lol, that's one way of looking at it.

Or you can wash the sand out of your ass and see it as a story of a tragic hero, in being blinded by desperate infatuation, failed to consider the consequences of his irresponsible stunt.

Let me ask you this: do you want to have an argument over this clip, or a discussion?

As I see it, in the latter we not only try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but actually go out of our way to try to understand each other.

I'm not especially interested in an argument with you, but If you're open to a more friendly discussion, I'd suggest we focus on which interpretation of this clip is more valid:

a) A tragic hero, blinded by desperate infatuation, fails to consider the unfortunate consequences of his irresponsible stunt. (I added the word "unfortunate" - if you feel that is an unfair representation of your point of view, please let me know.)

or

b) A self indulgent hipster decides to off himself, and is saved in an supposedly cool / ironic way that ultimately trivializes the loss of one human being (working class, conceivably "foreign") over the "more worthy" (white, twenty something, hipster, hoodie wearing) main character."

I look forward to hearing from you.

such it life....
maybe a tag saying: don't try this @ home?

It's only a music clip Wrytr. quit over-analyzing. There is no way the director/writer conciously considered your twisted interpretation of it.

take your beef elsewhere.

@Wrytr Actually I think the clip is brilliant for all the reasons for which you hate it. I can read the video as being as critical of the central character as you're being. Far from over analysing it, I don't think you're considering it deeply enough. The video sets up the cliches you refer to but I think at the end the intention is that you see the "hero" as an idiot (last shot is him reflected in a puddle after all). I think the director probably dislikes "hipsters" (whatever that means) as much as you do, after all there's nothing cooler these days that hatin' on hipsters!

Wrytr's interpretation is so laced with pejoratives and distaste for the style it's hard to take it as an objective (or "valid") interpretation. It's this tone I was referring to with the figurative ass sand. Consider substance over style.

There's way way more rope than needed, this isn't a suicide attempt. It is a move to try to get the woman in the building across the street to take him back. It works, she runs for the phone, apologizes or whatever (time compression/expansion, high five), but the dude already chucked a cinder block into a crowded street. Oops. The whole thing reminds me of this Bukowski poem:

there are worse things than
being alone
but it often takes decades
to realize this
and most often
when you do
it's too late
and there's nothing worse
than
too late

@Paul - No one has a duty to be objective when regarding a "work or art" (or a pop promo or whatever). Thinking it stinks is a completely "valid" response to the video. I just think that Wrytr was making the mistake that just because this video features certain types of characters "hipsters" in this case) it's validating them. Yours is an interesting reading I hadn't considered, but in the end it makes the guy out to be an even bigger jerk.

Valid is Wrytr's word, not mine. His/her reading seems to be founded in the filmmakers glorification of the guy's character/actions, which I see as unfounded, therefore invalid. But regarding objectivity: yeah, art, duh.

I used the phrase tragic hero in my first response, allow me to rephrase that as tragic antihero, since he's a total dick. And will be convicted of manslaughter.

Matthew Skibicki - As someone who (based on their profile) is an 18 year old, studying film, it seems to me that part of your learning process might include being less quick to try to silence dissenting opinion.

That said, Vimeo's guidelines ask us go be civil, and as such, I take responsibility for my impassioned (and at times snarky) original post, and will genuinely do my part moving forward to make this as constructive a conversation as possible.

In regards to "It's only a music clip" comment - there are endless books you're likely to get in film history classes explaining how all media output, ranging from the small to the big, has a way of revealing a culture's zeitgeist. (I'm particularly fond of, and suggest reading, "From Caligary to Hitler".) The great film historian William Everson used to show his classes the most mundane "historically insignificant" silent films, because they were in fact so instructive as teaching tools to reveal the attitudes of the original audiences that watched them.

As for "There is no way the director/writer conciously considered your twisted interpretation of it." - I didn't say that this was his fully conscious intention. I'm saying what I feel the result is. In fact, I suspect this is an unconscious creation of the director in many ways. Was he trying to make a "class issue" here? I suspect not, but as a director, he knew (at least unconsciously) that he needed his victim to be fairly "dismissible", to be someone we cared less about than the video's protagonist. Try replacing this ice cream vendor with "a charming young woman", "a child", "a baby" a "kindly old lady who reminds you of your grandmother" - and you will see how that drastically changes the ending. (In truth, if this was really about the main character making a "terrible mistake" - those are probably better choices.) As the director looked for the right kind of "victim", this particular working class guy with a dark beard is who he chose to fit the bill. I think it is fair to ask why.

Dylan Pank & Aysegul Epengin - thanks very much for both of your messages. You and I can agree as a start that analyzing the meaning of clips (especially moody, "meaningful ones") is far from inappropriate.

As you request, I'm happy to try to look at the clip deeper. I think that's fair of you to ask, since I'm asking everyone here to do the same thing.

I don't hate "hipsters". The ones who are actually artists, who speak truth to power, challenge the status quo and do meaningful art - or at least aspire to these things - I love. Yup love, not hate. In some ways, I'm one of these hipsters, although comparatively long in the tooth. What I am not a fan of is mopey self indulgence / self importance - made worse when it is combined with insensitively to others and blessed as "hip".

Is the major thing you feel I'm missing the fact that the director is making an "anti-idiot" or "anti-selfishness" message that you feel I am not investing in deep enough? Do you feel this character has "learned his lesson"?

Paul Santagada - I admit to my initial post being 'laced with pejoratives" - and therefore potentially off-putting. As mentioned, I will do better here on out. I do think you and I would be served to have a discussion entirely focused on our two divergent views of the piece. If you want to add to yours "There's way way more rope than needed, this isn't a suicide attempt." - then I am happy to. Does this fairly summarize your view:

"A tragic hero, blinded by desperate infatuation, fails to consider the unfortunate consequences of his irresponsible stunt - which, though appearing to be a suicide attempt, was little more than an attempt to get back a woman" ?

Again, if you want to have a worthwhile discussion, you could try showing me the evidence of your view. Tragic how? Hero how? Infatuation - shown how? What is the major thing we get from this irresponsible stunt? Is this a "tragic" ending for the main character or only for vendor? Why do you think there is "way way more rope than needed"?

Hey Paul you and I posted at the same time, so I missed out on the "tragic antihero" clarification. Consider that point clarified.

Wrytr, thank you for your comment. Really! Something disturbes me in this clip and it was not only the boy in the end lookin like "wow how cool is that? hur hur". I think what you mentioned is exactly what disturbes me too.

The whole infatuation/ex-girlfriend plot is deduced from their interaction. He rarely breaks eye contact with the window in her apartment before or after he chucks the brick off the roof. She goes to the phone in what seems to be an effort to communicate with him. The particular roof is premeditated, so the guy would have figured how tall it is, and how much rope would be needed. There's more slack than the three feet given by the victim in the street. It's theatrics.

I maintain that our opinions aren't really that far apart, just that you seem to be very concerned with sociopolitical implications of the video, rather than my interest, which lies in the execution of a well realized story in a music video. As for the nature of the victim, while almost completely arbitrary, could be argued it's just someone that is working class. In contrast to the main character of the piece, isn't afforded the luxury of moping around feeling sorry for himself and concocting selfish, delusional, dangerous plans. Insanity afforded by excess.

It's been a neat exercise, but can't say I'm interested in taking this conversation any further. I'll read whatever else you have to say, but these are probably the last thoughts I'll articulate on the matter.

Hey Paul, re: bringing our conversation to a close - I totally hear you. Okay, my closing argument:

I saw the woman across the way differently, though it has little baring on our ultimate points. From my pov: his first reactions her direction, and her's his direction, aren't exactly filled with emotion, considering the circumstance. My first blush interpretation was "She sees a total stranger about to off himself, and calls 911. After this, the two have a human connection / spark - which maybe gives him a reason to live after all." That said, I think their exchange is a bit of a roshack test, so I'll hardly try to argue against your interpretation.

I do however think the visuals in the video refute your thought that there's way, way too much rope. After all, we see the final length or rope spool out over the roof's edge. After this, we see the rope go "almost taught". It seems to me the director has crafted his conceit so that the rope is exactly short enough so that the block will pull the lead character over - the length exact enough so that when it stops shy, his plan is spoiled. It's the killing of the vendor that changes the event; this chance occurrence is the "miracle" that saves the "hero's" life.

This ties back into the thing that I feel many people are missing. As indicated in the title and the lyrics, this is a video about being saved "by some miracle". "Miracles" are seen as good things that happen to people who deserve them. This is not a video about a "tragedy" or a "lesson learned". A guy who is not really trying to kill himself, who then kills someone else by freak occurrence, is not a miracle. Additionally, a selfish person saved from killing himself, by killing someone we care about more, is not a miracle either - it's a tragedy.

What is a miracle is a person trying to kill himself who we identify with, care about, who is saved by a fluke that just so happens to kill a person we are supposed to be largely indifferent about.

So who is the viewer supposed to identify with according to the video? The good looking, white, arty twenty something (you say "lovelorn" I say "filled with existential angst") who fits the demographic of someone who listens to Philip Selway, Radiohead, etc., who has by far the majority of the screen time? (The lyrics over him are in first person, to boot.) Or the swarthy, bearded, working class, ice cream vendor who we meet already dead - and then see laughed at a moment later?

If this is about a guy trying to win a woman, why no reaction shot from her to the tragedy he has accidently caused? If this is about a guy learning a lesson about being selfish (or us learning that lesson through him), why no reaction shot from him as it sinks in what he has done?

I believe it's because this video is not about these things, it's about the "miracle" of him being saved in a hip and ironic way. How we are supposed to react to it is revealed to us by the only reaction shot we have - the good-looking, hip kid, who despite his lost ice-cream scoop, laughs at the death he's just seen.

Now I do admire the filmmakers' craft. This is a very nicely done piece in many ways. But I do think there is a (most likely unconscious) class issue here, which has manifested in an insensitivity that I don't think is cool.

I would assume some here would tell me "Lighten up!" - but many of them would be the same people who make the case this clip isn't supposed to be funny joke, it's supposed to be a serious lesson.

In this we agree - I do think it's a lesson.

Thanks for the conversation, and for your patience.

i will look up this book "from caligary to hitler" in my libary. thanks

Regardless, I find you to be ridiculously sensitive to this 'class issue' you keep bringing up. How do you even cope in our media driven society? Do you tap into all the subconscious injustices of the creators of all media you see? You must be a real pain to watch television with.

I find this thread very amusing, hehe.

Hi jipsi - just typed up a storm to flesh out my pov. See above. No chip on my shoulder in regards to class, sorry. I could further elaborate points here, but think it's time for me to rest my case, move on.

I want to slap that kid at the end...and I totally agree with Wrytr's class-conscious analysis of this piece of hipster-kitsch.