fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3167 ]

[ SECRET POST #3167 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3167 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 040 secrets from Secret Submission Post #453.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Never heard of it until now, but just looked it up. One of the complaints is that it had no black actors, but they're also criticizing it for romanticizing colonialism... wouldn't black actors having fun with white people be doing the same thing?

It does seem like it's in bad taste, though.

SA - Okay, actually watched the video. It's really not that bad. They're in Africa and filming a movie. So I kinda agree.

If you are going to set something in colonial-era Africa, it would be better to reflect both the existence of black people and the evil of colonialism. But depicting one of those things is still better than depicting neither of them.

Really the best thing to do would be, instead of doing a fucking safari movie shoot or whatever, do an Out of Africa thing instead

that book fucking rules and I would also have expected it to resonate with Tay Tay thematically but idk

Yes. Because when I watch my Taylor Swift romance music videos, I am looking for political statements about colonial-era Africa~

Doesn't matter if you're looking for it or not, the politics are there regardless.

No. No they are not...It is a video that takes place on a film set.

It is a thing that exists in the world.

Bah! So we should also accuse Taylor Swift of homophobia because her video didn't address how gay people were treated in the 50s? HER VIDEO DOESN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE KOREAN WAR! Or the Cuban Revolution.

the video isn't set during the korean war or the cuban revolution

It is set during the 1950s. Korean War and Cuban Revolution were also during the 1950s. Also, the first Sudanese War.

It's not set in Korea or Cuba. If it was set in Cuba during the revolution, I would consider it similarly weird for it not to at least display an awareness of those historical events. I'm not saying it has to condemn it but it was a thing that existed and it's dishonest to try to display the aesthetics of that time period without that side of their reality.

I don't think it's dishonest to portray a movie set being closed off and removed from the actual place and people who live there. That's how movie sets tend to be.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-09-06 06:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-09-06 06:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-09-06 08:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-09-06 08:41 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-09-06 12:38 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-09-06 12:36 (UTC) - Expand

Music video does not equal documentary.

There is no obligation to represent anything but the story being told.

Pretty much this.

Look, I agree there's way too little representation due to white creators assuming history was only white people until the 1970s, but sometimes a story is a story.

Bullshit, anon. No story, no narrative, no aesthetic work exists in a vacuum. All of them exist in a specific social context. As rational people we can look at and analyze those connections, both in terms of their production - how and by whom and in what circumstances they're made - and in terms of their content and the mode of their representation of reality. Now that is not something that we need to take in a doctrinaire way. I agree that there's no obligation to represent anything in particular. But that doesn't mean we have to take it as being totally divorced from the world either.

In this case, we have something that is depicting one fairly specific historical situation, and it's depicting it in a specific, and historically inaccurate, way. It is by no means out of bounds to point that out. I don't see why we can't ask why Taylor Swift chose to set the story in that specific setting, especially since it has no relevance to the story being told, and why having chosen that setting she chose to depict it in a way that did not come even close to reflecting any historical accuracy. Presumably she wanted to play with a specific aesthetic. But to me, decoupling that aesthetic and the actual real situation from which it emerged is false. It's the worst kind of nostalgia, it's fallow and it's empty and hollow. Even judged solely on aesthetic terms, it's weaker because of that choice. And I don't see why that opinion should be out of bounds.

You make it sound like Swift had 100% control over the production of this music video. Even if she came up with the basic idea, i doubt even Swift has/had enough sway to change things people are critising.

In general I think this is a good point about creative endeavors. But with Swift specifically, I feel pretty confident that she has final say over just about everything that's going on.

It's not actually depicting a specific historical situation, though. It's depicting actors making a movie.

NAYRT - TBH I wonder how many people saying this AND critiquing it elsewhere have actually seen the video. I read an article that did make it out like Africa as a continent is portrayed. It's not. It's a film set with zebras, lions and a helicopter.

Making a movie in 1950s Africa. And doing a glamour-of-old-Hollywood kind of thing with it.

(But also, that's a much better argument than "It's just a music video and therefore it's wrong to think about what it's depicting in any kind of critical way" so props on that)

But that isn't necessarily pro-colonialism. Making a movie in the middle of nowhere in Africa isn't a comment on what's going on in Africa, whatever the time period. It isn't a comment on the entire continent and what it's like. It's using a geographical setting for a part of its geography.

I don't think it's quite right to say that, if you want to film the scenery of a place, you also have to make sure to delve into all of the political and social issues that people who live nearby are dealing with. I also think context is important. If she was an actual white colonist doing actual white colonist things, I'd think there was more of a problem.

I'm not saying it's an ardent defense of colonialism. And I'm not saying that you need to delve into every single political and social issue of the area. But I do think it is presenting an ideal of colonial African society that is not real. It is not just using a geographical setting as set dressing, it is using a specific interpretation of a real time and place and society as set dressing. And in presenting that set dressing, it's eliding a massive part of what was going on in that society. Specifically the fucked up oppressive parts of that society. So, again, it's inaccurate. And it promotes a harmful kind of nostalgia.

And you shouldn't do that.

I'm a hoot and a half.

You'd be a hoot and three-quarters at the kinds of parties I go to. . .

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only