[ SECRET POST #3167 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Music video does not equal documentary.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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)

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

NA ^This

[(Anonymous)]

I wasn't aware that Hollywood colonized Africa.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt, but LOL!!

[(Anonymous)]

I'll bet you're a hoot at parties, anon.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm a hoot and a half.

[(Anonymous)]

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