Oh please, Charles, you just like it because there are butts in it.
At times like this I ask myself, what would Jim Henson do?
He'd pour Kermit another drink, and they'd sit back and watch it again.
this here is a real music video:
This is a great music video featuring an attractive woman (sorry for making fun of you Charles...kinda): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9_Dk_F98cU
God damn it.
I was all set to castigate Chuck for (again) being freakin' sledgehammer obvious, but it's all too clear that a couple of commenters (that's you, Ben and Jen) don't quite understand what Chuckles is talking about when he says the Gnarls Barkley video is "funny."
Here's a hint: would it be funny to directly mock the abstraction of sexuality, and the concomitant absence of character or individuality, in mainstream music videos?
By contrast, would it be funny to simply remove humans from a music video entirely, replacing them with machines, Ben?
Would it be funny to in various ways slice the image of a woman into parts, allowing the gaze to fall only on this or that section of body, making any glimpse at her as a real, complete person well nigh impossible, Jen?
I'm as happy as anyone to criticize Mudede on his own terms, so it makes me ever so sad to see people posting "criticism" that is not only transparent in its eagerness to advance the commenter's status through the laughable means of loud declaration of personal musical taste, but also embarrassingly oblivious to the point Mudede was quite clearly making to begin with.
Oh, man, robotslave. I'd be intimidated if I wasn't so bored.
Half of everything Charles Mudede posts isn't completely understood by Sloggers, and it's possible he's fine with that.
Isn't it also possible that Mr. Mudede is simultaneously enjoying the multiple layers of this video, is able to enjoy social commentary AND attractive girl-bums?
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).