I "learned" last night that several people don't get my obsession with R Kelly. I obviously knew this already, but to hear that its been brought up x times in my absence was a bit ouchie. I know its confusing on its surface but I've felt this defiant "I don't have to explain myself/prove myself/blah to anybody" streak for the past few months as I've worked through my inner problems so I can be at a better place outward and stop being a fucking bore to be around. So I've hesitated. First, this feels so ludicrous a topic to even be writing about. Second, on the surface it definitely contradicts my personal beliefs. Third, if you don't get something about me just ask me. I like talking and writing. So let's break it down. From the top:
I had never really heard R Kelly songs until Chocolate Factory came out in 2002, when I was dating Jake. He somehow got a hold of it and was like "holy shit you have to hear this album its the funniest thing of all time." So we sat in his room that night and listened to the entire thing. And its really funny. Around the same time I learned that he's a huge and unabashed pedophile. And he has the hubris to write extremely thinly veiled songs and entire albums about his predilection for young girls. Jake and I were fascinated by how totally obvious it was/is that he was a perv. We were dumbfounded that he "had the balls" to put it out there so publically. In fact, as stupid as this sounds it was somewhat of a bonding point between us. The initial indictment on child pornography came against R Kelly during this time, and we couldn't believe how obviously guilty he was. We assumed this was an open and shut case: video evidence, a marriage to 15 year old Aaliyah, songs referring to him being the Pied Piper and producing "Age ain't nothin but a number"...it seemed as if his hubris finally got the best of him.
Anyway, I remember hearing the ignition remix when we were mini-golfing at that place off the beltline in Madison (doing the 'California' course) just before moving to San Francisco and both of us totally freaking out about it. Stupid? Sure. Tender memory I won't forget? Sure. Seemed very fitting that something we initially discovered together was sort of a farewell song for us. I know its totally strange but thats how it all started. Sentimentality, shared giggles, and disbelief. Also if it matters (which I believe it does since this is where most of the confusion is derived from), I was much more of a staunch feminist then than I am now; I was still in Women's Studies classes full time, paying close attention to not using gendered terms, derogatory comments, and not putting up with those near and dear to me being intolerant etc. Yet I still found R Kelly fascinating and entertaining. I also think that Roman Polanski is a good film director. I like some Michael Jackson albums (and so do you). I don't condone their personal lives but they are undeniably talented individuals.
For awhile R Kelly disappeared from the public consciousness. Around two years after the initial indictment I remember wondering "did he go to jail yet?" and had to dig around the internet to find out that the trial hadn't even begun. I was surprised but it also made sense. If you are rich and famous you can do whatever the fuck you want in America. If he were poor and had a public defender this would have been an open and shut case - a poor black man molesting a teen on video - he'd be in jail. We'd find him to be the lowest of the low in society. But because he has the money and the means, we let him delay this trial for 6 years. His victim caves to pressure and lets him pay her off (and pay off two prior victims) in order to not say its her in the tape and refuse to testify. He continues to make albums that refer repeatedly to strange sexual acts and his prowess. (Side note: there are dozens of books/articles/theories over multiple decades behind the pressure for sexual assault victims to not come forward due to the inherently sexist and misogynist predominant culture. If you care, we can talk about it over coffee because it means a lot to me.)
How many famous people, or anybody other than NAMBLA members, openly 'admit' to child molestation, let alone get PAID while doing it? I guess Jerry Lee Lewis? Polanski fled the country rather than deal with the accusations. Michael Jackson sort of did on that primetime special, but his career plummeted as a result of his child molestation. So what the hell is it about R Kelly that his stardom has only increased since his sex tape came out?
I think the increased publicity is partially a result of Trapped in the Closet. Prior to TitC, people (including myself) forgot about him and his trial. Then he put out this absolutely fucking insane rap opera in 12 acts that becomes an instant hit with everybody - including and most notably the middle white Americans of middle to above intelligence and middle to above spending power and marketing influence. My friends went out and bought it and had viewing parties. Jake bought it for me for Christmas that year. We were in disbelief at his ego on the director's cut...or was it genius? Did he know that by looking back at the camera and talking about how cliffhangers are important to the story line and how everything rhymes would be so hilarious that it would prompt people to purchase a DVD. Genius marketing tool or complete tool? I still don't know the answer to that.
I believe that "Trapped" reignited public interest in R Kelly and also cemented his cross-over status into the mainstream public consciousness. Suddenly you started seeing articles pop up asking why he hadn't been tried yet for the child porn tape. You get an increased pressure to move the trial along and stop letting R Kelly delay it. Then R Kelly gets lucky (no pun intended), and the judge (a known nutcase) injures himself. He logically has one of the most in-demand defense lawyers in Chicago who has to delay the Kelly case further so he can oversee another high profile trial. The lead prosecutor has a baby and goes on maternity leave. So now its not just R Kelly's appendix being removed or his claim that the trial would cause undue damage to his finances and career (bullshit) that was delaying the trial. At this point, the trial becomes a fading comet in the distance, something that begins so bright, clear and solid but crashes and burns leaving smoke and dust in its wake. I really thought he would never be brought to trial, especially once the victim (note I say victim with no 'alleged' qualifier, I truly believe she is a victim) recants her story (no doubt under pressure/blackmail from the Kells camp). I think its the confluence of these totally random and mildly ludicrous delays that created the media feeding frenzy.
(I think I should mention here the idea of seeing R Kelly in concert. I saw him in December. Why? It was free, it was near my house, and it was sociologically fascinating. It was also truly entertaining. The man is a star for a reason. He knows how to work a crowd. He had this full building, mostly of women, shouting for him and loving every bit of it despite being fully aware that he was headed to trial in just a few months. What is it about these women that make them believe he isn't guilty? Have we ever figured out why some mega-fans of MJ refuse to believe that he is a child sexual predator? Anyway, it was fun. I went with some fun friends, I had a great time laughing so hard at the entire spectacle of outlandish costume changes and ridiculous medleys of his hits, and I didn't spend a dime on it. And I'd do it again.)
The delay helped build anticipation for the main event. And build it, and build it, and allow more articles that highlight how insane R Kelly is to be published. And more and more goofy tidbits about his personal life become known. And you see just how absolutely egotistical and what a megalomaniac R Kelly is. And he becomes more funny, more larger than life. The 6 year delay only allowed him to continue to believe that he is invincible (insert "the World's Greatest" joke here).
What is disturbing is that he may be invincible. He has the money and the fame to get acquitted. His prior molestation charges, his child bride, the rumors of the forced abortion, his lyrics, are inadmissible in trial because the court system prohibits convicting people of past crimes or past character of which they aren't currently charged with. And thats helpful for some people - think rape victims - when they get put on the stand and are accused of being slutty in the past so therefore they couldn't have been raped. Wrong. But with this case, it seems so painfully obvious that he is guilty and yet all the prosecution has to work with is a tape that may or may not have "the Real R Kelly" in it, a victim who refuses to testify, and the hearsay of her friends who are attempting to identify someone in a video made 10 years ago. Reasonable doubt? As much as you don't want to say it its there. The OJ "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" defense really may work here - they have this supposed mole on his back that isn't in the video. They have a bitter brother who has a vendetta against R Kelly who may have staged the video with him as the star, they have the edge of no prior habits of Kelly being admissible. They have a judge who does things like hold up a bag of chewed gum and yell at journalists, and who makes potential jurors look in Kelly's eyes and make promises to him. Personally, I think this case screams mistrial. If not a mistrial, I have so little faith in where America places its values that I really think he won't be convicted. Sure Americans hate child molesters, but I think society in general places fame and fortune above crimes. They allow the glare of stardom to blind them from lewd and lascivious acts. Again, Michael Jackson (to an extent at least), Polanski, OJ Simpson, most recently Roger Clemens, even mild prostitution charges against George Michael or Hugh Grant are lessoned. Meaning, their crimes are somehow not as evil/awful/inexcusable as a normal non-famous non-extraordinarily rich American. This case, and R Kelly in general, magnifies the classism and greed general America has in defiance of our supposed morals.
Let's say R Kelly actually is found guilty and must serve his 15 years in jail. Do you think he'll be in the general population? Hell no. What happens to common child molesters in prison? They are the most reviled criminals there - the first to get raped themselves, the first to get beat up. They are universally hated. R Kelly will be allowed to say that because he is so famous that being put in the general population will pose a danger to his life. And this danger doesn't exist for 'normal' child molesters? But his high profile and money will allow him to be separated from the general population. He'll serve a relatively safe and 'easy' prison sentence. He'll be able to afford the best lawyers to see out his appeals, and will probably be out within 2 years. If he is even found guilty.
So for all of this - this is why I find the R Kelly trial utterly fascinating. I think it highlights our obsession with celebrity culture more than any recent celebrity trial because his crimes are so obviously wrong (these aren't simple Paris Hilton drunk driving charges). It highlights how bureaucratic, unwieldy and unjust our criminal justice system is. It highlights that classism is very much alive and in place and that even in the one place you are supposed to receive unbiased-ness, if you are rich that right disappears in your favor.
Am I a feminist? You bet. Do I think R Kelly is guilty? Fuck yes. He should have been in jail before this tape was even able to be made. Do I think the R Kelly trial is legitimately interesting? Definitely. Does that last statement somehow make me 'anti-feminist'? I don't think so. I'll admit that its ashamedly base to follow a celebrity trial - I may as well get a subscription to National Enquirer and watch Court TV in a chocolate sauce stained pastel blue sweat suit all day. Do I really care if its shameful to follow a trial? No. Especially not when the trial provides daily entertainment in the form of "I know its my friend because we got mullet haircuts the day before and she has a mullet in the video." Each passing day of this trial gets increasingly more ridiculous. After 6 years of being interested in the larger than life persona of R Kelly, I can't help but continue to follow this case. And when you don't have many other forms of humor in your life, any little bit helps. When all your other daily thoughts are serious and intense, its nice to read about something so stupid and draw silly pictures of it.
Which brings me to going to his trial Wednesday. It was something new and different. It wasn't the same bar on the same night at the same time with the same food, etc etc. It was waking up at 7 am, going there with someone I really love spending time with, stepping outside of my Ukrainian Village bubble to see something new, talking to strangers, being witness to a rare event. It was new bus lines and good conversation and reinvigoration for 'adventure.' It was not me coming there with "R Kelly is Innocent" or "I don't see nothing wrong with a lil molestation" signs. Sidenote: there were NO protestors there. What does that say? If people are so outraged, where are they? Leads me to...
I believe the concept of R Kelly makes one think about the split between public persona of famous people and their private lives. When is it 'ok' to let their private lives slide and purchase their cds, see their movies, pay for their live appearances? What personal immorality is the tipping point for deciding to hate a public figure? Can a public figure ever truly have a personal life? Have they given up that right? I think R Kelly brings about several interesting arguments about society's obsession with stardom and the intersectionality of not just the usual race, class, sex, but also of entertainment and reality and of suspended belief. Why is it some famous people are brought down for their personal lives and others (think gangsta rap people who have admitted to rape and murders) are profiteering and made more famous/infamous for their private lives? If I had a long running interest in Phil Spector, would I be getting as much shit as I am now? He murdered a woman! He's famous! His trial took years! Why was it 'ok' for people to LOL over his insanities and his wild haircuts and behavior, but its not ok to laugh at the circus of the R Kelly trial? Why is R Kelly so different? Where does race fit into it? Where does selective morality fit? Who knew Robert Kelly could be a potential thesis topic?
Labels: feminism, guff, music, politics
