39-year-old singer felt herself
hurtling down the same Paris tunnel, at the same breakneck speed,
with the same cameras flashing in her face, and the same fate at her
journey's end. "I was crying out, 'please, God, let her live,'
" says Madonna, her voice unusually ragged with emotion.
"I have been chased through that same tunnel so many times that
I have lost count. "I felt outraged and helpless. I really
freaked out. Oh God, let her survive, because it is going to mean
something so frightful, so horrible if she dies. Anyone who has ever
been chased like that, and who has had to live that sort of life hit
the wall with her."
While she is speaking, the news is
coming through that the driver had been drinking. This does not
deflect her rage from the paparazzi. "People say that if she
had been travelling with her sons, it would have been all right, but
that's bullshit. They don't draw the line like that. "When I
came to Europe to promote Evita, I was in Rome and the paparazzi
didn't even give me time to strap my baby into the car. We were
driving at about 90 miles per hour, and we were being followed, and
flanked and surrounded. "OK, so if there weren't such large
offers of money, then these people wouldn't go to such extremes to
take the pictures. Then you have to look at the editors and ask who
is responsible for this. But even that does not dig deep enough. As
much as I want to blame the press, we all have blood on our hands.
"All of us, even myself. I bought those magazines and I read
them. Until we no longer feel that it is our right to read about
people's private lives, and until we lose our fascination with
scandal and sensational journalism, we are never going to act. It is
all our faults."
Madonna and Diana met just once. It
happened two years ago in London, at a charity cocktail party hosted
by the Duchess of York. The singer was in England to record the
soundtrack for Evita. She was suffering from a heavy cold at the
time, and says she would probably have stayed in bed if there had
not been the possibility of a meeting with the Princess. "I
happened to be a friend of her stepbrother, and he kept trying to
arrange tea for us because we both wanted the chance to sit down and
talk properly. But she had a really hectic schedule, and so did I.
"We must have talked for about ten minutes. I said I had always
sympathised with her position, and made some joke about how the only
person who seemed to get more attention than me was her. She said 'I
think you handle the press better than I do,' and I said 'You will
have to get skin as thick as an armadillo.' She said: 'We must get
together and you can tell me how,' and we agreed to meet when I was
over in England again. And that's it. I had wanted Diana to host a
royal premiere of Evita, but for some reason we couldn't put it
together. And we never did meet again."
Madonna is at present in Miami,
where she has a home. She says she would love to live in New York,
but the press interest in her every move makes it unthinkable.
"I can't spend time there because there are kids on electric
bikes, with video cameras, and they are holding onto the bumpers of
my car. And I think, they don't care if they die. I mean, what have
we created?" She expresses an equally strong love for London,
but an equally strong fear of being hounded by the British press. In
the States, she says, it has reached the point where the press
dictates to her where she can and cannot live. The irony of her own
"imprisonment" is that she finds herself effectively
barred from the places that draw her, and driven to the ones that do
not. She mentions Los Angeles in particular. "It's the most
boring place. That's why I'm there."
Has it all become so much more
acute since John Lennon left England for New York in order to be
left in peace by the press and the public, only to meet his own
death? 'Oh yes, that was 17 years ago. The media has changed
immensely since then. And you really cannot win. If you ignore them
or run away, they think you are being uncooperative. "If you
co-operate, they say you are being manipulative. They were
constantly doing that with Diana. I find what they are doing now
just as unforgivable. They were so awful to her, and now they are
****ing excuse my French now they are putting her on a
pedestal and saying she is so great and fabulous, and yet two weeks
ago they were ripping her to shreds."
The problem, she says, is not
confined to America and Europe. When she was in Argentina filming
Evita, the paparazzi were paying young children to lie under her car
so that she would accidentally run them over and they (the
photographers) would have a picture. She was more fortunate with her
driver than Diana. He spotted the boys and stayed put until they had
gone. Not that this stopped the pictures being taken anyway, some of
them posed to make it look as though the boys were trapped under the
wheels. On the surface it looks as though Diana was right: Madonna
has handled her press relations more effectively than the Princess,
and has acquired a protective layer nearer to armadillo-thickness
than Diana ever managed. If you do believe our tabloid press, then
she has even imposed a vow of public silence on Carlos Leon, her
partner and father of their 11-month-old baby daughter Lourdes Yet
even her staunch defense of privacy has an effect on the market,
inflating the scarcity value of Madonnabilia. When she was about to
give birth, there was a stake-out of every maternity ward in Beverly
Hills, and a reward of $350,000 (about £220,000) offered for the
first shot of the baby. The parallels between the two women are
obvious, if misleading. Both have been intrigued and alarmed by the
power of their fame. Both have been single-minded single mothers
whose quests for love were turbulent. One achieved stardom through
the membership of a particular family; the other went the opposite,
American way, made regal by the movies. Neither dreamt at the birth
of their public selves that they would embody the fantasies of
masses, or become snagged for real in such soap-operatic plots. Both
have been called icons, and although it is a vague designation it is
given to very few. In the tragic absence of the one, the other is as
famous a woman as the world has to offer. The
implications of that status, she agrees, are grave. "Yes, it's
true, people had the same fixation with her that they do with me.
You were never allowed to make mistakes without being hanged in the
public square. You also just got taken apart in the papers, and this
time I don't mean the photos, but the psychiatric kind of pieces
that claimed to have an insight into your character. Then there was
this idea that neither of us could have a relationship with a man;
that we would never find one who we could connect to because our
marriages had failed; that we were unlovable."
Did this ever feel like a
self-fulfilling prophecy? "Well, it takes a pretty brave guy to
go out with someone like that [us]. You're going to be in the public
eye, even if you are a janitor. You have to expect that if you are
involved with someone like us. I have always said God bless the man
with that kind of courage. There aren't a lot of people like that in
the world." So what is going on if this same press that makes
her unlovable is also adulating her? Is it trying to make out that
mere mortals wouldn't be good enough? Is it being possessive, in
some perverse way, on behalf of its public?
"They [the papers] certainly
want to perpetuate the idea that a mere mortal would never satisfy
me, which is hardly true, I can assure you." Is there, then, a
fundamental need to create people who are too good for us?
"I would say absolutely. We
all need people to look up to. The bravest and most dignified thing
about Diana was that while she exposed herself to the public she
also said 'I'm not perfect, I have my problems.' I'm not saying that
I agree with everything she ever did. But look, what we need is not
role models who get up there and say 'I'm perfect,' but ones who say
'I'm flawed, and I'm vulnerable and I am going to try to change and
be a better person.' We need those people now more than ever,
because everywhere we look, whether it is the movies or TV or even
fashion photography, we see the glamorising of death and violence
and drug addiction."
She talks of the resources she has
been able to use in her struggle for a healthy relationship with her
own fame. It is here that resemblances between herself and Diana
finally, poignantly, break down. For these resources are no more and
no less than her friends. If she had not been able to unburden
herself regularly to her own "incredible" close ones, she
does not know how she could have survived. "I sensed a kind of
desperation from her, and I realised that she just did not have the
same kind of support from friends as I have. That, I guess, is what
makes this all the sadder, because here [Dodi] was someone who she
really got on well with, and who was part of a family." Family.
The word, an ominous one from the very start of Diana's life,
strikes an odd note once more. Then comes the related word,
monarchy. Madonna goes on talking, but the shadow of the word hangs
over her speech like an old, entrenched front of English weather.
Monarchy, Diana's embracing enemy,
was something Madonna did not have to contend with. The closest
counterpart, in terms of oppression and manipulation, would have
been Hollywood, but that institution was an amateur by comparison.
"Thank God," she
continues, "I have my friends, and not a monarchy round my
ankles like a ball and chain." I ask her if she has any answers
to the questions of overwhelming fame, and by way of reply she says
that she is losing sleep over how to protect her daughter. She then
makes a plea similar to the one made by Libby Purves in yesterday's
Times for some truce with the young. "The first thing we need
is a law that says the photographers can't take their pictures
before a certain age. Let's face it, they didn't ask to be famous.
Let them at least have the semblance of normality in their early
years. They would have to be strong laws. People say they exist in
France but that's baloney. I was talking to Demi Moore and she was
saying that when she went to France with her children the
photographers followed her everywhere, and in the end they couldn't
leave the hotel.
"Freedom of the press, yes,
I'm all for it. Write whatever you want to write. But you cannot
stalk people and take pictures of them inside their bedroom windows,
or chase them through towns at 100 mph. Like I said, we are
destroying the things we love."
It is no longer family and monarchy
that hang over the speech, but freedom and destruction. They are
there again, with the same sad proximity they always had in Diana's
life. "I mean, the woman was caged," says Madonna, with
the utmost bleakness. "The only hope I can see coming from all
this is that . . ." Is that what? She pauses for a moment and I
wait for her to say something about the Princess not dying in vain
if we learn the lessons of her tragic death. But this is not
Hollywood and the words don't come.
She tries again: "The only
hope I can see coming from all this is that . . . is that now she is
free.
|