On Sia's Elastic Heart and the "Pedophilic" Music Video
This is just a quick note On Sia's Elastic Heart video featuring Shia LaBeouf & Maddie Ziegler, which you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWZGA...
(This is about a 3 minute read).
As most of you may know - or maybe you don't - there has been a fairly strong reaction to Sia's Elastic Heart video on what is, potentially, a pedophilic interpretation. This has to do with the nude bodysuits, the incorporation of an underage girl with an adult man, and the sort of battle between them. Some choose to interpret it as very close to, if not verging on, pedophilia.
My response to this is, "Maybe. Maybe not." And I don't mean this in terms of either/or. I mean it with an "and."
When you go to graduate school - particularly in liberal arts - what you learn to do is add on the "maybe not." To erase black and white interpretations and instead create a metonymy of them in order to see the entire picture. In other words, is it possible to derive a pedophilic interpretation of the video? Yes (obviously people have). And also no.
Other more creative interpretations view 1. the little girl as a bad thought that is plaguing the adult man who is stuck in the cage of his own depression or anxiety 2. Shia and Maddie as the same person waging a war against him and/or herself 3. a comparison of a young heart to an older one 4. a father-daughter relationship, where the daughter is always trying to cheer up the father who is mentally imbalanced 5. etc.
Which one of these is correct? All of them. And at the same time, none of them. It's yes and no always in art. And art does not survive if there can only be one interpretation. Nor can it survive if it panders to those with black and white views, who demand only one interpretation.
Of the potential 1,000 interpretations of this video, the pedophilic analysis can be made. But it is often made so that one can take the interpretation off of the table as soon as it's placed on. And often times some people can only enjoy something fully when they find something wrong with it. It's kind of like saying, "Now that we have fully admitted that there is a pedophilic message in this video, we can enjoy it. Now that we admit there's something wrong with it, we can love it." Or, "We can only love it as long as we use it as proof of something that we're not supposed to love." The pedophilic interpretation must be placed on the table so that people can enjoy the video as though it is not on the table. It is similar to the idea that presently you can only portray Russians, Arabs, and Villains smoking in movies and television. It is only by allowing the villain to enjoy cigarettes that the enjoyment of cigarettes is allowable. As long as we use a character who is inglorious, we can portray him loving the things that we are not supposed to love.
What this comes down to is, if you're going to create something artistic, don't listen to people. Because they will reduce the 1,000 interpretations down to just one, which is a lie. There is no either/or. There is only combination. Metonymy. "Yes," and also "no" to every analysis available.
My interpretation:
I think that the power looks like it's tilted towards Shia's side in the beginning of the video. If a tiny bird is caged with a bigger bird, or a tiny dog is caged with a bigger dog, you can guess who is going to survive in that battle.
Unless, of course, the little bird or dog can slip through the wires of the cage. Which, indeed, Maddie can.
And so there is a shift in power halfway through the video when she slips through the bars. She only loses the game if she plays it, and she doesn't have to play it. It's her choice, and she can leave.
Her ultimate use of her power, though, (and something that gives nearly all of the power to her) is to go back inside that cage to try to help Shia out. She has shown him the game doesn't have to be played the way he's playing it (life doesn't have to be lived like a battle in a cage). And there's even a moment, where she seems to take a look in his mouth, inhale the poison, and blow it back out. As though to heal him.
When she leads him to the edge of the cage to help him release himself, he refuses to slip through the bars, which it seems as though he could at any time (he does nearly slip through the bars at 3 minutes in). So, it is his choice to remain in the cage and play the only game he has ever played. He does not have the elasticity required to see that there are more ways to live.
The use of a small girl with a large man is to help play on the fact that it's not the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog.
(This is about a 3 minute read).
As most of you may know - or maybe you don't - there has been a fairly strong reaction to Sia's Elastic Heart video on what is, potentially, a pedophilic interpretation. This has to do with the nude bodysuits, the incorporation of an underage girl with an adult man, and the sort of battle between them. Some choose to interpret it as very close to, if not verging on, pedophilia.
My response to this is, "Maybe. Maybe not." And I don't mean this in terms of either/or. I mean it with an "and."
When you go to graduate school - particularly in liberal arts - what you learn to do is add on the "maybe not." To erase black and white interpretations and instead create a metonymy of them in order to see the entire picture. In other words, is it possible to derive a pedophilic interpretation of the video? Yes (obviously people have). And also no.
Other more creative interpretations view 1. the little girl as a bad thought that is plaguing the adult man who is stuck in the cage of his own depression or anxiety 2. Shia and Maddie as the same person waging a war against him and/or herself 3. a comparison of a young heart to an older one 4. a father-daughter relationship, where the daughter is always trying to cheer up the father who is mentally imbalanced 5. etc.
Which one of these is correct? All of them. And at the same time, none of them. It's yes and no always in art. And art does not survive if there can only be one interpretation. Nor can it survive if it panders to those with black and white views, who demand only one interpretation.
Of the potential 1,000 interpretations of this video, the pedophilic analysis can be made. But it is often made so that one can take the interpretation off of the table as soon as it's placed on. And often times some people can only enjoy something fully when they find something wrong with it. It's kind of like saying, "Now that we have fully admitted that there is a pedophilic message in this video, we can enjoy it. Now that we admit there's something wrong with it, we can love it." Or, "We can only love it as long as we use it as proof of something that we're not supposed to love." The pedophilic interpretation must be placed on the table so that people can enjoy the video as though it is not on the table. It is similar to the idea that presently you can only portray Russians, Arabs, and Villains smoking in movies and television. It is only by allowing the villain to enjoy cigarettes that the enjoyment of cigarettes is allowable. As long as we use a character who is inglorious, we can portray him loving the things that we are not supposed to love.
What this comes down to is, if you're going to create something artistic, don't listen to people. Because they will reduce the 1,000 interpretations down to just one, which is a lie. There is no either/or. There is only combination. Metonymy. "Yes," and also "no" to every analysis available.
My interpretation:
I think that the power looks like it's tilted towards Shia's side in the beginning of the video. If a tiny bird is caged with a bigger bird, or a tiny dog is caged with a bigger dog, you can guess who is going to survive in that battle.
Unless, of course, the little bird or dog can slip through the wires of the cage. Which, indeed, Maddie can.
And so there is a shift in power halfway through the video when she slips through the bars. She only loses the game if she plays it, and she doesn't have to play it. It's her choice, and she can leave.
Her ultimate use of her power, though, (and something that gives nearly all of the power to her) is to go back inside that cage to try to help Shia out. She has shown him the game doesn't have to be played the way he's playing it (life doesn't have to be lived like a battle in a cage). And there's even a moment, where she seems to take a look in his mouth, inhale the poison, and blow it back out. As though to heal him.
When she leads him to the edge of the cage to help him release himself, he refuses to slip through the bars, which it seems as though he could at any time (he does nearly slip through the bars at 3 minutes in). So, it is his choice to remain in the cage and play the only game he has ever played. He does not have the elasticity required to see that there are more ways to live.
The use of a small girl with a large man is to help play on the fact that it's not the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog.
No comments have been added yet.
