Stress
Justice have released an intense video for their song Stress. I was linked to it through the Modular label’s mailout, via the comment: “Just thought we’d throw a rub n’ tug the way of our buddies Ed Banger, who’s latest video for Justice’s latest single Stress has been watched by everyone in the office like five times today, dope clip, check it out HERE.”
I was initially sceptic, especially since Modular is a label that I increasingly find uninteresting. I don’t like Justice much, either. D.A.N.C.E. was one of the most overplayed songs of 2007, and I’d prefer to never hear it again. Still, I clicked, and I loaded the video in subdued anticipation.
The video depicts a gang of ten youths who undertake a seemingly unprovoked criminal rampage. The most shocking element is that they appear emotionless and indiscriminate toward their numerous victims. The violence appears very real, especially the bottle broken against the bartender’s skull.
The director breaks the fourth wall when the video’s sound guy appears holding a boom microphone in the latter half of the video. It’s unclear why the cameraman is following the group, and at the end of the video, the group turns on him.
The video provokes an emotional response in the viewer almost immediately, due to its shocking nature. Why are these men acting in this way? Most unnerving of all is their absolute confidence and seemingly invulnerability. The actions of a determined, violent few can evidently unsettle society in a surprising manner.
The music itself is barely noticeable once the action is underway. The schizophrenic beat suits the video’s vision perfectly. The only laugh-out-loud moment is when the hoodlums are driving a stolen car, and the aforementioned Justice song D.A.N.C.E. is heard on the radio – which is subsequently kicked in, and thrown out the window. This is Justice dispelling their radio-friendly image in an overt and provocative way.
You’re not going to see this video on any publicly broadcasted channel. You probably wouldn’t be aware the video existed until you got linked to it. I know that I wouldn’t have. It’s a fucking intense piece of work. I’ve watched it four times in a row. To me, its attraction lies in the fact that what occurs in the video is so far detached from social norms. It’s one thing to sit happily imitating these crimes in your living room while playing Grand Theft Auto 4, but it’s an entirely different beast to see actual people engaging in these acts – acted or not.
My mind is drawn to a Jim Whimpey-linked post regarding the nature of violence being considered more obscene than sex.
It’s ridiculous. Murder (bloody, violent murder in the case of video games) is a crime, it ends people’s lives. Sex on the other hand is not a crime, it’s in our biological nature, it’s enjoyable, it’s a mandatory requirement to create life. Yet sex is considered more obscene than violence. Stupid.
Bravo, Justice. Stress is the most memorable music video I’ve seen this year. It’s directed by Romain-Gavras. The video is further discussed here.
Update (16 May 2008): There’s another interesting analysis of the video here.
Confidence On Earth
Hangovers have an unexpected effect on me. Instead of being crippled by the combined factors of apathy and malaise – the usual products of a hangover – I find that my creative output is greater after an alcohol-affected night.
The sky doesn’t give a shit about humanity. It’ll keep turning, regardless. Our petty thoughts, opinions and relationships are beyond meaningless when considering the enormity of the earth. The human tendency to name these entities – sky, clouds, earth – seems laughable in this context. It’s human nature to attempt to understand, and then dismiss this knowledge as understood. How could we ever completely understand the nature of this planet’s natural environment?
I don’t mean in terms of scientific fact.
You look across a valley while driving on a highway. You stare into the vast expanse for a moment. And then you turn your head away, dismissing the opportunity to devote time and thought to the incomprehensible forces that have shaped this planet for x years. Again, applying the human concept of time to minuscule, incremental developments within the core of the very earth we stand on seems laughable.
“To know yourself is to be yourself.” Sure, they’re cute lyrics, but they contain truth, too.
Confidence is being able to devote the necessary time to making decisions that you’re comfortable with. Endeavouring to only act with confidence in one’s actions is admirable; the theory is much easier than the practice. Feelings of doubt regarding one’s actions and sense of self may be innately programmed; more likely, these feelings are shaped by our peers during our social development.
Self-confidence lives in the now, and has everything to do with your philosophy. Really confident people do not need to speak about or flaunt how confident they are. Real confidence is unshakable and is not determined by any outside person, situation or event. You don’t need someone to boost your confidence, or to accomplish something to feel good about yourself. What you need is a philosophy that you can live by, and be proud of yourself for. When you are a good person, when you set out to achieve your dreams, when your morals raise above laws and politics, you will be self-confident. – Alex Shalman
Tangentially unrelated thoughts incited by a beautiful, sunny Saturday afternoon that I’m soon to spend with my parents and brother.
Anti-Lessons In New Media
I’m sitting in class, waiting to learn. The lecturer’s attention turns toward me when he asks for a critical reflection on a course reading that we’d been set a fortnight ago.
“The young man in the green shirt. Give us a summary of the reading’s content.”
“I didn’t read it.”
“You didn’t read it. There I was, sweating blood with my colleague while writing this chapter several years ago, and you didn’t read it.”
I forgot to mention – he co-wrote the article in question. His tone is more sarcastic than argumentative.
“Do you have any reason or explanation for this?”
“No.”
“Did anyone else in this man’s group read the article?”
They had. I appreciated the lecturer’s reasonable approach to the situation. If I’d been in the same situation with the course co-ordinator – who happened to be sick on this day – he’d have spent at least five minutes attempting to belittle and antagonise me. I’ve seen him do it to others in the class. It’s disgusting. It’s an example of extremely poor marketing on behalf of the School within the University that he represents. Ripping into students for their omissions and oversights is counter-intuitive to the enjoyable learning environment we’re ostensibly here to experience.
This entry is less about what might be perceived as an act of academic rebellion on my part, than the fundamentally flawed nature of studying ‘new media’ within an archaic institution.
After some viewpoints were expressed by members of the class regarding the statement at hand – “does the nature of web-based technology bring people together, or push them apart?” – the lecturer asked for a show of hands for people who agreed, disagreed, or were neutral. Mid-way through this exercise, he looked at me again.
“You haven’t read the article, so you don’t have an opinion.”
By tilting my head slightly downward, I acquiesced to the lecturer’s superiority and power, which he seems to value above giving his students the chance to express their opinions.
This is fine.
I have no problem with keeping my mouth shut in academic situations. The chance to observe and analyse the responses of my classmates is far more profitable than sharing my thoughts – which would have been in agreeance that the nature of the internet brings people together.
Since the cost of all information – including information about individuals in the form of social networking profiles – approaches zero, we are generally able to gain personal knowledge and interact with each other more easily than ever before. You’ll note my definition of ‘closer’ doesn’t include physical touch, but a less tangible connection between individuals that is symptomatic of the nature of web-based communications.
Clearly, this isn’t a fully-developed opinion, but it’s on-par with the arguments raised by my classmates.
While sitting silently and observing my classmates – each of them endeavouring to become the “communication professionals” that my lecturer talks endlessly about – I wryly made the point in my mind that I didn’t read the text: so what? I’m interacting with some of the most forward-thinking, intelligent individuals in the world, on a daily basis. In my mind, their opinions and reactions to developments in the world of new media are worth far more than the ironically outdated opinions of a ‘new media’ lecturer.
Do not mistake this as a personal slight on his character – I like the guy, as he’s generally amusing to listen to – as I mentioned earlier, his approach is characteristic of the fundamentally flawed nature of attempting to write tertiary education courses based on an industry that evolves faster than he could possibly write textbooks.
Fuck textbooks, and fuck course readings. If I were in charge of co-ordinating such a course, I’d prescribe neither. Beyond the classroom, I’m a student of new media for my own enjoyment. I’m learning about literally world-changing events as they occur, and contributing several brushstrokes to the incomprehensibly large canvas that the web provides.
