Performing Arts

Is 'Madonna: Tears of a Clown' a Laughing Matter?

In Madonna's bizarre one-off concert in Australia, she proved that she's still willing to push the envelope with a bold artistic statement. But what exactly was she saying?

On 10 March 2016, Madonna surprised her Australian fans with a one-off concert called “Madonna: Tears of a Clown”. Unlike the other concerts associated with the Rebel Heart Tour, this show didn’t feature any backup dancers, costume changes, or elaborate set pieces. Instead, it had Madonna, dressed as a clown, singing her most intimate songs and ad libbing to the small audience at Melbourne’s Forum Theater.

When Madonna walked on stage to greet the crowd, she described the show as a work in progress, and promised that she would disappoint those looking for perfection. The Rebel Heart Tour this was not, she reiterated.

And she was right. The show was imperfect, and at times, Madonna’s thoughts seemed scattered and her timing a little off. However, it’s also Madonna’s most interesting artistic statement in years.

Naturally, the mainstream press didn’t get it. A number of reporters speculated that she was drunk during the show, a claim Madonna angrily debunked on social media. ("Madonna says Playing Character, not Drunk, in Australia Show", by Jill Sergjeant, Reuters, 150 March 2016) The media has always misunderstood Madonna. They take her too seriously when she’s being silly, but at the same time, never treat her like an artist with something to say.

In the ‘90s, to provide just one example, Madonna was heavily criticized for her Erotica period. She had always been provocative, but many felt that her sexual expressions had gone too far. She was called a slut, and the unfortunate narrative that plagues many female stars -- that she’s only famous for showing her body -- spread like wildfire. What the press failed to understand at the time, and continue to miss to this day, is that Madonna was playing a character.

The first words of “Erotica”, the album’s lead single, are clear enough: “My name is Dita, I’ll be your mistress tonight”. The song is meant to be a playful commentary on sexual expression, but rather than call attention to Madonna’s alter-ego, the press assumed that it was she who was the whore. When Madonna had children years later, many worried that she would be an unfit mother, and often cited “Erotica” as a reason for their concerns. Little did they know that she was playing around.

There’s no doubt that Madonna still has the ability to be creative, but if there’s one thing that’s lacking in her most recent tours, it’s a grand artistic statement. The Sticky and Sweet Tour, for example, was a blast from start to finish, but it lacked the inventiveness of the Drowned World Tour. The Rebel Heart Tour was entertaining enough, but it had Madonna going through the motions, as if she needed to do the concert to fulfill a contractual obligation. This show was different. Madonna had something to say, and she wanted the world to know it.

Madonna portrayed the sad clown for a night. The audience laughed at her absurdity until they realized that she was expressing the pain inside her soul.

Or was she? That’s the thing with Madonna. We never can tell if she’s serious or not. Is this show, the most intimate of Madonna’s long career, a vulnerable cry for help and understanding, or is Madonna just screwing with us, as she often does? I couldn’t tell, and that’s what was brilliant about it.

In one of the show’s most talked about moments, Madonna performed her song “Intervention” and dedicated it to her son Rocco. It was Madonna exposed, letting us experience her emotional pain. For those who don’t know, Madonna has been involved in a custody battle over Rocco with her ex-husband Guy Ritchie.

There’s a strong possibility that Madonna was trolling us. Of course she loves her son, but maybe this was less about her pain and more about the press’ exploitation of her pain. As the show got more intimate with each song and personal anecdote, a disturbing thought crept into my mind: what if it was meant to be a joke?

It’s not unreasonable. Madonna is one of the first pop stars to call attention to the genre’s inauthenticity. Known for reinventing her image with each new project, she constantly reminded us that it was all fiction. Unlike most pop artists who present a carefully crafted image to the public and then pretend it’s who they really are (Taylor Swift comes to mind), Madonna was never shy about confronting the artifice of her image(s).

Even the show’s theme is suspect. Everyone knows about the sad clown cliché, and Madonna surely wouldn’t incorporate that concept into her art without some kind of ironic twist. This is troubling to come to terms with precisely because Madonna was so candid on stage, sharing stories about her son, her failed marriage to Sean Penn, and her career in general.

I'm reminded of her iconic documentary concert film Madonna: Truth or Dare (1992), in which she provides us with a backstage pass to her Blonde Ambition Tour. This is Madonna at her most revealing, complete with a brief flash of her breasts.

However, it's important to keep in mind that Madonna had control over the final product. The Madonna we see on screen is the one she wants us to see, and we’ll never know what she’s really like when the cameras are off.

That’s what’s so fascinating about her art. The most famous pop star in the world needed some anonymity, and the only way she was able to get it was by presenting a version of herself to the masses. This version may not be the real woman, but it was enough to satisfy the die-hard fans who hang on to her every word as if it were gospel, not knowing that she may not mean anything she says.

“Madonna: Tears of a Clown” has the potential to represent a transitional point in the pop star’s career. After decades of spectacle, Madonna may pull a Marlene Dietrich and spend the rest of her career in intimate clubs singing slow songs and telling stories about her life.

Or then again, maybe she won’t. Maybe she’ll put out another pop album in a few years featuring the most in-demand producers, and sell out another tour complete with a by-the-numbers dance extravaganza. If that’s the case, “Madonna: Tears of a Clown” will always be remembered as the time she decided to step out of her comfort zone and try something different, even if it's still unclear what, exactly, she was going for.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.