WOAH... powerful, shocking, amazing... good work

Blogged here: hypemuch.com/

Wow. Incredible video. Reminds me of the thousands of Iranian boys who walked to their deaths to clear the minefields during the war between Iran and Iraq.

matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-demons

Romain, you are one dangerously insane individual. And I love you for it.

Americans don't see ginger children the way the British do, that's why this video is unintentionally funny. Why not have British soldiers rounding up the ginger children, huh, MIA? This video is the equivalent of an "artist" accdidentally dropping his lunch on canvas and certain spectators seeing it as a representation of famine and chaos.

While the mixing, acting, editing, etc. are decent, the video, the message, and the song are all laughable to say the least. The only thing funnier are those praising this as genius. LOL. WOW.

On the flip side, the parodies of this video should be intentionally hillarious--there's so much to work with.

I've got to agree with Mike Mikesen. Technical part is great, but i didnt see all that acid criticism, power abuse or political problems that people said when recommended me this clip. Probably not for me.

Mark, that must be the stupidest question i have saw in a long time. Just because someone doesn't work in the same field means they can't have an opinion on it?

Mike, I think you miss the point. The gingers could be a metaphor for any ethnic group under attack by authority, which are many around the globe right now. That's not to say that the US is the authority in all or even most of those cases, but it is certainly the most obvious representation of militant misuse of power.

Here's one example being cited: tinyurl.com/kw526a

I really have trouble believing that Gavras would be 'unintentionally funny'. I don't see how that is actually funny in ANY sense, unintentionally or not. Someone who DOES find that funny severely needs a psychological examination. I think it's a great video and says a great deal. Good job. Eli, I think you're right on.

I dunno, being gaudy and over-the-top can be pretty funny. There's a trouble in condemning violence whilst revelling in images of it. Not to mention the teenager-with-After-Effects work on the gunshot, and amazing Troma-level effect of the kid who explodes like a balloon full of (orange!) graboid blood.

Also, when the kid gets on the bus, it looks like an advert for Irn-Bru.

On the flip side: youtu.be/HR66puDOtKY

Wow some of you guys are pretty dense, this has nothing to do with ginger people being discriminated against. It is an analogy (you know being artistic and creative, and not being so literal) of how all kinds of groups are persecuted for being different. If that point was lost on you your not much of genius either. And no I do not think he had any intention of trying to be funny with this video. Who would watch this and start laughing?!

Mike Mikesen is absolutely spot on. This is hilarious, especially if you've seen this sketch show:

youtube.com/watch#!v=XHLUyouE48Q

If you can't see it in your country, then look for "Cath Tate Ginger" on youTube or somesuch.

Regards the MIA video - sorry dude. Well put together and everything, but frankly it's ten minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I think its based on discrimination and brutality against a certain people, like what has happened to Asians, Africans, Jews and so on..
But yes great video gets the point across, if thats it.

I have to admit I laughed out loud at the first shot of the bus full of sullen ginger kids. It's like something from South Park. Also, the combination of the absurd symbolism of the redheads with the real American flag made the concept feel confused and kind of petty. If this is some warning against discrimination in general why single out America in particular? Alternately, if you want to criticize the United States, why not represent a case of real discrimination (god knows there are plenty to choose from)? I thought it was an interesting video (and MIA rocks) but conceptually just kind of blah.

The US was chosen because it's what most viewers are at home like. IMO, the bigger concept of the video is to make be absurd and at the same time alerting by using a country everyone is familiar with. Everyone, western or not, is familiar with the US. I don't think it's meant to criticize the US but rather replace the characters to make it seem less 'obvious' and yes, tipping a bit into the absurd.

i think the dude realizes that it's not literal. I really think the problem here is that no one is looking at this from a middle ground. The running through a field of mines bit could be interpreted on some deep level of the loops some soldiers far away have captives jump through before they kill them, but in reality, that part was just supposed to be a gag(probably). and also the fact that the dudes are americans is also intentional, it's like the more ridiculous the notion the more it's supposed to demean racism. To the guy who made this, it was pretty enjoyable as far as film work went, i'm sure you had a lot of fun on set, I think you've still a year or two get to a really impressive level (having not seen any of your other work). Also, the song was not really horrible but unlistenable without this video for sure

yeah .... Okay .... This is NOT amazing.
Directing & editing .... OK.
Message, credibility : ZERO.
I'm french, but why U.S ? Why Ginger ? The american flag is just "too much" ...better to not say, and let people "feel" that it "could have been the U.S" i think.
And what about this mine field, who is not realistic at all ?! With soldier just hunting them !!!
And the way he attacked U.S, not G.B or France makes me think he is really just a "son of" .... =(
Justice stress was something but sorry to say, this not.
(maybe i had too big hope when everyone told me to watch this)

powerful music video, and I am not disappointed by the song but that's just my opinion.

Indeed. If the entire album is like this I will not hesitate to torre... buy it.

The song felt like Atari Teenage Riot-Lite

As has been previously noted, the song's background loop starting at 01:10 is sampled from 'Ghost Rider', to be found on Suicide's 1st album (from 1977).

I agree

+1

I was expecting the guy in the tracksuit to do something in the end. I guess him going down is the point of the film though, nobody got out of it.

Yes, I was really thinking "Now's your chance!" when he was standing in the bus waiting while everyone went out of the bus. It looked like he was behind the policemen so he could do anything with the man. It would indeed make it less strong though when he would survive.

+2

Maybe it's the power of this clip that there is an open end, and not an "and they happily lived ever after". Even though it would give so much more peace when knowing it'll be ok.

"I hope you continue this video clip, somehow..."
I think it's up to everyone on this planet to continue this video...

first off, to Thykka, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? secondly, to the plot of Roman's upcomming thriller. not everyone in ireland are redheads. In fact less than 12% of the population are. less than 10% in UK and less than 2% in the states. If this video involved any other minority group i think people would be more upset.

"If this video involved any other minority group i think people would be more upset."

The sad truth. I live in the USA, not the UK, and I still have been told that I don't deserve to live because of my red hair. But it's ok to overlook prejudices against gingers, it's ok to use that to represent other prejudices. After all, gingers are one of the smallest minorities in the world, who's going to raise an outcry?

Also, makes me question the use of gingers for clearing minefields, it would be far easier to find another group for it. Perhaps they just haven't done any testing to make sure they are natural gingers.

Agreed as well.

Definitely some Punishment Park going on in here. Especially towards the end.

in fact, the brilliance and controversy of this video lies in its cue to punishment park's ideology, no?

Loud and clear, it reminds of, and condemns the absurdity of civil strife and the arbitrary nature of targeting and profiling. You really don't get the point?

Americans don't see ginger children the way the British do, that's why this video is unintentionally funny. Why not have British soldiers rounding up the ginger children, huh, MIA? This video is the equivalent of an "artist" accdidentally dropping his lunch on canvas and certain spectators seeing it as a representation of famine and chaos. While the mixing, acting, editing, etc. are decent, the video, the message, and the song are all laughable to say the least. The only thing funnier are those praising this as genius. LOL. WOW.

Thankfully it's not just "Americans" (or citizens of the U.S.A., for that matter) watching this video.

Not getting the point of this means you either haven't gone to college or you haven't lived long enough, or you've been living long enough - just under a rock is all. Funny how idiots are never rounded up.

Sorry guys, I'm french, I've gone to college and I've probably known M.I.A. way before you have and I know she's keen on denouncing world's injustice but this time, I don't understand why she uses violence so much. Yes, the world is violent. Yes, it's sadly becoming more and more ordinary but why the hell keepin on thinking that showing it will calm the situation... When I look at all the comments, I'm quite deperate.. Stray Films, please start stopping telling people are idiots and then post a comment on mine.

Telemaak
MIA is not using violence in an exploitative way. She is showing [actually the director is showing] that violence is terrible and unacceptable. And he does this by turning the tables a bit on racial profiling. This video is the opposite of most Hollywood films because it is not pleasing or 'good' violence. I think it makes it's point quite effectively.

Ohmygod Telemaak, your last comment fulfils the stereotypes of TWO stereotypes (pretentious Franco & pretentious college student). Maybe you do know more than the rest of us, but who cares? Especially on the internet.

I think all you Ebert and Roepers are analyzing the video too deeply.

This Native American get's the point of this video...

"Yes, the world is violent. Yes, it's sadly becoming more and more ordinary but why the hell keepin on thinking that showing it will calm the situation... "

Well that's idiotic, systematic deduction.

exactly... It is shocking... and I still don't know if it's good or bad...is it really helpful or constructive to show it like this?

art is not meant to be "helpful" or "constructive" -it just needs to be "engaging"

it's funny that we live in a time when a slight twist on actual reality, in narrative form and (sort of) put to music, is considered sensationalism.

Word UP!!! This had my damn blood boiling. AMERICA Corp. and its mind controlled goons. Is the director and/or M.I.A also hinting at Martial Law in the US? Hmmm...

You're mistaken if you think she is some sort of pacifist. She's not. She's a Sri Lankan national who's father was LTTE... this alone should leave illusions of her speaking out against violence (in some all "violence is the same" sort of pacifist approach) to the dust-bin.

Violence is a part of reality, I agree... not just a human thing but a part of being alive.

That said, why *shouldn't* we focus on the main perpetrator of violence and oppression in the world today? (hint: it's the US imperialist forces)

edit: this wasn't meant to be "hate email/comment" by the way, just a reply to start a dialog to further understanding.

Thanks for the civil comment. I am aware of her background but I would like to point out that she is outspoken about the violence committed against her people in Sri Lanka and I'm all for that because I abhor violence. But here's the problem, and I'll quote her: "You can't separate the world into two parts like that, good and evil. Terrorism is a method, but America has successfully tied all these pockets of independence struggles, revolutions, and extremists into one big notion of terrorism." Now, I AGREE with that statement, just like I agree with you when you say that the US is the biggest offender; no argument there. But why not focus on violence in general? The answer is because it's simply not fashionable to do so and therefore there is a focus on the US when it comes to violence in the world (hence why your comment seems (excuse me, I really don't want to offend you personally; that is not my intention) pointless, specially considering that I posted a link to an example of US led violence). So, it's not ok to separate the world into Good and Evil, UNLESS you're from the US, then you're obviously evil. This kinda thing is what irks me. People like MIA are like the Che's of the world and they think they have an exclusive grasp on the "truth". therefore, the ends justify the means. So let's just put an american flag on those "bad guys" in the video and call it a day? By doing that she IS condoning violence, in particular against the USA. And that's hypocritical my friend; gotta call it our for what it is.

you have to think about what exactly it is that makes this video curdle your blood so bad. ANY race or Nationality of people could be exchanged with the "gingers" and it wouldnt be far from whats happening now. I dont see how this is hypocritical. Its social commentary. A proverbial "holding up a giant mirror" so to speak.

"ANY race or Nationality of people could be exchanged with the "gingers" and it wouldnt be far from whats happening now"

I agree with you Edel (look at Arizona), but that is obvious. Too obvious in my opinion and a VERY cheap device to use and ultimately not even the point I'm trying to make. I think it's the gratuitous, sensationalist violence coupled with a message that is trite and redundant that upsets me on a visceral and intellectual level. The hypocrisy lies in the disconnect of her speaking out against violence and then commissioning one of the most graphically violent videos ever made. The "giant mirror" argument I think is a total cop out. NWA did the same thing and at least it was funny because it was so over the top and you "got it"; it was cartoonish. You knew they were bullshitting (at least I did) and getting rich while doing it. MIA on the other hand takes herself very seriously, and she expects everyone else to so so as well. She's commenting on subjects like human rights and imperialist oppression (as opposed to NWA rapping about guns, drugs and pussy). If she wants to fight those things then she should make something, with all that money her and her beau have, that's intelligent and devoid of sensationalism. Instead she made a trailer for the next Keanu Reeves/Harrison Ford's big Hollywood pic. She's just appealing to the basest of natures in the masses.

Jorge, thanx for your comments, well said. i appreciate that you had something intelligent to contribute.

Jorge, with all due respect, your logic is flawed.

You continue to iterate that there is a dissonance between this video's obscene violence and M.I.A's speaking out against violence. It seems odd that you would say this considering you just said the message was too obvious. I'm going to assume that you think the message is to shock people and warn them the dangers of a big, over-policed government being able to potentially commit unwarranted, heinous acts of violence. If that's the case, how could you NOT depict it in this manner? In what way would you convey the same message and themes?

Also, just because you felt that the message was too obvious and utilized a cheap device doesn't mean that this won't impact other people. You're misusing the word gratuitous: this video is using violence for something more than the sake of the violent acts. While you may think that this may be a cheap device to convey a simple message, the violence is still not gratuitous.

Why not make a statement about violence in general? Because the song and the video are making a statement about feeling oppressed by a big government. Why pick on the U.S.? Who knows? As an American, I personally wasn't offended by it and felt that the government depicted could have been as easily interchangeable with any other superpower (China, Russia, UK, etc), much in the same way that gingers could be exchanged for any other group of people (blacks, gays, Jews, etc) and still have a similar impact and meaning.

Chalking this video up as simply a knock of of an action movie is an insult to the people who made this film, and to think that there was no message other than to glorify violence seems sensationalist itself.

Brett, I appreciate your comments. Though you make good points, let me try and explain why I don't entirely agree with you.

A. "...there is a dissonance between this video's obscene violence and M.I.A's speaking out against violence."

You're talking about two things here and mixing them up as one; her "message" and the "vehicle" for her message. Those are 2 different things. Her "message" is not just dissonant, it's entirely incongruent. What's it going to be? violence or non-violence? it's a mixed signal. As far as the vehicle (the video) for the message, it's cheap and obvious, in my opinion. The people that get it don't need to be reminded of the evils of governments around the world and the ones that don't get it will probably never see this video and in all likelihood wouldn't give a shit if they did. I hardly think she's going to inspire tolerance with the violence portrayed in this video. 99.99% of the people who see this video will have forgotten about it in a day or so (if that) and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about anything concerning these issues. It reminds me of all those photo students in college roaming the downtown area snapping shots of the homeless; it was exploitative and so is this video. There was another comment on here that almost made me laugh in it's naivety because the writer said something along the lines of "thanks for reminding me of the horrors going on in the world"...uh huh...and now what? What are you going to do about these horrors? Nothing, that's what.
To recap: The "Message" or content and the "Medium" are 2 totally different things. The Message of the artist is mixed and confusing and the art of the Medium is contrived and heavy-handed, or as I said before, obvious, which is my opinion not akin to "good" Art.

B. GRATUITOUS: 1 a : given unearned or without recompense b : not involving a return benefit, compensation, or consideration c : costing nothing : free
2 : not called for by the circumstances : unwarranted

As far as I'm concerned, depicting the murder of child, with nothing less than a graphic dramatization of a bullet to the head, is not only gratuitous, but disgusting and shameless. If you don't agree with that, then I really don't know what else to say on the matter.

C. "Why pick on the U.S.? Who knows? As an American, I personally wasn't offended by it..."

I wasn't offended either, i just thought it was terrifically boring, derivative and unimaginative. So tell me: why didn't she use China, Russia, UK, etc? Because she's just jumping on the bandwagon. badmouth the US because EVERYBODY else does. I mean hey the USA, is the source of all evils in this world right?

D. As for your final critique of my comments "Chalking this video up as simply a knock of of an action movie is an insult to the people who made this film, and to think that there was no message other than to glorify violence seems sensationalist itself." In my opinion the creatives behind this work are not only tasteless, but also tactless. Like I said before, the people that DON'T ALREADY KNOW the "message" (the ones that kill because of skin color, religion, sexual preference etc) won't ever see this video and if they did they wouldn't give a shit anyway. And for the rest of us, watching this video we are subjected to excessive and unnecessary violence using what I think is an overtly simplistic device (White redheads instead of Black, Latino or Arab) which I personally consider an insult to my intelligence. Honestly Brett, I'd rather see the Reeves/Ford movie. It would probably be more entertaining and satisfying and wouldn't come attached with some insincere "important message" to deliver to the masses.

I hope I have clarified my points to you. Regardless of our disagreement, I'm glad to have the conversation with you about it.

Yo, I didn't read your whole conversation and this point might have already been made but i just wanted to point it out.

My interpretation of the video is an act of hacktivism (which m.i.a keeps going on about lately too) and it seems to be a reinactment of the video aired on channel 4 where tamil tigers where being shot by sri lankan soldiers... it seems to me like they have replaced the tamil tigers with ginger haired people... it also relates to all descrimination that occurs across the world... obviously channel 4 did not show the people getting shot but m.i.a wants to make an impact and show what actually happens in the world as sometimes people do need to see it... i could imagine she was pretty angry not only at the video but the fact that the government said that the video was fabricated etc....

thats my take it anyway :)

here is the video: channel4.com/news/articles/world/asia_pacific/execution%20video%20is%20this%20evidence%20of%20war%20crimes%20in%20sri%20lanka/3321087

Jorge, thanks for keeping it civil. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

In response to your first point, you allude to the idea that the viewer has to come to one conclusion or another (either violence against oppressors or non-violence) which essentially poses a false dilemma fallacy: these are the only two options of action. But the reality is that other people can have different reactions. While the message behind the video is not entirely original, some people still can have a reaction to it. In a lot of cases, feeling like we should be more tolerant and less-violent doesn't mean that people still won't feel contempt towards would-be oppressors.

In regards to the semantics of gratuitous, the definition you presented still fits my argument: "not called for by the circumstances : unwarranted". The way that I interpreted you calling the violence gratuitous was that you were saying it was not relevant or warranted for both the medium AND the message. You may still feel that way, but I think that the violence was contextual and appropriate. The intentional depiction of a child getting shot may have felt too obvious to the point of being obscene, but I disagree. And in this case we get down to the subjective nature of art. I'm not sure how we can debate a preference further.

In your final two points, you do a lot of presuming and speaking on behalf of M.I.A, the director, and who may or may not watch this video. You may be right in some of your points regarding who will or won't watch this (depending upon whether they or they friends chose to spread it around), but you can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt that M.I.A is "jumping on the bandwagon" to bag on the U.S., nor do I think you call the message "insincere" as if it were just a quick grab for cash. Even if it was, does it matter when someone else may take some artistic message from it that they haven't heard before?

Again, I want to thank you for clarifying your points and not making this a flame war. If I haven't changed your opinion, I hope I've at least help give you insight into a different perspective.

Thanks for this crucial piece of info Mr. J

Brett, This is Jorge here; same person, different account. Though I don't entirely agree with you, you have have made some very intelligent and valid points and you have definitely given me insight into a different perspective and I appreciate that. Thank you.

jorge, thanks for the thoughtful response, it's not often you find such civil discussion on Internet comments (go to YouTube and see the back and forth, it's awful!).

My apologies if it seemed like I insulted your intelligence with briefly explaining her background, I hadn't meant for it to come out that way. That said, we both understand where she's coming from, background-wise.

"But here's the problem, and I'll quote her: "You can't separate the world into two parts like that, good and evil. Terrorism is a method, but America has successfully tied all these pockets of independence struggles, revolutions, and extremists into one big notion of terrorism." Now, I AGREE with that statement, just like I agree with you when you say that the US is the biggest offender; no argument there."

I agree with that statement as well, cool.

"But why not focus on violence in general? The answer is because it's simply not fashionable to do so and therefore there is a focus on the US when it comes to violence in the world (hence why your comment seems (excuse me, I really don't want to offend you personally; that is not my intention) pointless, specially considering that I posted a link to an example of US led violence)."

No offense taken, I understand. To me, I think her point is that she isn't dogmatically dismissing *all* violence. There's a difference between the violence committed by the rapist and the violence committed by the woman being raped… an example that's rather graphic, I know. Obviously we should condone the defensive violence required to repel the rapist from the woman, it is right for the woman to use whatever force necessary to defend herself. Or another example, a slave rebellion against the slave masters. Should we as a people really talk about "focusing on the violence of slavery generally" instead of supporting the slaves that destroy their slave master's chains and plantations?

This is how I take her seemingly contradictory stance on violence. Sadly, I just don't think that the world is as simple as just generally in a pacifistic way stating that "all violence is bad." I don't think it is, I guess.

Overall, I think you and I probably agree a great deal on these things and maybe I'm just stating the obvious.

Regarding "truth", obviously reality is a tricky thing and it's easiest to just state "I have the truth" and do a lot of bad (or good!) with that proclamation… that said, I wouldn't, in a relativist manner, state that we can't know certain things are bad enough to fight against (yes, with violence, even).

Cheers.

All very valid points but especially relevant is Mr J M Stevens link channel4.com/news/articles/world/asia_pacific/execution%20video%20is%20this%20evidence%20of%20war%20crimes%20in%20sri%20lanka/3321087

While I am shocked by the bluntness of this film clip I realise now that video's such as the above link, showing Tamils being killed by Sri Lankan Military, are no longer as shocking. Perhaps this is due to over saturation of violence in gaming/news/entertainment. Nonetheless the message of this film is plain and simple; Do we accept such violence in our society? And if not why do we accept it happening to others?

The Australian Govt. has refused application for asylum by Sri Lankan's and Afghans stating that these countries are "deemed safe". Why do we accept this with such complacence?

Send your thoughts on this to the Australian Govt. here amnesty.org.au/action/action/22830/

Raphael, we stated. Thank you for the links.

Really great points Zack, thanks for your perspective. I really understand what you're saying. But, don't you think it seems a bit vengeful? That is ultimately what I'm left with and I'm pretty sure that's not entirely good. Ever hear of the French Revolution? Do you get me? Sometimes the push back is absurdly out of proportion.