Arts & Entertainment

All hail the queen

Madonna’s back but a lot is at stake — can she still deliver in a post-Gaga world?

Published

15 years ago

February 2, 2012

Joey DiGuglielmo

Madonna (Photo by Tom Munro; courtesy Liz Rosenberg Media)

Madonna sometimes likes to lay low for a few years, give people a chance to miss her, then come roaring back with a flurry of new projects and appearances. And the world is in the throes of the biggest such onslaught in years.

It’s been percolating for weeks — her song “Masterpiece” was a surprise winner at last month’s Golden Globes, her interview with Cynthia McFadden on ABC’s “20/20” found the singer famously weighing in on Lady Gaga and she was on Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show” this week. Fans are salivating in anticipation over Sunday night’s Super Bowl halftime performance, this week’s release of new single “Give Me All Your Luvin” (with Nicki Minaj and M.I.A.), new album “MDNA” (slated for a March 26 release) and, to a markedly lesser degree according to some camps, the new movie “W.E.” which had a limited release in December and went into slightly wider U.S. release this week (no word yet on D.C. screenings).

Madonna fans, of course, are whipped into a frenzy but the rest of the world is curious too and it raises an ocean of questions: Is too much being made of the Madonna/Gaga comparison? How can Madonna call Gaga’s work “reductive” when the former spent years mining old pop culture imagery for inspiration? Is it unfair that we keep wondering if Madonna still “has it” to a degree we don’t require of, say, the Stones or U2 each time they re-emerge? And could Madonna — known, of course, for her controversial TV performances — risk a Janet-caliber disaster if she tries something outrageous at the Super Bowl? We checked in with several gay pop culture observers — some fans, some not — to weigh in.

Snark king Michael Musto, famous for his “La Dolce Musto” column in the Village Voice and author of the new book “Fork On the Left, Knife in the Back,” says, for starters, that the similarities between Gaga’s “Born This Way” and Madonna’s “Express Yourself” justify some questioning.

He calls Madonna “the ultimate pop culture sponge,” but says it’s important to differentiate between homage and an all-out rip-off.

“It wasn’t Madonna at all who was pointing this out at first,” Musto says. “Everybody online was chirping that it was eerily similar with the chord progressions and the rappy part being kind of ‘Vogue’-ish,” he says. “But I’m all for anything that drives Madonna crazy … her haughtiness, her pretentiousness. I mean let’s face it, she’s not the warmest tool in the shed and that has led to some ill will. Lady Gaga is deeply talented and obviously a better singer than Madonna, though I do think Madonna was great for calling out that one song. I am still on the Gaga team, but I did recently write that Madonna has, once again against all odds, made herself hot again just by putting herself out there.”

Musto predicts Madonna will continue to stay front and center in the pop culture limelight as long as she wants.

“She comes at it with steely determination and she wears these blinders 24 hours that bar out negativity,” he says. “To her, her new project is the best thing in the world. Yes, the deck is increasingly stacked against her, but she knows all the tricks to stay on top. She knows to work with the young, hot people and once again, she’s made herself hotter than she’s been in a long time.”

Others say Gaga’s success doesn’t mean Madonna can’t continue in a big way too.

“I don’t think there has to be a Gaga-versus-Madonna thing like you’re either one or the other,” says Michael Crawford, a gay activist with Freedom to Marry who’s been a huge Madonna fan since the 1983 single “Burning Up” was released. “It’s not like you’re either a Republican or a Democrat. Clearly I worship the ground Madonna walks on and I always will, but I think Gaga is very good too. A lot of people just want to be bitchy but Madonna is Madonna, Gaga is Gaga.”

Others say the comparisons are inevitable and warranted.

“I’ve always told the rabid Madonna fans who’ve said Gaga is overly inspired by others that they’re on a weak foundation considering Madonna’s many homages and references in her work,” says Matthew Rettenmund, the gay author of “Encyclopedia Madonnica.” “Sometimes when you listen to Madonna’s most ardent fans, the ones who dislike Gaga anyway, they are using many of the exact same slams against Gaga that were used against Madonna her whole career by her detractors. That lack of perception is discouraging because I think Madonna’s work does attract pretty smart fans. Her references are not low brow and while you don’t have to understand every one of them to enjoy her work, being educated and informed does enhance your appreciation of it. I think Lady Gaga is the only artist in 30 years to even approach Madonna’s blueprint and I hope she is able to change and grow and keep it interesting in the way Madonna has been able to. One doesn’t cancel out the other.”

Madonna, of course, clearly channeled Marilyn Monroe — from the all out recreation of the “Material Girl” video to the more subtle bleached blonde looks she sported in the “Bedtime Stories” and “Who’s That Girl” eras — but is that any different from what Gaga’s doing with her or what Monroe herself may have channeled from her own predecessors such as Jean Harlow?

“It would be interesting if Marilyn had been around in the ‘80s and gone on ‘Nightline’ or something and been asked about Madonna,” says local nightlife impresario Ed Bailey, who DJs the popular Madonnarama events here and around the country. “I think [the ‘Material Girl’ video] was not just using that old concept for her own good, it was more of an homage and a statement about a strong powerful woman, which is something that clearly speaks to Madonna. I think there is a line between copying somebody and taking inspiration from something and there is a line between those two concepts. Sometimes it’s very blurry and sometimes it’s very clear.”

Rettenmund says the comparisons get silly after a while.

“I think it says more about gay men in particular and how they project themselves into their idols and how personally we take this trivial stuff,” he says. “I mean, ‘My diva is better than your diva,’ is the level at which this is and my reaction to it, aside from obviously admiring and liking Madonna for 30 years and being brand loyal, is that I love Gaga too and I’m happy to have all the divas around. It’s gay-on-gay crime to be attacking over this nonsense. It’s a homosexual civil war.”

Others wonder if Madonna will continue to be able to capture the world’s attention indefinitely. She’s been at it for decades now and even with all the changes in the way people hear and buy music, pop radio — especially in the U.S. — is as much a young person’s game as it ever was, especially for women artists. On the last few albums, Madonna almost always manages a Billboard Hot 100 top 10 hit with the first single, but follow-up singles routinely fail to chart stateside (they do better abroad and on the dance chart) and her last few singles — “Celebration” and “Revolver” — failed to hit big on U.S. radio. Younger divas — from Rihanna to Kelly Clarkson to Gaga — are logging much higher numbers. But while her chart peaks have waned, Madonna’s concert tours have skyrocketed in popularity.

Musto says that’s just how the industry works.

“I mean imagine if Peggy Lee had released something in the ‘80s or something,” he says “Would it have charted? No way, not unless she hooked up with the Bee Gees or something. Diana Ross could come out with the most amazing song ever right now, it wouldn’t get played. Working with these younger artists, like M.I.A., that’s [Madonna’s] way around it.”

Madonna at the New York premiere of 'W.E.,' the new movie she co-wrote and directed. (Photo by Amanda Schwab; courtesy the Karpel Group)

Bailey says this time could be different.

“I’ve been in clubs for 20 years and never in that entire time has there been a time when the dance music in the club and pop on the radio were identical until now,” he says. “It’s just the way the world is right now. People are listening to Lady Gaga and Chris Brown and David Guetta and Flo Rida, you wouldn’t call them pop artists really. They’re dance artists. Now it’s every single thing you hear. People have an appetite now for that dance/pop sound with Rihanna, Katy Perry. I think for Madonna, this is gonna work out really well.”

And as for the Super Bowl? Is Madonna taking pot shots at her old rival Janet Jackson when she promises “no nipples” or is it just more of the gays making too much of off-the-cuff remarks?

Rettenmund says it will be huge. Rumors abound that she’s invited the Gay Men’s Chorus of Indianpolis to join her on stage.

“I’m assuming it’s going to be a visual orgy of cheerleading with water cooler moments,” he says. “Madonna is an artist who is never considered fully proven … every time she returns, there is this expectation of ‘OK, show me’ from some quarters. And the Super Bowl is no exception, except this time Madonna has set it up as a make-or-break moment of her own doing … so it has to be great. She knows that and in the past, she has lived up to expectations.”

Bailey calls it “a tall order.”

“The Black Eyed Peas were really good last year and she’s got to live up to that. It has to be a visual spectacle. She can’t just come out and say, ‘I’m gonna strip it all back and just make it about good, quality music.’ That won’t work.”

And if a stunt should backfire?

“Madonna would just laugh and keep going,” Crawford says. “I think Janet is really great, but Madonna just goes for it and makes no apologies … Janet apologized and Justin sold her out, there was a lack of strength in that whole episode. Madonna has a unique ability to make things work to her advantage.”

Up Next

Calendar: Feb 3-9

Don't Miss

Queery: Michael Rawson

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

Out & About

Annapolis Pride arrives this weekend

Sixth annual LGBTQ celebration held in Maryland capital

Published

13 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Tinashe Chingarande

Annapolis Pride is set for Saturday. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Sixth Annual Annapolis Pride Parade and Festival will be held on Saturday, Oct. 3 at 11 a.m. on the streets adjacent to St. John’s College.

The theme of this year’s Annapolis Pride Parade and Festival celebration is “United in Pride, Together We Thrive!” Saturday’s parade will begin on St. John’s Street adjacent to St. John’s College, continue along Calvert Street to Northwest Street, to Church Circle, and onto West Street. The parade route then turns onto Amos Garrett Boulevard and eventually ends on Constitution Avenue near Maryland Hall.

Those with disabilities will be able to watch the parade from a special viewing porch at the Graduate Hotel at 126 West St. An Annapolis Pride volunteer will be there and available to assist.

For more details, visit the festival’s website.

Calendar

Calendar: October 2-8

LGBTQ events in the days to come

Published

13 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Tinashe Chingarande

Friday, October 2

Go Gay DC will host “First Friday LGBTQ+ Community Happy Hour” at 7 p.m. at Freddie’s Beach Bar and Restaurant. This is a chance to relax, make new friends, and enjoy happy hour specials at this classic retro venue. Attendance is free and more details are available on Eventbrite.

Saturday, October 3

Go Gay DC will host “LGBTQ+ Community Brunch” at 11 a.m. at Freddie’s Beach Bar & Restaurant. This fun weekly event brings the DMV area LGBTQ+ community, including allies, together for delicious food and conversation. Attendance is free and more details are available on Eventbrite.

“Nellie’s DC Drag Brunch” will be at 12 p.m. at Nellie’s Sports Bar. Come get served like a queen by a queen. Join Sapphire Blue, Deja Diamond and their team of amazing drag performers for the most fun you’ll have all weekend. Tickets cost $58.51 and are available on Eventbrite.

Sunday, October 4

Spark Coffee Club will be at 12 p.m. at Spark Social. This is a laid-back daytime hangout built entirely around making new connections. Whether you’re new to the city, new to the community, or just looking to expand your social circle, this is an easy, low-pressure way to spark up a conversation with the person next to you. Come solo or with a friend — you never know who you might meet. For more details, visit Eventbrite.

Monday, October 5

“Center Aging: Monday Coffee Klatch” will be at 10 a.m. on Zoom. This is a social hour for older LGBTQ+ adults. Guests are encouraged to bring a beverage of choice. For more information, contact Adam ([email protected]).

Tuesday, October 6

DC SAFE and the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs will host “The Relationship Lab” at 6 p.m. This is a four-week series for LGBTQ+ communities exploring love, boundaries, communication, and connection. Through real conversations and engaging discussions, participants will explore what makes relationships healthy and how to recognize the signs when they’re not. For more details, visit Eventbrite.

Wednesday, October 7

Job Club will be at 6 p.m. on Zoom upon request. This is a weekly job support program to help job entrants and seekers, including the long-term unemployed, improve self-confidence, motivation, resilience and productivity for effective job searches and networking — allowing participants to move away from being merely “applicants” toward being “candidates.” For more information, email [email protected] or visit www.thedccenter.org/careers.

Center Aging Women’s Social & Discussion Group will be at 6 p.m. on Zoom. This group is a place where older LGBTQ+ women can meet and socialize with one another. To register, visit the DC Center’s website.

Thursday, October 8

The DC Center’s Fresh Produce Program will be held all day at the DC LGBTQ+ Community Center. People will be informed on Wednesday at 5 p.m. if they are picked to receive a produce box. No proof of residency or income is required. For more information, email [email protected] or call 202-682-2245.

South Asian LGBTQ+ Support Group will be at 7 p.m. on Zoom. KHUSHDC provides a safe, confidential space for South Asian LGBTQ community members to come together and share experiences. The peer support group is an outlet for South Asian-identified LGBTQ individuals to come and talk about anything affecting them. It’s a secure, judgement-free environment to discuss relationships, sexuality, health, well-being, identity, culture, religion, or anything that is on your mind. Please feel free to join, and share stories, learn about available resources, and join our community. For more details, email [email protected].

a&e features

Ryan Murphy’s ‘Monster’ vilifies the lesbian

Netflix show promotes stereotype that queer women are dangerous

Published

2 days ago

October 1, 2026

Emma Cieslik

Ella Beatty stars in ‘Lizzie Borden.’ (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

Ryan Murphy’s “Monster: The Lizzie Borden Story” just premiered on Netflix and became the most watched show on the platform. Murphy and his series are deeply controversial. The past three seasons have focused on convicted killers Jeffrey Dahmer, Lyle and Erik Menendez, and Ed Gein, and have garnered considerable criticism for sensationalizing real-life trauma, exploiting victims for entertainment, and glorifying the perpetrators.

But his newest season centers on Lizzie Borden, the white, affluent Massachusetts woman still referenced today in nursery rhymes who was never convicted of killing her parents Andrew and Abby Borden. As with Murphy’s other seasons, the show plays fast-and-loose with real-life history, instead turning a real-life crime into a psychosexual spectacle.

In real life, Lizzie was found not guilty by an all-male jury in the highly publicized 1892 trial, largely due to a lack of evidence including blood on her clothing and a murder weapon. Her initial statement contradicted her later testimony but her defense team argued that the morphine a doctor repeatedly gave her likely caused her confusion. But despite the fact that Lizzie was acquitted in court, she was ostracized by her community during her life and has been branded a murderer ever since.

Murphy’s highly fictionalized retelling of Lizzie’s story leans into this accusation not only that Lizzie murdered her father and stepmother with an axe but that she was successful in covering it up with the help of the maid Bridget Sullivan. Murphy not only concocts a sapphic relationship between Lizzie and Bridget, pinning the idea of killing Lizzie’s parents on the widely traveled woman who dyes her hair and is repeatedly called a lesbophobic slur by Lizzie’s stepmother, but also portrays Lizzie as an inspiration to Aileen Carol Wuornos, a woman who killed seven men who solicited sex and was also in a relationship with a woman.

Further, Murphy’s retelling creates a false ending to Lizzie’s story. While in real life, Lizzie and her sister Emma buy a house called “Maplecroft” and live there for the rest of their lives, Murphy instead imagines Bridget returning sporadically for romantic rendezvous with Lizzie and eventually moving back in with her and marching together for women’s right to vote. In real life, Bridget left town immediately after providing testimony and lived in Montana until she died.

Lesbophobia is at the heart of this retelling of Borden’s story. Despite the fact that Murphy depicts Lizzie and Bridget having sex and possibly getting married or at least promising themselves to one another wearing flower crowns, there is no evidence that Lizzie and Bridget had any romantic or sexual relationship. If they did have a relationship, it would likely have been hidden and any evidence destroyed, but records show that Lizzie herself refused to call Bridget by her real name, instead referring to her as “Maggie,” the name of their previous maid. It was only Lizzie’s stepmother Abby who called Bridget her real name. In Murphy’s retelling, it’s Lizzie’s stepmother Abby who refuses to learn or use Bridget’s actual name and treats her with disdain along with her stepdaughter.

Some people online argue that we are witnessing Lizzie’s story retold through Wuornos’s perspective, so adding in elements of child abuse and sapphic relationships would make sense, but there is no record that Wuornos ever visited Lizzie Borden’s home, or that she was inspired by Borden throughout her life. Instead, Murphy and his co-creator Ian Brennan use (or I would say exploit) Wuornos as a thematic device to make broad stereotypes about female rage across generations. In doing so, they conflate two real-life examples of violence to sapphic individuals.

Depicting a lesbian relationship in this way is not progress, nor is it fruitful representation today. As sapphic shows are increasingly cut and cancelled, Murphy’s inclusion just reinforces the lesbophobic and sexist stereotype that lesbians and queer women are “dangerous” to straight women and abet or incite violence against men and a family unit. At a time when anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and real-world violence and murder of LGBTQ+ people, especially queer and trans people of color, is exploding, stories that frame murder of a family unit as germinating from a sapphic relationship feed into far right narratives.

They further the myth popularized by far right leaders (including those in the highest echelons of government) that LGBTQ+ people are dangerous, a threat to heterosexual norms and family life, despite the data showing that children of same-sex parents have above average health and well-being according to research by the University of Melbourne.

Today, many LGBTQ+ people feel they have to be (or are forced to be) idealized versions of themselves in order to stave off anti-LGBTQ+ stigma, policing and violence. These “acceptable” behaviors and appearances are rooted not only in cisgender, heterosexual norms but also white supremacy, colonialism, xenophobia, and ableism. It is respectability politics that tell us how we can and should behave (including those perpetuating in the wider LGBTQ+ community) and push LGBTQ+ people to assimilate into a society governed by queerphobic normativity.

I hope it’s clear that I’m not trying to argue that we cannot and should not have shows that depict queer women who kill, or at the very least queer women who are unethical or morally complex. We need these depictions because they ask difficult questions and they reference how some LGBTQ+ people can be and are unethical. In fact, several public LGBTQ+ figures are associated with employee abuse and exploitation, ableism, and fat phobia.

But when Lizzie’s sapphic identity is invented to drive the story along, arguably to generate interest (especially straight men’s interest) in this spectacle of historical slop, it’s not a story that invites discourse and dimensionality, it’s one that collapses Lizzie, Wuornos, and queer women’s identities and relationships to plot devices. It objectifies and fetishizes queer women, arguably committing violence against not only Lizzie but also Wuornos.

And when there is so little representation of sapphic relationships on mainstream television or streaming platforms, it makes this the vast majority of representation that queer girls and women will see of themselves first, and that the straight public will see. Historians will know that Murphy’s depiction of Lizzie’s life is wrong, but many viewers will not and may not go digging for the truth.

Why not focus on the stories of bisexual, lesbian, and queer women who really existed, shared their identities (sometimes covertly, sometimes not), and had long-term partners? In fact, “Boston marriages” were common in this time period and referred to women living together when sexual and romantic relationships between women were illegal, partially because penal systems didn’t know how women could have sex with one another and didn’t want to put the idea in “impressionable” women’s minds. Why not focus on these stories instead of creating a fictionalized account? We have always existed; we do not need to invent relationships.

Murphy’s depiction of Lizzie Borden is deeply problematic. Lesbophobia is not the only issue at the heart of Murphy’s drama, but it merits a broader discussion about how mainstream media routinely hurt queer women and is part of perpetuating queerphobic violence, and what we all lose in the process.