British GQ – November 2019
English | 291 pages | pdf | 331.2 MB
On page 202 of this issue you’ll find an interview I conducted with Michael Hutchence, once the inordinately famous singer with the band INXS, a superstar who bestrode the world like the rock’n’roll colossus he was.
In his time he was as famous as his good friend Bono, as popular as Ed Sheeran and as fawned-over as Timothée Chalamet is now. INXS were never thought of as critics’ darlings, but they were ridiculously popular and had huge hits, filling stadiums from London to Melbourne, from Los Angeles to Oslo.
Then, in the time it takes to make a few bad decisions, have a potentially life- threatening accident and redefine the term “substance abuse”, Hutchence went from rock god to media casualty, someone whose name was always accompanied by the prefix “troubled”, so troubled that on 22 November 1997 Hutchence was found dead in his hotel room in Sydney, in what was reported by the New South Wales coroner at the time to be the result of suicide by hanging. He had certainly been in a bad way towards the end of his life, dependant on narcotics and harangued by a bloodthirsty press that followed him wherever he went, sensing probable disaster. But what very few people knew was the extent of his demons, problems that have been unearthed by an extraordinary documentary, Mystify, which is in cinemas this month.
The film highlights just how effective the rock star was at disguising what was really going on in his life, a tragic reality that didn’t really square with his carefree “Ozzie” demeanour.
I found Mystify fascinating, not least because it made me think again about the heady weekend Hutchence and I spent together in the South Of France, just a few years before his untimely death. I have interviewed enough celebrities to know that, often, from the moment we meet there is a kind of war of attrition between us. Because they are famous they have usually created a self – a
self that is not exactly them, but, curiously, not not them either. Which is what the journalist and profile writer Thomas B Morgan said back in the mid Sixties. “Most better-known
people tend toward an elegant solution of what they, or their advisors, call ‘the image problem’,” he said. “Over time, deliberately, they create a public self for the likes of me to interview, observe and double check. This self is a tested consumer item of proven value, a sophisticated invention, refined, polished, distilled and certified OK in scores, perhaps hundreds of engagements with journalists, audiences, friends, family and lovers. It is the commingling of an image and a personality, or what I’ve decided to call an Impersonality.”
These days, impersonalities have become so successful it’s often impossible to tell the difference between what is real and what is mediated. Often, because they are always “on”, some celebrities treat their impersonality as their real identity, their real character. And as a lot of famous people long ago decided that fame was the only way to diminish, if not completely banish, their past, they are completely happy with this. Michael Hutchence certainly appeared to think so.
Obviously, time and restrictions are hugely important to the success rate of the celebrity interview, and if you’ve only been allowed ten minutes or so then it’s best to go armed simply with 20 quickfire questions that you can turn into a breezy Q&A. Conversely, if you can convince your celeb to spend a few days with you, driving through the Hollywood Hills and hanging out at private views and film premieres, then so be it. This is obviously the best way to get to know your subject and, who knows? They might even become your new best friend. It’s totally possible to build up a relationship with a celebrity over a period of time and though they will expect you to treat them with slightly more decorum than your average muggle, the access afforded will, on occasion, counteract any sycophancy.
Any decent interview needs a certain amount of compromise; there needs to be a modicum of give and take. Ideally, it should be an “I win, you win” situation, with both parties coming away feeling as though their lives have been enriched – if only in a small way. Both parties need to give, while the interviewee needs to be generous with their time and anecdotes.
Journalists’ techniques are fascinating. When former British GQ magazine Contributing Editor AA Gill was interviewed by Lynn Barber, he said it was like being interrogated by the TV cop Columbo. “Oh, Adrian. Just one more thing: you said you were wearing a cummerbund fashioned from yak gut and corduroy on the day in question. Where exactly did you say you bought it?”
Download from: