THE STUDENTS ARE REVOLTING!

(nervous laugh)

So naturally there's some amount of carefully-repressed reaction in my mind, yesterday after the news I went straight to the internet to vent. Because I'm slowly learning to accept, if not embrace the fact that I have possibly now fully integrated myself into this manner of doing things. This was my rant/essay/call to arms that I posted on tumblr. It's not the most eloquent thing I've written because it takes me a long time to find non vulgar adjectives when talking about those b***** f****** Tory c****.
Here's a slightly more calmed-down take on things, although yesterday I wrote before the hijacking of the royal Rolls Royce so I'll try and tackle that with an air of slight control. Or not. Who knows, I haven't written it yet.

The headlines! The headlines! Have you seen the headlines? The title of this post is what I expected the headlines to be today. No. They are, from those god awful tabloids that I feel nautious at the sight of, comments on Camilla's fragile disposition with that image of the couple making faces of alarm and distaste. I think the Daily Mail called it 'terror' but personally I thought it looked like 'surprised disgust'. Whatever it was, it was all over the papers today. The Guardian had the most neutral and therefore appropriate headline, I felt, with 'Charles and Camilla caught up in violence after student fees vote'. Nice. Smooth, calm, realistic. The Mirror was my favourite, however, for its minimalist approach of 'CAMILLA ATTACK TERROR'. I mean, it's so wonderfully ambiguous. Let the imagination run wild. And so on.
The cause of this attack, terror, and Camilla, was of course those bloody kids again. When I say bloody, I do mean quite literally. Although I will go on to why and how Camilla was attacked and terrified, the point I'm trying to make here is that I feel it is an absolute travesty that these two people, out of everyone who was actually injured yesterday, just these two are the ones to make the front pages of almost every newspaper. I understand fully the press agenda and the fact that the public interest lies with the royal family and of course the attack on the car was dreadful, and must have been frightening for the people inside of it but I am once again met with the sense of an overpowering question as to why we even care about these people. To be awfully brutal about it, the story here ought to be the fact that the disparity between rich and poor is about to grow even larger. That thousands of students are rioting because our supposed leaders are finding it impossible to sustain a fair country, that a certain leader has gone against every principle he won his vote by supporting, and that many have been grieviously injured in the last twenty-four hours and that yesterday marks the country's inevitable descent into chaos. Yesterday is the first day of the rest of Britain, my question is, do the papers reflect this? Perhaps it could be argued that this is exactly what they do. This symbol of the strength of Britain has been defaced with broken glass and paint, these people who supposedly represent have been terrified and faced with a never before experienced vitriol. I personally am a republican, I disagree with a monarchy, and this is me bemoaning the fact that the papers grieve for two extraordinarily mediocre people when those who are attempting to make a difference, or, for the police, attempting to prevent people making a difference, have suffered far worse.
This is a symbol of the gap. This is a war of class. Perhaps the headlines were correct, perhaps that glowing image is in fact an incredibly accurate representation of the state of things. This said, no journalist is thinking that far right now. This said, in actual fact the news is reporting the fact that we ought to be worried for the royals.

The question I promised to return to- why did it happen?
Yesterday, I watched Vince Power flanked by Nick Clegg and David Cameron deliver his reasons as to why this move to raise the cap on tuition fees is a perfectly reasonable and logical thing to do. The question of economics here will inevitably lead me back to the Philip Green fiasco, if the Tories weren't allowing the unapologetic tax dodging and the corruption in systems that allow such people to get away with such disgusting sums of money, there would be far less need to cut costs. The ridiculousness of this situation hits me again with every new headline.
So Vince Cable outlined his plans, David Cameron looked sickeningly supportive and Nick Clegg looked pleasingly pained as they nodded and patted backs. I like to think there was quite a struggle in the questionably existant moral section of the deputy PM's psyche. Hopefully it will lead to some kind of break down, in which we shall see the inevitable Titanic demise of the Lib Dems catalysed. It wouldn't be perfect, but it might be quite satisfying to watch.
Anyway. That was a horrific moment for British television/Britain in general. The result of the vote was hugely disappointing, and somewhat expected, although the closeness of it I found slightly heartening.
I often find with these posts that I get about halfway through and completely forget how I was going to link each section, so I'll now attempt to distract you from the fact that I'm going to begin a conclusion by making you aware of it in a dazzling and startling manner.
Of course it detracts from the susbstance of the piece, but perhaps I'm inventing a new trend of talking about important issues whilst retaining a disposition so entirely not-quite-there that the whole thing is given an edge of pastiche.
It's paragraphs like that that prevent anything from being taken seriously.
On a much more severe note though, TAKE NOTE. As I said, the students are revolting (ha...ha...ha...ha...) and everyone needs to join in.
If this hasn't become clear through my overly flowery and slightly bitter descriptions that just go on and on, my message, if I'm qualified to have one, is that Britain is about to be in even more chaos and in order to get some order we need to add to said chaos.
So, we must protest, riot, shout, write angry letters and pour our angst onto the internet whilst starting viral campaigns against those evil bastards that are stealing our money/education/future. Because the young people of Britain actually caring about something is really inspiring to me. I love it. I hate what's going on, and so does everyone else, and that's what I love. Now is exactly the right time to do that thing you've always been talking about doing- caring about something and making a difference.

If any of the above was at all connected to any of the other above, I suppose that's my mission accomplished.
A very small mission.
What's important is that there is a huge mission. A really huge mission at hand. This is the best opportunity we've had to start making Britain a fairer place. Only when things are this out of hand can people trying to act positively be truly noticed. Make sure people notice. Make sure things get fixed.

Over and out.

A pro-Manics, anti-Ben Myers rant-style essay

So. As you may know, I'm not a fan of Ben Myers, based on the fact that his writing is not to my taste/I think it's dreadful, if we're going to be bluntly opinionated about things, which I am. So, I found Richard: A Novel a literary offence not simply because when you think about it it's basically overblown, overpaid fanfic about something I care about, but also because it's badly written, if you ask me. Which you aren't, but I'll pretend you are. (Also, I hold the opinion that he's perfectly entitled to write the thing, but the hype and controversy he fuelled just felt so contrived. It just begged the question 'why?'- if you're going to make up a story and sell it, why do it in that way? It would have stopped a hell of a lot of people feeling offended by it if he'd, I don't know, changed a few names? That way he wouldn't have had to deal with the lack of knowledge about Sean Moore's character in such a dreadfully obvious way.)

Now he's gone and done this and it was after simply seeing the title that I breathed a sigh of nauseated annoyance at the fact that we are once again being delivered this antiquated argument. How many times can this be said about a band? To me it felt like a waste of an article- Here is why.

-This has been said about possibly every single band I've ever liked. This is why it seems so old to me. The big question of 'are they becoming mainstream and losing their integrity?' is something thrown about so ridiculously often it's lost all significance to me. Bands lose integrity if they start out saying they'll never move to a big label and then move to a big label. They lose integrity if they start out writing lyrics that mean something and end up writing lyrics that mean nothing. They lose their integrity if they abandon one set of fans in favour of a more profitable set of fans. This is my personal set of standards- but only in extreme cases. You might read this and say this is what the Manics have done hundreds of times already in their career- I don't think they have, but I wasn't there to find out- and if they did, I'll go on to that later on.

-This has been said about the Manics a million times already. They lose their integrity everytime they make a more pop album or sell out a huge venue, apparently. I think 'losing integrity' often gets confused with 'becoming successful'.

Let's look at their history. Mr Myers, as we might already know, wasn't one of the people there from the beginning. (On that topic, if this article had been written by Simon Price, for example, someone who has been there from the start, I might not be so quick to dismiss it. Ben Myers does not know the band, whatever he writes will always be an outsider's perspective.) If you look at what they said at the beginning- the very beginning, 'selling out' as it were, was one of their main goals. Richey told us they were going to be the biggest band in the world, that they were going to sell millions. They all told us they were huge hypocrites right from the start, that's a big part of why I love them. It was genius foresight, or genius lack of it- a massive disclaimer that could cover every move they'd ever make. If Ben Myers says they're doing this for the money, whether they are or not is irrelevant because they warned us they'd be doing things for the money. They aren't losing integrity here because they are simply keeping promises.

-There appears to be a question of rock 'n' roll credentials here. 'Ideally the Manics would use this as an opportunity for some Situationist mischief-making'. Really? The infamous balaclava is also given a shout-out. That was nearing two decades ago. In the same text, Myers credits the band for having grown up. This does not compute, if I'm being honest. It's great that the Manics have grown up, but can we have them smashing equipment and 'dressing like Tiger Bay tarts' again please? If it hasn't happened for the last, I don't know, decade or so, why on earth would it happen again? My opinion is that the Manics right now are doing what they do best, with what they can. They've just created a brilliant album (My opinion. I think it's genius.) and almost completed an incredible tour met with nothing but positive responses. They look great, they play incredibly, and they've managed to remain relevant, if a little outspoken, in the current political climate. This, in my opinion, is an accomplishment.

-On a similar topic- CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. The issue that this article deals with is that the Manics are going to perform on Strictly Come Dancing and Ben Myers sees this as them selling themselves out, being 'submissive not subversive'. He says they'll join the likes of Robbie Williams and James Blunt. It was at this first sentence that I desperately wanted Myers to take a good look at the current mainstream musical scene. We are surrounded by absolute crap. Abhorrations on auto-tune. Over-produced, badly written, tasteless trash. There is nothing good in the current charts- and when I say good, I mean nothing with any substance to speak of.

There may be good music elsewhere, there's probably some brilliant underground scene I'm yet to hear of, but for the masses, there is nothing. And the masses is what the Manics are about. Their music is political. It has a message. What is the point in this if no one's going to hear it? The music is good, it has substance, even when it's the 'poppiest' side of the Manics, it's a rare example of good songs that are written by the people who perform that. That is generally extinct from music television these days, it's not even considered a problem anymore. It's the norm. It is dreadful. The Manic Street Preachers singing anything they've ever written, anything, will be at the very least a tiny bit educational. There will be people watching who'll want to turn it off, at least they're hearing that there was once a time when songs were written properly. There will be people watching who'll be too young to know that there is life outside of 4Music, at least they're hearing that there is something else. There will be people like me, who will just be so happy to hear something that isn't auto-tuned to death or best served with scantily-clad backing dancers. This is why this is a good thing, be it submissive or subversive.

-Audience and Institution. The Manics are BBC friends. It makes sense. The audience are BBC people. It makes sense. If it's fine and wonderful for Nicky to sit on Jools Holland's piano stool in his pastel pink miniskirt with whatever other strange players he has on that particular show, why is it not fine and wonderful for Nicky to prance around for the benefit of the right and honourable dance judges?

In conclusion, this is an important thing, to me at least. No matter how you look at it, if you're not a fan of the Katy Perrys and the JLSs (no offence to them or their fans, their music is still perfectly valid and decent, it's just not my thing) you'll admit that the Manic Street Preachers on primetime BBC is slightly refreshing.

My key point here is context. A few years ago, bringing 'the alternative' to 'the mainstream' was kind of pointless, and it was easy to see why people thought bands were 'selling out'. In around 2007, pretty much everyone was doing it. Now, though, there is a drought. A cultural drought of variation. In a contemporary context, the Manics trying to bring themselves to the mainstream is important and valuable. It's a call to be seen and heard, it's an attempt to bring back some kind of balance. In my opinion, it's also a very rock n roll thing to do. Remember, context.

So that is my essay of a post against Ben Myers' misrepresentation of the Manics' intentions, in my opinion. If you read it, I'm impressed, and if you agree, you're super. If you don't, just think - at least it's not the X Factor.

In his bathroom?!

So I did some research. This is the video for Missile by IAMX. A beautiful ballad off the IAMX debut, Kiss and Swallow, released in 2004. IAMX is the brainchild of my all-time favourite person in any creative industry ever, Chris Corner. Corner is a delightful young fellow, who began his career in 90s trip-hop band Sneaker Pimps, producing and recording one of the greatest debut albums ever written in his wardrobe, apparently. Two and a half albums later, Sneaker Pimps split and Corner set his imagination loose into the world with the sexiest thing ever created on a synth.
His dramatic stage persona and delectable lyrics and endearingly shy manner offstage have captured the hearts of not millions, but many, and his occasionally manic but mainly beautiful cult following have stuck with him for the last six years, and now eagerly await the fourth IAMX studio album, Volatile Times, which is set to be released in March 2011. Currently, I'm plotting a trip to Berlin to see yet another live show. I suggest you do too.

Anyway. There's some background, here's what I have to say about this particular moment in music video history.
The video has the effect of being shot in black and white with the colours hand-painted on, as filmmakers of old may have done, however, this is not how this was filmed. The effect is achieved through the combination of a very low saturation when filming, a black and white set, and the actors (Corner and Sue Denim of electro-punk duo Robots in Disguise) made-up to look very pale, and very bright colours used for the things that the director intends to highlight.

(I couldn't find out who directed this- the information used to be lurking around somewhere but the relatively low profile of IAMX means that all the carefully collected notes on the fan-made Wikipedia were deleted last year, in an effort to cleanse the site of false information. Understandable, but very bloody annoying. I did my best to find out- the most interesting response was James Cook's- a close aquaintance of the impossible-to-contact Corner, he used to play guitar live for the band and now lives with Chris in a rennovated GDR factory in Berlin. Anyway. He told me that Chris came up with the idea, and Sue Denim filmed it in his bathroom, and he was there - but I think he was talking about the other version of the video, which seems more feasibly filmed in a bathroom with only two people present. A pity, but I did manage to convince James to book a show in Bournemouth so I can see him again, so it's all good really.)

So, yes, first we have the pink. The pink socks on Sue, the pink lipstick, the pink hat, the pink outfit. It's very effective and atmospheric.
What I like about this video again is the simplicity of the setting. It seems crowded and busy because every moment the camera moves subtley, the frames move quickly into each other, and most importantly, everything is close up. The black and white intention gives reason for lighting to be used to its full potential here, and really, it is.

What seems to be key to the atmosphere of the video is its teasing nature - nothing is ever seen for too long, but everything is well-enough hinted at. Although I'm not sure I intend to create anything so overtly sexual for my own video (if anything I can't imagine other artists being able to pull something like this off without giving the wrong impression entirely) I think this borderline-explicit manner of reference is key.
To say more about the content, the storyline- this is another video that challenges convention, just about. You could say that the fact that the female appears to be the one in control, the S&M style of it all could push it towards just another male fantasy acted out, and let's face it, Denim could easily be described as a seductive figure here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I saved this much as a draft a while ago and am now coming back to it. Representation is what I want to look at here.

Ways in which this video is regressive in terms of gender stereotypes:
1. Sue's eyes are censored, for some of it. Covering up parts of womens' bodies - especially their faces - has been an issue for sympathizers of feminists in the past, and I must say that looking at a collection of places where this occurs really highlights what a problem and testament to the bad taste of the perpetuators of these prehistoric ideas, but I'll continue this in the section about progressiveness.
2. The feminine figure is the focus of the video. Things associated with her are central parts. (The silhouette, the shadow of the shoe)
3. This could be seen as a completely blatent realisation of an average male sexual fantasy, and the implications in every scene are obvious.

Ways in which the video is progressive in terms of gender stereotypes:
1. I don't know how much this counts for, but context. Context is essential, here. Followers of Chris Corner will know that he's quite an outspoken sympathiser to feminists, he has, in fact, labelled himself a feminist in the past. Throughout his career he has found playing with gender roles an absolutely integral part of his image and ideologies, and his un-affirmable sexual orientation has long since been the topic of much debate in interviews and in the fan community. His lyrics are concerned primarily with ideas of fluid gender and sexuality, which I suppose is the reason I've never, before now, looked at this video as in any way regressive. This is why it's quite hard for me to figure this out.
2. Secondly: the male figure is in the same make up as the female. Like in The Drowners, there are moments where you don't know who is who.
3. The male figure is not in control. The male is portrayed as the victim, even though he appears to be enjoying it.
4. The red dress worn by Denim here has much more frequently been seen worn by Corner.

Adding up all of these factors leaves me absolutely confused, and I honestly couldn't say what perspective this video has beyond the obvious. Although I am entirely opposed to the objectification of women, I don't find this video at all to be encouraging that idea. I think the male is as much objectified as the female here.
As well as this, it's hard to say, from a female perspective, how the average male would respond to this video. I wonder how many people would be drawn immediately to Sue Denim in this? I wonder how the portrayed sexuality here would come across to someone who was not a fan of the band.
I have shown this video to people unfamiliar with the music, but their main response was that it was altogether too weird, most people finding themselves objecting to the man wearing make-up. I think I've been desensitized to images of men wearing make-up. It is times like this that I find it completely impossible to empathise with most people- this is clearly a shortcoming when attempting an analysis like this. This is clearly an obstacle when studying Media.

One day I'll write an entry that doesn't dissolve into lamentations over the human condition, I promise.

Over and out.

P.S. I definitely had my fingers crossed while making that promise, as on second thoughts, I highly doubt that will ever happen. I need a change of career path to save the world the trauma of being accidentally exposed to this particular variety of absolute rubbish.

Get a little bit tacky, too...

My titles for this thing are shameful. Oh well.

Here is part two of my video-making research. Looking again at Lindy Heymann and looking again at the ever-wonderful Brett Anderson (I'm the biggest Suede fan I've ever met and Lindy Heymann is part of my education. How could I possibly not research this in more detail?), I'm going to talk about the video for Attitude. For some background, this song was not on an album, but was the last song Suede were ever to release (so far. They've reunited just this week...ish. I'm so terribly excited.) and it was sort of around the time of the album A New Morning which no one seems to like but personally I think it's awfully good. Brett says they stopped there because it felt like the magic had gone, which I can kind of understand, and the album was quite underwhelming- a last wisp of smoke after the explosion that was Coming Up. However, it not being in the nature of Suede to EVER give a quiet exit, Attitude just HAD to happen. And I think this video gives it the theatrical bang it deserves. Here it is:



Here's a hopefully quick analysis, with pictures.
The video starts off with John Hurt's shoes. It's dramatic, it's walking music, it's all shadows, I think it's called 'film noir'. We see guitars, amps, drums, and this is the only hint that of a performing band throughout the whole video. The figure, who you wouldn't know is John Hurt at this point, walks out onto a stage, and all you can see is the lights around him and his sillhouette. I really do think the word 'stunning' was made for this video.

What I love about this video is how photographic everything is. In contrast to The Drowners, the camera is rarely fast moving. In the scene pictured, the camera moves ever so slightly with the way the figure does, completely subtle and complementary.
Another strong point is the amount of references. To someone who has never heard of Suede before, this is a beautiful video that will hopefully give them a good idea of the image and ideals of the band. To a Suede fan, this video makes perfect sense. The first shots of the figure dancing before we see John Hurt's face could be Brett Anderson- the silhouette is similar, the dancing looks like a pastiche of what fans of the band will recognise as the definitive dance moves of Brett Anderson. As well as this, the opening shots of the instruments show the model of guitar both Bernard Butler and Richard Oakes always have and always will play, and so someone familiar with the band's image at all would probably know what was going on here before the vocals kicked in.


This is the first shot we get of a face. It is surprising, at first, a super-dramatic pantomime dame made up, and this image twists itself away from the clues we have about the band before this scene. What I love is the way light is used to simply pick out the features, giving a dark and memorable image. This is an effect I'll probably use quite a bit in my own project, because I can see how I'd do it in a small dark room with a lamp.


Soon enough, we get some colour. And what gorgeous colour it is. The focus changes as the angle of the head does, you get the impression of subtle movement and it works incredibly well. The attention to detail in the costume and make-up is something I'll definitely incorporate.



This next part is my favourite bit. In the second verse, we get these beautiful shots of Brett singing. The lighting on his face is minimal and gives a sense of the atmosphere. The secret has been revealed, we are most definitely watching a Suede video. This is the only time in the video where an actual musician is shown-and it works very well.



This is my favourite shot of him singing. Around this point in the video there's a glorious Drowners-nostalgic moment where we have a shot of Brett from the side, and then a shot of John Hurt from the other side, so if you were to flick the images back and forth they'd be facing each other. Brett Anderson's unusual lack of any make up at all contrasts wonderfully with the over the top face paint of the actor, and, as is Heymann's style, it understands the music and the image precisely, giving meaning to the song.

One might say the absolute highlight of this video is the truly cinematic moment in which Hurt pulls out a red cloth and drops it on the floor next to him. The camera follows the cloth falling in slow-motion, every ripple of the fabric captured, and for this the music stops. The chorus kicks in as the cloth hits the floow and it's absolutely theatrical and perfect for the song.
The video strays from the audio in other places too- the music is turned down and we hear the actor singing along in his dressing room, as he removes the make-up.
There are moments in this video that actually do seem to be photographs; a moment in the dressing room scene where the camera pauses for a beat on a mannequin head, shots of make-up brushes to give an idea of setting.

Now, there are a million other things I could say about this video, but I'm going to finish off now for fear of becoming dull even in the opinion of someone who is interested in this stuff. Actually, who IS interested in this stuff? I'm worried it's just me. But anyway. To summarise, I'll be snatching the following:
a. Attention to make-up and costume
b. Super dramatic lighting and minimalism
c. Very few settings
d. Emphasis on the figure
e. Using mirroring in scenes to challenge representation
f. Brett Anderson.
...okay maybe not that last one. Pity. But yes- I think this is sounding exciting now. The next post will arrive in the future and have a little more information about my own video-although I quite want to do some research into whatever geniuii were behind the video for Missile by IAMX.

Over and out.

Sir, we drown...

This is where I went last Thursday. The main reason it was brilliant: I sort of almost met Lindy Heymann. Lindy Heymann is quite a hero of mine. The reason for this is because she made this:



which is quite clearly, a work of genius.
This is relevant because I intend to make a music video for my coursework. Before attending this session I had already had some quite defined ideas (influenced not lightly by Heymann's work) but now I think I've got the whole thing planned out in my head.
The topic I want to focus on is gender representation- this includes looking at feminism and queer theory, and the result could potentially be my personal vitriol towards today's trend of oversexed pets of MTV in video format, or maybe just something that looks a bit confusing.
What I'd like to say here is that I hope my ideas are communicated well enough, but the realist in me tells me it is much more likely that I'd be worrying about whether the thing will work in any sense of the phrase 'music video'. After all, my effort last year, a trailer for a youth drama, was...at best, interesting. What can I say, my heart wasn't in it.
That is the past. Onwards and upwards to this new idea...what follows should be a thought process comprised of influences and ideas.

To the subject of Lindy Heymann: These are my thoughts on The Drowners and how it might influence me.
The first thing I notice about this video is how the camera is never still. A recurring theme is the setting spinning while the character in the shot remains stationary, which increases the focus on the subject and gives you the impression of almost seeing the world from their point of view, but being able to see them at the same time.
The opening shot is the first example of this, where we see the girl's (Justine Frischmann) face in the middle of the spinning room. She does not appear to be holding the camera, which is what makes this effective. The background is a sort of neutral red and she appears to match this, wearing red and cream, and her features picked out in colours of the same scheme. This shot leads into the next which is the same, but the subject is now a boy, and the quickness of this sequence barely gives you time to register the difference. The next shot is of a figure that often comes back, and appears to be of indeterminate gender, and is covered in what looks like plaster dust, giving the impression of a living statue. After this we go to the scene of the band performing against a completely white background. Whenever we come back to this scene, the camera is always focused on Brett (Anderson, singer) so we have that idea of seeing things from his point of view once again. The camera zooms around everywhere, and you see moments of the other musicians behind him. At first we only see Brett and the guitarist, Bernard (who might also possibly be the boy from the beginning), and as the video goes on more elements of the band are introduced.
The scene then goes through the same sequence as the first, Justine, a similar shot of the boy, the living statue, the band, except this time showing different sections of each shot, and different angles of the scene. We begin to get the idea of the video's intention to create an ambiguous impression of not only gender but life form, as we are shown a shot of a girl made up to look like a doll, who could almost be a doll at this point. I like the way the video plays around with these ideas- you would have to watch it over and over again to figure out who exactly each character is.
When the vocals begin, we have once again the spinning camera from Brett's point of view. What is interesting here is that the band appear to be on a continuous circle, as the camera spins round we keep seeing each of them. At this point, the statue person, who currently appears to be female, mimes some of the words of the song.
This is when we are introduced to a new element of the video- two figures in an outdoor city setting, Brett in a suit and hat and Justine out of her spinning room. They appear to be walking around a greyscale city scene and it is hard to tell who is leading who, which is probably the point. This is also when we get some more focus on other band members- the camera slides round the edge of a guitar while the player turns himself. This gives the video much more movement- the band are always animated and so is the camera, often in an opposite direction, which saves the film from being completely photographic.
The next scene is, I feel, the defining scene of the whole video. The camera travels up the back of the living statue female figure who turns her head, and when the camera gets to the top the figure is now Anderson, shot in black and white to look like the statue and making exactly the same movement, and the camera travels back down to show the words 'do you believe in love there' at the moment they are sung. (This shows a simple but brilliant awareness of the music, which is obviously extremely important. The lyrics at this point are 'he writes the line, that wrote down my spine, says oh, do you believe in love there?' and I think interpreting that in such a literal way is extremely effective in this case. Had the lyrics and the nature of the band been a little less ambiguous, this probably wouldn't have worked, but here it gives perfect visuals that really add to the song. Later on I will talk about my feelings towards having lyrics in music videos.)
As the bridge instrumental moves, as does the video. I like the way that each shot here is in time with the music, moments like this put enough emphasis on the song for viewers to forever link it with the given visuals. The next shot shows Brett's back again with the same lyrics written on him, but in a different way, and this time in colour. This is the only part of the video I'm still unsure of. In some ways, the spinning room and still subject correspond well with the rest of the film, but I don't know if having the lyrics again puts too much emphasis on what was a completely perfect shot- but at the same time, this is from the point of view of someone who has seen the video a lot, and perhaps this is actually very effective for a first-time viewer if this were to be shown on television, as the speed of the first scene might prevent them from noticing this part of the song.
The chorus of the song mainly focuses on the band in the white room, and towards the end of it we revisit the doll-like person. This person is now holding a mannequin wearing the clothes Anderson was wearing in the outdoor scenes. This shows that the doll-like person is now human, and holding a person who was represented by a human, and is now not.

As the video moves through other angles on all the shots I have mentioned above, a representation I find very interesting is this: Brett is often filmed from above, an angle that is now commonplace in popular music videos with female subjects. Typically it represents vulnerability, and the only female who seems to firmly steer away from this angle is Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga has also, in her video for Bad Romance, made a reference to this with a shot of her apparently crying, shot almost from above but not quite, but completely at odds with her angle in the rest of the video, which appears to be (among many other less decipherable things) a comment on a more aggressive approach to romance, and depicting the female as being in control. Like Brett Anderson, Lady Gaga does seem fond of playing with gender roles and challenging typical imagery in her music videos (see Alejandro or LoveGame in which some very Suede-esque shots of women becoming men as the camera moves feature, as well as plenty of soldiers in fishnet tights), although it has to be said that the comparisons end there.

As well as this 'female' shot of Brett, we also see lots of scenes of the characters who walk around the city, shot from below. A memorable frame is where Justine stands at the top of some stairs and the camera looks up at her, which implies a more masculine representation of her, and shows power. These stereotypes of camerawork may seem a little obvious, but watching a music channel for ten minutes will no doubt show you that directors no longer feel the need to be subtle about regressive imagery.

The last new thing we see is quite an unexpected cut to some black and white live footage of the band when the guitar solo kicks in. My thoughts on this are that it shouldn't work, but it does.
This section flashes between lots and lots of different angles, which I think is what ties it in with the rest of the video.
The video ends in a whirl of scenes showing Brett in a suit becoming Justine in a suit and Justine becoming what looks like a papier mache doll, and the doll-person in the blonde wig with the mannequin who looks a bit like Brett in a suit, and it would seem that the papier mache doll's head falls off as Justine in the suit holds it and turns into Brett in a suit and the messages previously derived from the video lose me a little- this vaguely chaotic climax to the surreality brings the video to an almost grinding halt, but all is rescued as the last few bars of the song are a (finally!) still camera on the black and white live video.

What I wish to take from this is anything from the following:
a. The brilliantly planned use of colour.
b. The simplicity of the band on a white background and the effectiveness of the costume.
c. The well-planned make-up to compliment the setting
d. The duality of the visual with the song, the understanding of the music.
e. The challenges to gender representation.

So- that's the basis of my ideas. The possibly overly long analysis helped me figure out the logistics of my plan for my own video. Hurrah, tea and cake for all. Seeing as this is already far too long, I'm going to make a new post for the next stages, which will hopefully be shorter.

Over and out.

...boredom and despair.

This is a blog for all things that might be vaguely related to my education. Seeing as I find it impossible to concentrate for long on not being sucked into the soundbite internet-addict generation I am so clearly a victim of, I have decided to commence what will hopefully become a relatively interesting exercise in controlling my ego: I'm going to attempt to stay on topic.

What this should end up filled with is thoughts on anything Media Studies related, the creative process log for art projects, research for Fashion and all that goes with it, and maybe even a bit of Ethics and Philosphy when I can get my head around it. Who knows, this work-friendly format may be of use. I got this idea after I finished a hugely long report of a concert on Saturday. This space invites writing. I'll do my best.