MIA's violent sexually explicit music video "Born Free&

[axordil]

One could make an argument that sex depicted outside of the context of a relationship is pornographic. One could argue that having sex outside of the context of a relationship is pornographic.

Then again, I don't have a problem with pornography as product. The process by which it's made, on the other hand, is often, even usually, ethically and morally suspect. But that's another topic. This isn't pornography in the sense of being made to simply appeal to lower instincts. It uses an appeal to lower instincts to do something else. Whether it's successful or not is another question.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No. But like Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it.

[yovargas]

I think I might drop this particular subject for now because I get worked up about it. I'll just say that I find the taboo against sex and nudity maddening, irrational, and unnecessary.

[axordil]

yovargas--

Insofar as it's a cultural taboo, and not a matter of personal taste, I agree. There are cultures more sex-friendly than the US that seem to have avoided imploding into modern Gomorrahs, but even in those there's a range of personal comfort levels.

One thing does occur to me--what is the impact of the video if you don't have expectations built up for it in advance? Is it different once it's labeled and discussed as being "transgressive?"

[Nin]

The nudity did not strike me at all and neither did it have anything pornographic for me. Porno is made to arouse people and this scene is not all arousing, it is rather repulsive. Also, the sex is not the center of the action as it would be in a pornographic context imho.

I agree with yov about the taboo about sex. Movies are easily classed PG because of sex or nudity scenes more than because of violence. In doubt, I'd prefer my children to see that people do have sex - because this is something I hope will happen in their life - than to see people getting killed - because I hope they will not witness or do anything alike in their lives. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't let them see either the one or the other. But if they watched this video I'd be far more concerned about the terrible violence than about the insignificant sex scene.

While the idea of the vido is not bad, several things bother me: a genocidal situation like the one shown usually has a purpose, a political context which will make for instance that nobody protects the boy who gets arrested. Here it seems absolutely "out of context" which bothers me- because what preoccupies me most in a genocide is not the voilence of the actual killers but the passivity of all those who watch and do nothing and make the killing possible. As a historian this is where I see the real problem. Also, the motivation of the soldiers seems like amusement. When studying the document around the holocaust it is in fact astonishing that majority of the SS responsible for the genocide did not act out of any pleasure - truly sadistic people are rare - but out of a sense of duty: they thought the elemination of jews necessary and positive for the future of the German people. So, in this I also think that the video misses a poin in what makes a genocide possible as the soldiers mainly seem like sadistic brutes who enjoy the killing.

This said, it is a thought provoking little piece of art, well done to tell a story in little time.

[Túrin Turambar]

Well, I watched it. Can't say I really get what message they're trying to send, or whether they're just using sensationalist tactics to sell. It strikes me as a little too self indulgent, like they're revelling in the effect, rather than trying to actually SAY something. All in all, I feel this sort of thing will have the wrong types of people sitting up and enjoying it for all the wrong reasons.

Incidentally, for anyone who doesn't know the wall mural of "Our Day will come" is a direct reference to the IRA murals of "Tiocfaidh ár Lá". I don't appreciate the 700 years of bloody conflict in my country being equated to Kick-a-Ginger. Really, what the hell are they trying to say?

More or less my reaction. It seems like it’s designed to be confronting and make a point, but I found it hardly memorable. And I didn’t think that either the sex or he violence was all that explicit, either. AN interesting piece of film, but a forgettable one.

[River]

First of all, there was a lot about the video that was meant to shock. That was sort of the point. But it was also meant to make you think.

The sex was not there to titillate. The people were not young and beautiful and slender, the lighting was wrong for both art and porn. The sex was included to illustrate the incredible intrusiveness of the raiders. Think about it - what's more invasive than an armed stranger barging into your home while you're stark naked and engaged in one of the most intimate of acts?

As for why they picked redheads, my guess is because they needed a group to represent the Them in the Us vs. Them struggle the video is depicting. my guess is, they needed a group that was visually Other but not politically charged. Redheads have faced some scorn in the past and even some scorn in the present over their coloring, but nothing compared to what other groups have dealt with and the population as a whole doesn't see a redhead and think "threat". In fact, the first time I watched the video, I thought the redhead being hauled out was in trouble because of something he'd done...and then he gets on the bus with all the other redheads and I understood. As for the mural and the keffiyahs and the throwing of things, these were representations of resistance movements. Push hard enough and people push back.

[Lalaith]

<is a redhead>


(I won't watch the video, not knowing the level of violence it includes. If it's too graphic, then those are images I can't get out of my head.)

[Túrin Turambar]

First of all, there was a lot about the video that was meant to shock. That was sort of the point. But it was also meant to make you think.

The sex was not there to titillate. The people were not young and beautiful and slender, the lighting was wrong for both art and porn. The sex was included to illustrate the incredible intrusiveness of the raiders. Think about it - what's more invasive than an armed stranger barging into your home while you're stark naked and engaged in one of the most intimate of acts?

As for why they picked redheads, my guess is because they needed a group to represent the Them in the Us vs. Them struggle the video is depicting. my guess is, they needed a group that was visually Other but not politically charged. Redheads have faced some scorn in the past and even some scorn in the present over their coloring, but nothing compared to what other groups have dealt with and the population as a whole doesn't see a redhead and think "threat". In fact, the first time I watched the video, I thought the redhead being hauled out was in trouble because of something he'd done...and then he gets on the bus with all the other redheads and I understood. As for the mural and the keffiyahs and the throwing of things, these were representations of resistance movements. Push hard enough and people push back.

Yes, but what was the point? To argue that the police state is a bad thing? That's hardly groundbreaking.

[axordil]

Some messages never get old. There are a fair number of people at any given time who think a police state is okay, because they assume they'll be on the right side of the gun barrel.