/ 19 December 2003

A little bit different

In 1995, Marilyn Manson released an album called Smells Like Children, which

was received, as were his two previous and nine subsequent albums, not

entirely in the spirit in which it was intended. With his Halloween mask

and androgynous, crone-like appearance, Manson was regarded by sections of

the media as a child-snatcher and his music blamed for contributing to the

Columbine high-school massacre.

So it is with some amusement – if that isn’t too animated a state to describe his wintry half-smile – that the

34-year-old rock star considers Michael Jackson’s arrest last month for

child molestation. ”It felt like he was trying to outdo me,” he says

drily. ”I do have a child skeleton. But we’re a little bit different, he

and I.”

Manson stands out against the chintz furnishings of the Mandarin Oriental

hotel in London’s Knightsbridge, which one senses he is grateful to for

amplifying the wackiness of his image. It is similar to the effect he gets

by posing – cavorting, I suppose – in front of the chintzy mentality of

small-town America.

Manson, whose stage name (he was born nerdy old Brian

Warner) satirises the uncritical nature of celebrity by marrying Charles

Manson with Marilyn Monroe, has made a career, literally, out of being

misunderstood. In this he has been aided by the idiocy of America’s

Christian right, to whom the sight of him capering about on stage in Mickey

Mouse ears and a bondage mask is not unsubtle burlesque, but heresy.

Although Manson takes the fashionable view that there is no such thing

as being misunderstood, since ”the person who thinks I worship the devil

and kill animals is just as important as someone who makes an

interpretation that’s closer to what I intended,” he has, none the less,

profited from being so condemned. ”It’s my job to be the Pierrot,” he

says, ”the clown, in the theatrical sense.” And he thinks of himself as a

cabaret MC, a Joel Grey figure peddling escapism in times of, if not

fascism, then ultra-conservatism.

It is an admirable effort, inspired by his early years as a sickly and

marginalised child, but it carries with it certain problems of style over

content. The panda facepaint, the frogspawn contact lenses and the dull,

rasping voice might be whimsically intended, but their effect is one of

deep and tedious mirthlessness, the sort of pained pretension you see in

teen goths stalking round the capital’s Camden Market on a Saturday.

A man who describes himself as ”a death’s head on a mop-stick” and answers his

critics with the lyric, ”I want to hang all your cattle,” can’t ever be

accused of taking himself too seriously. But during the course of an hour’s

interview, the most extravagant departure Manson makes from blankness is a

shallow smirk, in response to the question, ”Do you vote?” (Manson:

”No.” Me: ”Why not?” Manson, smirking, ”Because I don’t have a

driver’s licence.”) He is polite but diffident, balancing one huge-booted

foot on the other and compulsively rearranging his tie.

The Manson image, more suspiciously viewed in the US where the goth look

never took off among teens, was created as a reaction to the oppressiveness

of first Christian school, then the wider conservatism of the American

midwest. He grew up in Canton, Ohio, the son of a Vietnam veteran and a

housewife, which he says had him hating life from early on. ”As a kid I

just felt like an outsider,” says Manson, and at least has the grace to

look embarrassed by the cliche. ”Like any kid,” he adds hastily. ”I was

treated with distance. I think I was probably drawn to a lot of European

music and art.”

His hero is Oscar Wilde, for ”his life, his writing, everything that

happened to him,” and to a lesser extent, the Marquis de Sade,

”despicable though he might have been”. Manson identifies with the way in

which both men were persecuted, although his own situation, in which he has

invited persecution as proof of the power of his art, is hardly

commensurate.

Whatever one thinks of his music, Manson’s place in American culture is

useful in exposing the extent to which it is still possible to be punished

for one’s imagination. ”People only hate what they see in themselves,” he

says, which, in his case, is a sickness at the heart of the nuclear family.

His rebellion is not excused by poverty or abuse and although his father

came back from Vietnam with post-traumatic stress disorder, they were

ostensibly a happy family.

And yet he grew up in an atmosphere of intense anxiety, linked, he thinks, to religious hypocrisy. Who does he think the

Christian right hate more, him or Eminem? ”Um, I think me. He’s hated by a

lot of liberal groups, but he doesn’t really ever talk about religion and

that’s why there’s such a big difference – his success was much more

immediate. That’s one thing that really can hold you back in America.”

What does he think of gangster rap in general? ”I like some of it. But I

haven’t found any particular rap album that strikes me emotionally per se.

I think some of it is creative, some of it’s not. Some of it’s really

processed.”

Unlike the gangster rappers, whose unhappiness takes more traditional form

in machismo and homophobia, there is something passive about Manson’s

anger, something detached. He hasn’t been a teenager for a long time. For

all the enraged lyrics, the defining sentiment of his work is listlessness.

”We don’t rebel to sell/it just suits us well,” he sings. He likes to

think of himself as an aesthete, but if there is anything cynical about his

work, it is here.

Manson flatters the inertia of his teenage fans, but is himself a model of American workaholism. ”If there’s something I don’t

like, I always try my best to outdo it,” he says. ”I always thing it’ll

be better next time. If I think I weigh too much, I’ll lose weight; if my

hair looks stupid, I’ll cut it. I guess I’m my harshest critic. I’m not

easily satisfied. I work very hard, although I don’t really consider it

work. I find it very hard to relax. Watching movies is my one

distraction.”

On political matters, he is non-committal to the point of senselessness.

Voting doesn’t interest him because politics in America is ”very limited

to two parties, two choices. I just generally ignore it.” He was neither

pro the war, nor anti it. ”I could try and do peace songs if that was what

I was supporting. Or not supporting.” In fact, he had a tougher time

living under Clinton than under Bush, because in the era before al-Qaida

there was no one else to blame but Manson. ”There was definitely a lack of

any sort of villain in the Clinton era, which is why when Columbine

happened, it was easy to pick on me. My face was around and it made good

TV. Now, if something like that happens, there are far too many things

going on for them to care about; there are more things for Americans to

hate, and to complicate it, they’re not even sure if they hate Bush.”

So he prefers living under Bush then? ”Uh. I predicted before he was

elected that this would be a much more prosperous time for art and it has

been. I’m not saying that I want Bush to continue. Or not continue. I just

make the best of it and get lost in something else.” He draws parallels

between his art and the vaudeville of the 1930s, which was devised as a

haven from politics. ”Really that type of theatre was a great outlet for

decadence, an escape from the rest of the world. I’ve always been doing

that, but in the past maybe it’s been more nihilistic, self-destructive.

It’s more of a celebration now.”

Ultimately, he says, his art is a defence against getting old, the thought

of which terrifies him. I suspect this is another pose borrowed from Wilde,

although Manson smartly identifies it as one of the reasons his critics

hate him so much. ”This is the root,” he says. ”It’s fear of the

imagination, which is fear of being like a child, which is fear of growing

up, which is fear of death. That’s why censorship attacks people’s

imagination, but not what’s happening in reality. You can watch CNN and see

plenty of violent things, but if I go out on stage with a chainsaw, that

horrifies them.”

Does it still hurt when he’s called a freak?

”There’s nothing that anyone could say about me that would hurt my

feelings. I proved that I could not be destroyed with Columbine. I became

the most hated person that I could be. So nothing hurts me, no.” But if he

doesn’t feel pain, then surely he is desensitised to all sorts of other

things that are necessary to art. ”Yeah. But it’s more out of

oversensitivity that I do that. Because I’m very sensitive. So I just try

and shut things out. I don’t feel any less of an outsider than I did when I

was a kid. I probably feel more isolated now.”

If Manson fears growing up, it’s partly because his career relies on being

not too far removed from his core audience. Like his friend, Ozzy Osbourne,

the terms in which he is referred to have softened over the years from

shock-rocker, to glam-rocker to goth-rocker. How much longer, I wonder, can

he carry on being a standard bearer for teen rebellion? I mean, who ever

heard of a 40-year-old goth? ”Of course. It won’t be viable once it’s

insincere. I don’t expect to limit by imagination to music. I like to

paint. I think making movies would make me very happy. After this tour

finishes in January I’m quite interested in spending some time in Europe,

Paris maybe, to see what that does for me creatively.”

It’s another cliché, from another era. I wonder if Manson ever stops

acting, if he is always performing like this. ”I don’t think I am. I don’t

always have lipstick on, I’m not always creating art. But I don’t like

reality. I’m a Peter Pan, I suppose.” Tellingly, the one thing he

expresses dislike for is reality TV, which he calls ”the death of

entertainment”. I suppose it is the anti-Manson, the celebration of

everything he is trying to escape from: hideous, unstylised normality. In

one, final attempt to get him to give an opinion on something political, I

ask him whether, if the Queen had summoned him to play at her Jubilee, he

would have accepted? ”I’m not against it,” he says without expression.

”I suppose you’d have to do it. Purely for the sake of irony.” — GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LIMITED 2003