Why I Kind Of Hated Russell Brand But Now I Don't Anymore. Much.

So I finally sat down to write a response to the infamous Newsnight clip known as "Russell Brand may have started a revolution last night". I'll confess, the blog I had planned was mostly "Blah blah I hate his whiny voice and he's stupid and he was horrible to Andrew Sachs and Katy Perry and that's why I can't stand him".

It's never OK to insult this man.

In THAT phone call back in 2008, Russell Brand joked "You only ever played Manuel" – but the fact that we still know Andrew Sachs for work he did almost forty years ago makes it pretty obvious that he's far funnier and more talented than Russell could ever hope of being.

Then there's Katy Perry; in the documentary Part of Me, her response to the breakdown of her marriage was nothing less than heart-rending; the way she steeled herself for her stage entrance after hours of desperate sobbing was the epitome of "the show must go on" mentality.

We can't possibly know what really went on in their relationship, but the snippets of information that have been released don't look good for Brand. Katy talked about the "fairytale" she'd had in mind for her ideal man; someone who "won't be threatened or have weird motives..." but "that's not true for me right now." She elaborated with "At first when I met him he wanted an equal, and I think a lot of times strong men do want an equal, but then they get that equal and they’re like, I can’t handle the equalness. He didn’t like the atmosphere of me being the boss on tour. So that was really hurtful, and it was very controlling, which was upsetting."

Brand's apparent lack of respect for his wife leaked out in his "jokes", from her appearance in his movie Get Him to the Greek ("Her acting was so atrocious that it ruined the film. It just made the film boring and rubbish") to their sex life ("I’d be having sex thinking, ‘think of anyone, anyone else’") and the freedom of being single again ("Like if you've been on a diet of rice for a while and then suddenly Willy Wonka said, 'I need you to run my chocolate factory'"). Posting a make-up free snapshot of his usually glamorous wife "by accident" was a classic way of undermining the woman who was perhaps a little too powerful for his liking.

On the bright side, I've been listening to Katy's new album
 Prism on Spotify all week and it's awesome.

Is it fair to judge someone's politics on the way they run their personal lives? Well, yes. It's got to be a better gauge than listening to what they say. (I've always been particularly irritated by people who preach about world peace and then have constant feuds with their friends and family members. Pacifism starts at home.) So I was pretty nonplussed by all the cried of "Genius!" when Russell appeared on Newsnight, particularly the claims that he made Jeremy Paxman look "ridiculous". The conversation went something like this (paraphrased):

Jeremy: So why don't you vote? 

Russell: Because it's all got to change! We need a revolution! Everything is wrong!

Jeremy: Yes, I agree. So what should we do instead? 

Russell: We need to change everything and have a revolution!

Jeremy: Yes. How? 

On and on to infinity....

To be blunt, Russell was repeating the same half-baked philosophies you'd hear in any sixth form common room. When your plan for revolution begins and ends with not voting, you may have a little work to do on your manifesto. 

The media responded with scepticism: Harry Deansway quipped "how can we not listen to someone on the redistribution of wealth who married Katy Perry on an elephant in a lavish Indian wedding?" (He also mocked Brand's pal Noel Gallagher for saying that novels were a "waste of time"; I'd also remind everyone that the delightful Gallagher once said "I'm not arsed about world peace, a bit of war is good – it sorts men out from the boys".) 

Fellow comedian Robert Webb called Brand an "intelligent fellow citizen ready to toss away the hard-won liberties of his brothers and sisters because he’s bored" and told him to read George Orwell. Robin Lustig of the Huffington post pointed out that, far from being a message of hope, "I will never vote and I don't think you should, either" is in fact a message of despair. "By writing thousands of words of political junk in a respected weekly magazine, he sets himself up as someone with something to contribute to an important debate. The truth is that he has nothing to contribute, other than the self-satisfied smirk of a man who knows he'll never go hungry or be without a home."

Only the Guardian offers support, saying "It is a sad reflection of the dire state of politics and the media that it falls to a celebrity comedian such as Russell Brand to speak truth to power – and an even sadder reflection that mainstream cultural commentators find themselves incapable of even understanding his key message." 

Lots of viewers (who perhaps weren't that familiar with Newsnight) noted that Paxman was "rude" or "arrogant" or a "bully". But he's always like that! He rakes everyone over the coals, poking holes in all their arguments and scoffing if they waver for a moment. He won't let anyone get away with BS, and that's why he's a great interviewer. Far from being antagonistic towards Russell, he appeared amused throughout most of their encounter. That he started with the question "Who are you to edit a political magazine?" seems reasonable when you consider that he's addressing a stand-up comedian who doesn't vote; his "you are a very trivial man," was in fact a chuckling response to Brand's suggestion that he grow his "gorgeous" beard and join it up with his armpit hair.

Paxman tries to pin down Brand to a straight answer: "I'm not having a go at you 
because you want a revolution... I'm asking you what it would be like!"

Brand said he "felt cross" with Paxman (even when Jeremy said "I wouldn't argue with you" about many of the points raised) – which may be why he brought up Paxman's appearance on Who Do You Think You Are – "You CRIED! Because you knew that it was unfair, and unjust." A bit of a low blow? (It was Margaret Thatcher who once said "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left".) Brand finished with a defiant cry of "I don't need the right from you, I don't need the right from anybody, I'm taking it!" with the exact cadence of someone on Question Time who expects to be applauded.

It's not the first time the pair have teamed up (which may be why Jeremy generally regards Russell with the twinkling eyes of an indulgent uncle). In 2010 they had a far more interesting conversation in which Brand talked about celebrity culture, saying the price of fame is losing your privacy forever and that "if you have a deep love of singing or dancing or basket weaving then you should pursue that," but to pursue fame for its own sake is "ridiculous" and "unfulfilling". He said he was sorry for the "impolite" phone calls to Andrew Sachs, astounded Jeremy with his belief in God, and declared his hope of achieving something "truly valuable" with his life. 
 

(So how come that one didn't go viral? Maybe the people who love the idea of a political revolution haven't quite got over their aspirations to get stalked by papparazzi.)

An appearance on MSNBC in June also swept through the internet at the speed of light when he amusingly pointed out the rudeness and unprofessionalism of the hosts. They started with a neg hit ("He's a really big deal... I'm told this, I'm not very pop culture, sorry") and continued into full-blown shambles (talking about him in the third person, saying they didn't understand his accent, and the final insult; inexplicably re-naming him "Willy"). As they grew more flustered at his unpredictable responses, he retorted incredulously "Is this what you all do for a living?!"

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed his casual sexism; you can actually see his ego bristling at any kind of "dis" and his reaction is to draw attention to a woman's body / sexuality and to call her "love". 

Brand must be constantly frustrated; he's created a persona of being a crackling ball of energy, a comedian and a womaniser, but the very reasons for his fame are now the reasons he's not taken seriously. When he's talking about the transcendental realms reached through meditation and the disillusionment people have with religion, ecomony, and what they're being told on TV, the reply is a parody of itself: "But more importantly, did Tom Cruise buy you a yoga mat?"

So the upshot of this blog is that I don't hate Russell Brand any more. I still find him annoying (and his fans even more so) but he does make some good points. (I especially like his suggestion that we call the government "admin bods" so they don't start thinking too much of themselves.)  He's been very straightforward about his past drug use and is one of the few celebrities who admit what we all secretly know about drug addicts: "people take drugs and drink excessively, those that have a problem with it, because there's this kind of a sadness, or loneliness, or emptiness in them. I don't think they're doing it for a laugh." 

Obviously voting DOES make a difference (just ask Barack Obama, and all the people who will be able to afford medical care because of him) but Brand is alerting the big political parties to the kind of disillusionment many young (and old) people feel, and I think his heart is in the right place. But rather than throwing our hands up and gloomily saying "Nothing can improve our current conditions" why don't we try to make small, sustainable changes? We could start by giving MPs less pay and fewer opportunities to employ family members, spending money where it's really needed, and holding more referendums so the people can have their voices heard. That way we'll have a revolution in no time, and we won't even have to blow up parliament to do it. 

Wheeeeeeeee!

Passive Aggressive Pop: The New Frontier

So the other day I was sitting around in my pyjamas watching music videos (I work in the industry! It’s RESEARCH) and was somewhat taken aback by the opening lines of One Direction’s What Makes You Beautiful. The song, which won the 2012 Brit award for Best single, begins "You're insecure...." and goes on to tell the unfortunate female that she's attractive, because she thinks she isn't. Apparently the number one trait that 15-year-old boys look for in girls is low self esteem. If you want to bag a mini pop star, ladies, just "smile at the ground".

Maybe Harry got annoyed at her for being too darn happy and confident.

Bruno Mars had a huge hit with Just the Way You Are; ostensibly a really sweet, romantic song about thinking his girlfriend is perfect. "I know, when I compliment her she won't believe me, and it's so, it's so, sad to think that she don't see what I see...." It is sad, Bruno, and we appreciate the effort you're making here. But isn't it also sad that a million squealing girls can so easily relate to lyrics about a girl who hates her own laugh?

It's a bit like those magazine spreads which show pictures of celebrities on their fat / ugly days. It's meant to make us feel better: "See how awful they look! Not so perfect without the airbrushing!" but actually, it's just a toxic message which basically points out that, even if you look amazing 99% of the time, you can never be good enough.

Songwriters may think they're benefiting the youngsters listening to these lyrics; "You're insecure? Even girls who date superstars are insecure!" but it just makes it seem NORMAL to hate yourself. Teenagers generally don't need anyone's help to do that.

At least some lyricists are trying to be constructive. In contrast, a N.E.R.D track features Pharrell's description of a woman with "Nice long hair, Nice ass lips, I know insecure, When I pointed out the size of her hips." Which is lovely, isn't it? What a gentleman.

If neg hits aren't your thing, you might enjoy the other end of the spectrum – all the biggest female names have had great success telling fans they're pretty much flawless. You could see this as a cynical attempt to cash in on the self-doubt of the young, but at least they're trying to have a positive impact, rather than telling kids "Stay anxious! It makes boys like you!" 

India Arie was doing it years ago with Video. 
"My worth is not detemined by the price of my clothes," indeed.

Christina Aguilera told us "You are beautiful, no matter what they say," Lady Gaga created an anthem for "the religion of the insecure" with Born This Way. Pink points out "you're so mean when you talk about yourself," before pleading with us to believe that we're perfect. Katy Perry gets in on the act, telling us "You just gotta ignite, the light, and let it shine" in Firework. Kelly Clarkson has made a career out of power anthems, the most recent being What Doesn't Kill You (Makes You Stronger), and Jessie J assures us that "tears don't mean you're losing" and "It's ok not to be ok" in Who You Are.

Some people blame lyrics like this for the kind of entitlement freaks who turn up on audition shows with their self-belief set in stone. However, I would suggest that over the top "I'm brilliant, me!" proclamations never come from a deep sense of self-assuredness. If you're ever "accidentally " channel hopped over to "Snog Marry Avoid" you'll have noticed that every make-up plastered, drag queen-esque female who starts off by saying "I look great, I don't care if you think I look like a skank" will, within minutes, say that she doesn't want to scrape off the slap because she thinks she's ugly. It happens every.single.time. (So don't tell me that trash TV isn't a brilliant school for human behaviour, because it's very nearly an open university psychology degree.)

In other news, may I just say that I find Tulisa's video for Young irritates me, with its shameless promotion of her fragrance "The Female Boss." I find it unbelievably sad that a 23-year-old woman would come up with this name, obviously still stuck in the 1950s mindset that if she'd just called it "The Boss" that would mean "male boss" by default. Because female bosses are just SO unusual! Get with the programme, love.

We can see you're female. Now start bossing and salute no-one!

Everyday I'm shuffling

There is nothing more Saturday morning-ish than lazing around with a bowl of cereal and MTV, is there? Music videos are one of my favourite art forms, which is why I sometimes feel fatigued by the boring old fail-safes – normally girls in bikinis writhing around a rapper (who will invariably be wearing a fur coat. The poor loves feel the cold, obviously). 

Which is why I LURVE the video for Party Rock Anthem by LMFAO.  I think it's a really clever and original use of the old "Zombies have taken over the world!" genre – and an example of when it's ok to shamelessly rip off 28 Days Later. Not to mention the fact that it’s a top tune.

So why can’t everyone come up with funny, quirky, memorable videos that bear repeat viewings? I work “in the media” as a wardrobe and art stylist, and I’ve been involved in some pretty dreadful productions. Even when you can see something is a terrible idea (or more commonly, that the “concept” makes no sense) you somehow hope that the director knows what he’s doing. Perhaps the miracle of post-production will make it all magically come together? Sadly, no. (In these cases, all I can do is try to fit clothes on the size 12 starlet who insists that she's a size 8, and hope for the best.)

For some reason I always used to think that music videos that were suspiciously similar to each other were the result of accidental copying. Say for instance Beyoncé’s Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It) – I would have guessed that maybe the director’s favourite movie was West Side Story and he subliminally added bits from that. Then when they watched the music video back they'd be like "Hey, it IS kind of similar, how about that!" 

Wasn’t I naive? 

I realised the truth when directors would sent me a youtube link to a music video or advert and say "This is our reference" and then proceed to copy it unashamedly. ("Can we try to find a lamp like the one they used?")

This has made me watch videos more closely – it becomes obvious when they are derivative. For example, compare Christina Aguilera’s Fighter with Girls Aloud’s Sexy! No No No. The girls blatantly rip off the creepy giant moth motif, before moving on to Britney’s Toxic, complete with catsuits and lasers.

Katy Perry’s video for ET veered into Lady-Gaga-style weirdness, but what’s this? A Wall-E style junkyard? The exact same shots used in the True Blood credits? Wondering if anyone else agreed with me, I found this wonderful website which delves into every reference used in the video! Bravo!

 Gaga : Creative trail blazer with a penchant for poison.

When Britney, Christina et al were emerging in the late 90s, the emphasis was most definitely on conventional cheerleader attractiveness. The modus operandi was to be blonde, wear bikini  tops and sing pretty little songs about having a boyfriend. OK, so Britney liked to mix it up with her oh-so innocent school uniform ("People think it's sexy, really? No, that had never occurred to me...” – who was she kidding, the little minx) and Christina was already working her "promiscuity empowers" tagline. Being pretty and scantily clad never goes out of fashion, but these days the emphasis is much more on being quirky. Adele = not blonde, not skinny, not a cheerleader and no trace of a California accent. Katy Perry = relying on cheeky lyrics as well as a slightly mad persona. Amy Winehouse = drunkard. All these people are, ahem, doing it "their way" and this is what we now look for in performers. 

Which is perhaps why the mould of the traditional bimbette is crumbling. If you’re not as creative as Gaga, as pornographic as Rihanna or as ladette-ish as Ke$ha, you’re sunk. 

Check out Britney’s video for Hold it against me. The disappointingly dull track (freely recycling lyrics from an ancient country song) is accompanied by a video which is evidently high budget. Despite all the effort put into it, it’s boring and makes no effort to connect with the lyrics. The fight with herself is probably the most memorable part, and might have been appropriate if it had been more of a soul searching song – it's something you can imagine Gaga or P!nk doing if the song was about fighting their inner natures etc. With Britney it's just a gimmick, teamed with the wrong kind of song.

Speaking of gimmicks.... one such gambit is the wearing of different coloured wigs: Britney made this look iconic in her classic Toxic video; Xtina pulled the same trick for Candyman.  Then Britney repeated it for Womaniser... unfortunately by the time Pixie Lott had got involved with her vid for Gravity, it all became a bit old and tired. To see it now would be to know that the director had no strong vision for the video and thought they could add some interest with frequent changes of hair colour and /or outfits. 

So what else makes for a cheesy, soulless video? Brands often get namechecked in lyrics, and videos regularly show phones and other fancy gadgets in loving close up, which I find bizarre.

Matching the words to what you’re seeing on screen: Ugh. This is a ploy often used in country music, where it is forgivable because their lyrics are more of a storytelling device (The Dixie chicks’ “Goodbye Earl” is a good example of this). In a mainstream pop video, you will rarely see an on-screen kiss coincide with a lyrical one – but it's obligatory in youtube fan vids and cheap homemade music videos. Nothing marks you as an amateur faster than this. 

And the final sign that the director has given up on life and has no imagination: Toilets are used as props. Check out Taio Cruz ft Ke$ha: Dirty Picture, and the Sugababes’ aptly named Easy. I can imagine the director convincing the artists just how “fabulous” a public bathroom would look on screen, but there is no getting away from it, toilets are not sexy. At a stretch, they might remind us girls of the fun we have on nights out (where else can we talk about the boys in private?) but they are still where people go to do their poopies, so dancing seductively around them does seem a little incongruous.

The crapper:  Not attractive.

                          

Incidentally, videos that were filmed in the girls' bogs also seem to the most ridiculous in terms of offensive portrayals of women (lying on bars getting drink poured over them etc) and in the Sugababes’ case, hilarious double entendre lyrics such as “I want sex on the beach and I don’t mean on the rocks.” Brilliant!

Finally; women in bikinis are a shameless means of getting extra plays on those request shows, but as a piece of art, will it last the distance? 

Further to video killing the radio star, Christina Aguilera is currently fronting a new audition show called The Voice in which the judges can't see the singers and are forced to make a decision based on vocal ability alone. The way of the future?