Why I Can't Date White Men: Thoughts on Feist's video 1234.
I probably made a new enemy last night. As is often the case, give me a little wine and I start to spout off my mean thoughts with little to no tact. It’s not that I wouldn’t say such things without the alcohol, but any kindness in delivery and desire to tread gently and lightly on a potentially provocative argument is absent. Case in point: I wanted to talk shit about Feist’s video 1234.Having only seen it on that iPod commercial I had never really looked critically at the video, it being so tiny on an already small screen. But then a few months ago it was nominated for a Grammy, I believe, for best video. Since I was considering writing my thesis on current videos, I watched each nominee on my laptop and was shocked at how different Feist's video came across when projected larger (not to mention it staying in one place and not having the iPod move every three seconds).
Feist is a bad dancer, and it bothered me. Don’t get me wrong, the colors and the group dancing and the camerawork, it’s all fun and visually pleasing. But the way she shook her hips, this over-exaggerated, awkward, just barely in rhythm thrusting from left to right, offended me for some reason. So I gave it some thought (and also looked up more Feist videos).
I immediately countered myself and thought that my reaction was completely unfair and silly; Feist is neither a dancer nor is it a prerequisite for a musician to dance well in order to produce a video. But I wasn’t satisfied with that, so I got down to basics. I wondered what dancing was to a video and decided it was best to compare it to acting, especially in this particular video seeing that Feist is the primary “character” and is definitely acting. So here’s the catch; how many film with bad acting do you consider to be great? Even if a film were successful on many fronts (cinematography, editing, score), if it has bad acting, even just one character out of step, someone speaking or writing critically about it would find it important to express this. Marie Antoinette was very pretty but Kirsten Dunst blows; 1234 is a pretty video, but Feist can’t dance.
In coming to this conclusion, I wasn’t writing off the whole video, but apparently my thoughts seemed to suggest otherwise to my friend Nate. Nate is a first year in my master’s program that likes to fight with me over stupid stilly things I can’t even begin to explain. Sometimes it’s fun and our discussions are thoroughly satisfying, but sometimes we end up screaming at each other across the table at restaurants and making friends and strangers really uncomfortable as our blood boils for all to see. Our fight about this video, though, was over IM, a terrible medium for argument. But I wanted to share my thoughts and he was online so I sent him the link to the video.
He liked the dancing because she “wasn’t taking herself seriously,” something he dislikes is most videos, which makes absolutely no sense to me. I can understand dancing not being your thing and not checking for new Chris Brown videos because it just doesn’t interest you, but to mock good dancing because they take it seriously is asinine (to use a word he once gave me in a bind that I’m now going to use to describe him, hehe). But seriously, when we saw There Will Be Blood, he liked how serious Daniel Day-Lewis took his acting, and for good reason; for any performance to be top-notch, the performer must take it seriously. Why, then, would anyone dislike a dancer because they take their art seriously?
So flash forward to last night. At a get-together at Nate’s apartment we started watching videos and the bitch within me felt like arguing over this video again with Nate since others were present that could take my side and put Nate in his place. But somehow I managed to seemingly offend (and I won’t lie, my tone was definitely condescending at this point so I definitely deserved some bad vibes) this first year production kid. I was going over the details with Nate again but then a new thought enters my mind that I manage to only half explain. I don’t even remember exactly what did and did not escape my brain, but I said something about Feist and indie white boys and why they’re sexually attracted to something like that, I don’t know. I do know that I seemingly mocked this boy for embodying a stereotype and for him not really looking critically at a video (something that carries a punch when talking to a filmmaker or film geek) but rather just wanting to do Feist, or something like that. Let’s also note that the whole time this video is going, I find it necessary to reenact Feist’s dance moves to show further how ridiculous it really is, and the late night aerobics gave me some extra energy to fuel my bitchiness.
Well, I guess he had enough of me because he definitely threw a look of disgust my way before leaving the room. So much for first impressions, something Clay and I apparently suck at. But while I can look at my comments and understand that they were not fully formed and I was delighting in not being nice at this point, my new thoughts came rushing back to me today and I felt the need to discuss.
This whole time I’ve been looking at this video rather technically and not looking at any sociological, philosophical, or psychological aspects. It’s a dance video, for crying out loud, people are dancing in ridiculous primary color suits. But after a second white, indie male tried to argue that I’m a bad person for dissing her dancing, my brain started to fire up. Those of you who know me know that I’m hard on the white man, sometimes for good reason and sometimes just for fun, so do note that I’m generalizing to make a point. And as a woman who is (for better or worse) voluptuous, assertive, independent, and very frank concerning all things sexual, I am continually freaking out the indie white boys for not being, for all intents and purposes, someone like Feist.
As I mentioned earlier on, I looked up more Feist videos and there’s definitely a trend of bad dancing. But more than that, she embodies this de-sexualized, demure, cute indie girl persona. She’s docile, she’s sweet, and her whole gig is singing quirky rhymes while smiling innocently with her porcelain face and modest dress. Not only is it a reversion to the 50s housewife, it’s almost like a reversion to childhood; her songs, dress, and dance all reflect this virginal girl of 16, naïve and pure. In short, she’s poses no threat to the white, indie male.
Nate’s going to disagree and I’m ready to battle it out. I’m not saying that he, nor this other guy, is really thinking that much when it comes to this video, but that’s exactly the point. They have a visceral response to this video that is clouding their ability to engage critically; something’s going on inside their gut that is stronger than what’s going on in their mind, and perhaps it’s a longing for this safe, submissive female rather than a preference for bad dancing.
Check out the video and tell me your thoughts. Feist 1234
Labels: bitch, drunk arguments, music videos, white men
posted by Alison @ 2:28 PM
15 Comments:
My thoughts on the video:
a) the choreography is overrated. It's not bad, per se, but honestly, dozens of other videos have invoked Busby Berkeley to much better effect. There was nothing innovative or standout in it. It was purposefully off, and I don't think it worked in its favor.
b) I completely agree that Feist is a manifestation of quirky-cute indie girl that indie boys love. Just peruse students films from hipster kids from the last 4 years and you'll see girls like this popping up right and left. She's a type, and not one I can necessarily identify with (though I'm sure there are others who do).
c) the song is fucking mediocre. Period.
d) with the distribution outlets for music videos in transition, we're in a bad music video period. Hopefully we'll see a creative resurgence soon. It's unfortunate that right now this is "the best."
e) if I had been there, too, my drunken self would've been backing you up against the indie boys.
I'll be honest here...I didn't even watch the whole video. I couldn't take it. Seriously. I'm glad I never saw the iPod commercial with this song in it.
I agree with you. This video is the embodiment of the pseudo-virginal indie chick who tries to be kind of sexy but is so riddled with insecurity that she can't even stand up straight (seriously, notice, not only can she not dance, she has HORRIBLE posture). And she's probably insecure because indie boys fuck her and leave her, since now that they've done her she's no longer an indie "Laura" or "Beatrice" for them to conquer. Makes me a little ill.
And it's also true...every indie boy I know loves Feist and Cat Power (I dig some Cat Power, too, but she's got the same deal going on) because they think she's hot (but at least my indie boy friends are willing to admit that's the primary reason they'd watch that video).
Then you get into stuff like Rilo Kiley, which, while I would still put them in the indie genre, is TOTALLY different because while I know guys that like Rilo, they don't LOVE Rilo, and I think it's because Jenny Lewis is actually SEXY at this point. Most of them will say things like, they like old Rilo but not the newer stuff, and when you think about it, it makes sense because Lewis fit this indie-chick mold up until More Adventurous and her solo album...and then with this latest album she's totally out of it. Even on tour her look changed...she stopped with the indie look (ins some ways) and was wearing way sexy outfits and seemed a hell of a lot more confident.
And (haha, sorry this is so long) in addition to that, I think all of this is related to why so many Christian guys and girls get so into indie music and indie bands/artists with chicks that fit this mold because it's the whole "cool christianity", sexy yet virginal, hip yet holy thing. It's messed up.
Anyway, good thoughts. I like them.
This is such an interesting argument to me, and I've been thinking about it ever since I read your post earlier this morning (I love Sarah's comparison to Jenny Lewis, by the way). There's something not quite right about the video, but I think has more to do with the song than with Feist. The song does evoke lyrically the image of awkward teenage love, and so I think the dancing is on purpose.
BUT... what bothers me about this argument is that her album photography is pretty sexual. Just google search images of her, and it's like this completely different person than is in that video with the terrible outfits and the even more terrible dancing.
And while I totally agree that cutesy girl image appeals to this "white indie male" generalization we're making here, what I tend to question is whether that breaks some sort of feminist ideal. In fact, I feel a little bothered by the idea that men should universally want some extremely sexualized woman because she's strong enough (or something) to overcome her repressed sexuality, and to be "open" about it. That just seems like the type of feminism we've already passed, and that becomes extremely problematic because it tends to further reinforce the image of women as sexual objects. So, while I hate to side with the males on this one, I have to defend my feelings that whatever "performance" Feist is giving here or in her other videos, or in a Goffman-esque sense, I'm okay with her wanting her image to be cutesy, and I'm equally okay with men not desiring women to be super-sexualized AS LONG AS they hold that same standard for themselves and other men, because I think feminism is about more than just how we present ourselves--I think it's about how we're allowed to present ourselves. And if I made anything unclear, I will be happy to add on to this little comment later. :)
laura, i cannot lie, the program isn't quite the same without your wonderful opinions. i hope you're loving your phd program.
sarah, amen on the pick up of christian kids and indie music. i also thought about rilo while writing and how she's a lot more threatening (and less liked by the men) despite still wearing "modest" clothing and looking quite similar to people like feist and cat power. it's not just look, it's also performance that's key here.
annie, i haven't seen those pictures you bring up, but i did wonder if her image was consistent. i looked up two other videos and it was, but i didn't bother with pictures and i don't really listen to her, so good find on that.
i understand what you're saying about moving past sexual liberation=slutty "girls gone wild" kind of "freedom" that isn't advancing feminism at all, but i don't think what she's doing is this video is advancing feminism either, hence the childlike lyrics , movements, and voice. like i said above about jenny, there's something very empowering about her looking cute like feist but performing with confidence like an adult, not like a child.
i'm definitely going to have to blog about ciara videos next because it's in the same vein but moves me even more so maybe you ladies could get into it as well!
ps laura, you are so right about the transition we're in right now, i was going to write my thesis on it and focus on a few new videos (namely JT's "What goes around comes around"). we'll have to share some more thoughts on this!
lastly, how did you make that thesis widget last year, i need something to motivate me!
Annie, I agree about women being able to present themselves the way they want to, and I think maybe I was unclear in my criticism of her...I guess I feel like any time anyone is going for an image, be it "cute" or "sexy", there's still a lot of pressure from the male population behind that sexuality. In this case, the "cuteness" seems to appeal to the sexuality of white indie males, and you know, it seems to be a trend that most indie-rocker women fit more into the "cuteness" mold than the "sultry" mold -- I would say even her pictures are a cute girl trying to be sexy verses a woman owning her sexuality.
I personally have just as big a problem with women objectifying themselves in other genres...like Beyonce or Ciara or any of them, their overt sexiness, which often takes the form of revealing clothing and provocative dancing (do I sound like a Southern Baptist yet?), also seems to be more of an appeal to the male population who listens to that music than an expression of self.
I suppose it's really impossible to tell, as far as people in the entertainment industry go, what is real and what is fake. I just know it'd be nice to me if women were allowed to own themselves and be themselves -- that is what is actually sexy -- rather than try to fit the image of sexy in a given group of people (be it indie or hip hop or whatever).
But you're right. If for an individual woman, sexiness is cute rather than sultry or what have you, I think that's OK. My sexiness tends to lie in my words and thoughts rather than my appearance (so it seems...I mean, I try to seduce people with conversation rather than my clothes or body. Haha). And maybe you're right about Feist too, and there is more to her cutesy videos than it seems, and maybe she is really expressing herself rather than trying to fit into an acceptable image for the genre. I guess we'll never know...
asmendenhall: I love that you invoked Erving Goffman here. You're now my internet hero.
Alison: Here's the website I used for the widget - http://www.zokutou.co.uk/wordmeter/.
Good luck on that thesis! I'd love to hear (or read, as it were) some of the stuff you're working on. Feel free to email me whenever (Penina has my email).
oh sarah, ciara is my hero. a new blog is in order to show how ciara is a women in control not only of her sexuality but of how it is and is not presented. she's totally in control of our gaze, something very few women, esp in music, can accomplish.
Ah... I see what your point is now, Sarah (and Alison), and that I definitely agree with. The idea that women performers might explicitly try to appeal to men with a specific presentation of their sexuality--be it cute or slutty--bothers me, and I definitely see it influencing the way female performers do present themselves. I generally haven't classified Feist in that category because I expect that sort of "fakeness" to come from the women who make seem overtly sexual. I think the reason that sort of behavior strikes me is that I can imagine an opposite, "better" performance--how I think that person should present themselves for the sake of feminism in general. The problem I have with understanding Feist's performance here is that I can't imagine something else she could be doing here--other than maybe taking a music video as a serious art form. How interesting. I wonder how I would have constructed such a video, had I been Feist.
So, apparently I just sit around and think about your blog all day, BUT I had an interesting thought about it. I've been annoyed to find that almost all men (okay, all that I've talked to about it) really don't like RIlo Kiley's two most recent albums, but they love the first two. They always say they like Jenny Lewis' voice better in the early albums, which I totally don't understand because she sounds like a little kid and "cutesy" (not that I don't like those albums either, just not as much). Also, they generally say they don't find her attractive because she looks old... which I also don't understand. Anyways, all of this is to say that the "cuteness" appeal of Feist in that particular video is more childish than 1950's housewife-ish, So, I think what is appealing both about old jenny lewis stuff and this feist video to men is that it's infantile! And, of course, when I think of the word infantile in connection with sexual desire (Alison, I think you'll appreciate this one)... I think Freud. So.... we should totally psychoanalyze this.
Amen Annie! Oddly enough, Alison and I had a g-chat conversation yesterday about men and paedophilia, because I was reading up on Ruskin and found out he was possibly a child molester who also didn't sleep with his wife for 6 years because he was disgusted by her (several of his biographers think it was pubic hair that disgusted him, though one says it may have been menstruation). In addition to Ruskin, several other male writers have paedophilic tendencies, and this brought up that men (not a majority of them, but a lot of them) seem to like infantilized women (i.e., women who have no body hair, women who dress like little girls...the whole Lolita look...women who have high pitched cutesy voices...the list goes on). Anyway, it's kind of weird and sometimes I do think Freud was on to something, at least when it comes to perversion.
Love this post. Your ability to eloquently (if not concisely) express your disdain is refreshing. I have a similar problem with black men and their attraction to body fat. Cheers.
Oh, one other thought... Is it possible that you attribute "indie boys" attraction to Feist to fear for much the same reason that a man might call a women a lesbian after she rejects his advances? Anyhow, food for thought.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home