Judging by how many people have viewed this video and how much the marketing community likes youtube (and blogging about it) I'm sure most of you will have seen this video (as ever I'm well behind on these things). But I hadn't until this morning, when I found it on Ben Mason's blog.
I found it very powerful. Probably the most thought provoking thing I've ever seen on youtube. Maybe because it's the video equivalent of 'Life in the middle'. Well what I'd like it to be, rather than what it actually is; funny, challenging, cheesy, pointless, pointful, sad, confusing, nice, scary, inspiring, and contradictory.
If some croney is still watching it from the vantage point of his/her living room, alone, and getting off on it, it's still voyeurism. The question is whether you'd get sexual gratification from watching this kind of stuff and whilst I appreciate the video, I tend to think not...
Me, I just find it interesting that some people feel a need in their lives to do this... plus I knew it was Mick all along so was just sucking up.
Posted by: Kirsty | 11/21/2006 at 12:42 PM
It was me, sorry.
Posted by: The Wife | 11/21/2006 at 12:43 PM
Who's Mike Bianchi. And what's MMA?
As to voyeurism:
Yes, they are putting the video into the public arena, but the public don't watch en mass. Like you say, most do so furtively.
Unfortunately I don't know of a better word than voyeurism to describe this. Maybe, as we've never reached this point in history before, there isn't one.
Before I posted this, I had to check myself on the definition of voyeurism and tt seems a fine definition for what they're doing. Maybe you two are taking more of a scopophilia/scoptophilia angle.
Posted by: williamdeed | 11/21/2006 at 12:57 PM
Shit, that last post shows some unclear thinking.
What I meant to say was that voyeurism is a fine definition for what we're doing. Not 'they'.
Especially, Lebowski, as you mentioned before on being 'visibly moved.'
Posted by: williamdeed | 11/21/2006 at 01:00 PM
I guess it's weird defining it cos voyeurism means getting your kicks by watching people in secret.
That secrecy tends to include, in fact is dependent upon, the people who are engaging in aforementioned activity.
Which makes this stuff more like video-dogging.
Blogging dogging. There you go. Got there eventually.
Posted by: Lebowski | 11/21/2006 at 01:45 PM
What I find interesting about the video is not so much the quality. Clearly it has low-grade production value, the individual topics are boring, and the sum of them display a sort of self-indulgent self-promotion that is not, in my opinion, respectable.
It's us, though, isn't it? Perhaps not in that form; we have different ways to express ourselves, and hopefully we do it in a more interesting, thought-provoking way. But that particular selection displayed a prevailing need for human beings to commune, regardless of if they have anything to say, and, perhaps, especially if they feel they have nothing to say.
Not all of them were like that. For instance, the father with his baby, saying hello to grandparents, was an excellent use of the technology. No, it's not interesting to anyone but the grandparents, but it's can give those who can relate a feeling of endearment.
It also satisfies something in us. Whether we thought it was a good or bad video, we at least thought it interesting enough to participate in an discussion about it. Had we not, we would have just ignored it.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 11/21/2006 at 01:51 PM
Funny, my mind immediately went to dogging as well Lebowski, but I wasn't sure whether we needed to go there. Clearly we did. I'm relieved.
Posted by: Kirsty | 11/21/2006 at 01:51 PM
Kirsty, it's not often I find myself at my desk thinking about dogging. I feel it's important to document the moment if you are.
If only so future academics can discuss how dogging permeated all aspects of society in this decade.
Posted by: Lebowski | 11/21/2006 at 01:53 PM
59 comments.
Posted by: Ben | 11/21/2006 at 01:53 PM
It's rare for me too Lebowski, particularly in winter. The moment is well and truly documented. I even have a print out.
Posted by: Kirsty | 11/21/2006 at 02:00 PM
I leave this thread for a meeting, come back, and look what's happened...
Posted by: Colman | 11/21/2006 at 02:22 PM
It's interesting to see those appearing in the video being judged by their ability to express themselves.
Well fuck that and fuck intellectual superiority.
A lot of the people that appear on the video are just kids and teenagers.
They can be as self indulgent as they like. It's what being young is all about.
Posted by: williamdeed | 11/21/2006 at 02:26 PM
People acting like themselves and expressing themselves is fine. They can do what they want. I'm just not sure what this video is telling or showing us that wasn't already bleedingly obvious - in the modern age people express their private emotions in a public environment using videos and blogs; different people are different in different ways; and kids are self-indulgent.
These facts don't change the fact though this video is a shameless attempt to use the "Bat of Cheap Emotion".
The kids themselves haven't got together to make this video. Some grown-up guy has, and made it cheesy as hell as a way of presumably 'capturing a moment in time' and becoming well-known for doing so. And it's not truly reflective of either youtube or blogging in the modern age - only what fits his intention with the film which is to make us all stroke our chins or cry.
If you like his style though I recommend you check out some of his other videos on youtube. I personally found this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9jF5Sq4TJw - particularly 'deep', 'meaningful', 'emotional' and 'poignant'. Can't be sure if that's how he wanted me to feel though, what with his 'sledgehammer' approach to film-making.
Posted by: Lebowski | 11/21/2006 at 03:30 PM
Change the fucking record Lebowski.
(I don't really mean this, and am actually quite enjoying the debate, but I quite fancied having a go at Lebowski. Now carry on.)
Posted by: Colman | 11/21/2006 at 03:38 PM
I didn't last twenty seconds on that link. Bloody awful.
Back to the video of this post:
"I'm just not sure what this video is telling or showing us that wasn't already bleedingly obvious - in the modern age people express their private emotions in a public environment using videos and blogs"
Bingo. That's what it's about. I don't know why you seem so het up on this guy showing an original thought that you, in particularly, have never thought before.
I don't see what's cheap with the emotion either. All of the emotion I see on that video seems pretty genuine, and if you're going to harp on about the scoreline again, loosen up. Music is meant to be emotive.
So the guy didn't choose a song that is in keeping with your itunes library. Bid deal.
And of course it's what fits his intention, he's the, dare I use the word, auteur of this piece.
Posted by: williamdeed | 11/21/2006 at 03:57 PM
Yeah put a sock in it Lebowski.
Posted by: The Wife | 11/21/2006 at 03:58 PM
And another thing Lebowski.
I just linked through to your site and thought it very funny.
Despite you being a cold hearted sod, I've signed up to Vox so I can comment.
Beware.
Posted by: williamdeed | 11/21/2006 at 04:21 PM
Damn.
Posted by: Colman | 11/21/2006 at 04:33 PM
I could handle everyone else turning on me, but The Wife?
C'mon, don't feel like you need to join the masses on this...
As a final note, and then I really will shut up, I'm not saying the emotion on the film isn't genuine. It's just how the 'auteur' uses it is predictable and obvious. And it's used in a way that is designed to elicit a very particular emotional reaction in the viewer. There's no subtelty to the film and how it is trying to make the user feel.
Which makes it cheap. Like playing Star Spangled Banner to a bunch of Americans to get them to start crying or something.
Looking forward to your Vox comments. You'll be joining a select group of about 3 people that ever read it, so welcome in advance.
Posted by: Lebowski | 11/21/2006 at 05:05 PM
"Lebowski. I just linked through to your site and thought it very funny."
Can you elaborate on exactly which bits were "very funny"?
Posted by: Ben | 11/21/2006 at 05:28 PM
So far I've only read the first post and think it a brilliant and well thought out idea.
I will elaborate further over on Lebowski's blog.
Posted by: williamdeed | 11/21/2006 at 06:15 PM
Sorry Lebowski, just having a lend of you. Is 'williamdeed' your pseudonym?
Posted by: The Wife | 11/21/2006 at 07:38 PM
Ha ha!
As much as I like the idea of arguing with myself on Paul's blog, unfortunately not. William Deed does appear to be a real person.
Posted by: Lebowski | 11/21/2006 at 10:11 PM
you guys need to get out more.
Posted by: Penny | 11/22/2006 at 10:12 AM
I'm not real.
Posted by: williamdeed | 11/22/2006 at 10:37 AM
it just left me wondering how long till someone commits the first youtube suicide. bleak i know, but the only thing of any interest were the people close to breakdown. bit like the appeal of eastenders, i suppose.
Posted by: stef | 11/23/2006 at 06:44 AM