WEBVTT 00:00:10.414 --> 00:00:14.414 - Yeah, and I have a bit in my act, that sort of makes fun of Justin Bieber 00:00:14.417 --> 00:00:16.655 and some of these young pop stars. 00:00:16.665 --> 00:00:20.015 Basically, it's a song that mocks the way that those songs are written 00:00:20.015 --> 00:00:23.425 which I think is... What the songs basically do is they... 00:00:23.425 --> 00:00:25.995 they're love songs to girls and they describe the girls 00:00:25.995 --> 00:00:28.810 as vaguely as they possibly can, so that every girl can think 00:00:28.810 --> 00:00:30.450 that that song is about them. So it's like... 00:00:30.450 --> 00:00:34.080 It's like "I love how your fingerprints are different than everybody else's" 00:00:34.080 --> 00:00:36.280 And like "I love how your eyes have that, like, 00:00:36.280 --> 00:00:38.520 blue-ish, brown-ish, green-ish color." 00:00:38.520 --> 00:00:41.310 " And, like, your torso has an arm on either side of it" 00:00:41.310 --> 00:00:42.230 or like, whatever... 00:00:42.230 --> 00:00:45.890 That seems sort of harmless, but then it kinda gets a little darker 00:00:45.890 --> 00:00:49.890 and sort of accuses these young pop-artists of being part of the cycle 00:00:49.890 --> 00:00:53.230 where girls, who read magazines, feel terrible about themselves 00:00:53.230 --> 00:00:55.138 cause it says, you know: "you should be skinnier, 00:00:55.138 --> 00:00:58.808 you should be prettier". They feel terrible. And then these pop stars 00:00:58.808 --> 00:01:01.678 tell them that they're perfect, and that they're beautiful 00:01:01.678 --> 00:01:03.638 and the songs, they buy the song and ten the pop-star is 00:01:03.638 --> 00:01:05.778 on the cover of the magazine, so they buy a magazine again so then... 00:01:08.054 --> 00:01:11.534 And it sort of gets like this vicious cycle... And I basically... like... 00:01:11.534 --> 00:01:13.546 ... sort of implying that he's working for Satan, or whatever... 00:01:13.546 --> 00:01:15.706 "Oh, hello, Satan! eats microphone" 00:01:15.956 --> 00:01:18.836 (audience laughter) 00:01:18.836 --> 00:01:21.446 - Little shout-out to Justin! How's Satan? Yeah... 00:01:21.715 --> 00:01:23.225 - That's great. 00:01:23.231 --> 00:01:25.691 Unless something else that I find more engaging 00:01:25.691 --> 00:01:29.341 or more important comes along I do plan to continue making episodes 00:01:29.341 --> 00:01:32.691 of Fake Friends proper past episode 4, but either way 00:01:32.691 --> 00:01:36.231 there are a ton of topics related to parasocial relationships 00:01:36.231 --> 00:01:39.491 that I feel would be better-suited to smaller standalone videos. 00:01:39.491 --> 00:01:43.271 Like I got a lot of comments asking about k-pop or idol culture 00:01:43.271 --> 00:01:45.547 and those would warrant a longer video, 00:01:45.547 --> 00:01:47.827 but if I hadn’t included PARO in episode 2, 00:01:47.827 --> 00:01:51.227 that’s the kind of topic that would fit as something shorter and more self-contained. 00:01:51.227 --> 00:01:55.247 The Fake Friends episodes are long and dense and are my attempt at bringing together 00:01:55.247 --> 00:01:58.167 a bunch of seemingly unrelated topics to show a broader picture 00:01:58.167 --> 00:02:00.780 of how these relationships have infected our lives. 00:02:00.780 --> 00:02:03.820 The spinoff episodes will be more self-contained and closer to 00:02:03.820 --> 00:02:06.860 a regular video essay than a sprawling documentary. 00:02:06.860 --> 00:02:10.860 The two shortest and most accessible pieces I’ve found in the past two years 00:02:10.860 --> 00:02:14.680 of research that cover parasocial relationships the way that II view them 00:02:14.680 --> 00:02:18.680 are the original Horton and Wohl write-up from 1956 and the music video 00:02:18.680 --> 00:02:21.050 for Bo Burnham’s song “Repeat Stuff”. 00:02:21.050 --> 00:02:24.720 It’s a fun video to watch and not think twice about. But part of why 00:02:24.720 --> 00:02:26.821 I find it so valuable (and worth devoting a 00:02:26.821 --> 00:02:28.081 a whole 40-minute video to) 00:02:28.081 --> 00:02:30.891 is how dense it is and just how much is going on, 00:02:30.891 --> 00:02:34.021 including what didn’t register the first time I watched it. 00:02:34.021 --> 00:02:37.311 Or the second. Or the third. It’s not only one of my 00:02:37.311 --> 00:02:40.521 favorite music videos, but as I watched it rewatched it 00:02:40.521 --> 00:02:43.061 and grew to appreciate just how much work went into it 00:02:43.061 --> 00:02:45.614 it's become on of my favorite short films as well. 00:02:45.614 --> 00:02:48.799 You really should watch the full music video before watching this analysis. 00:02:48.799 --> 00:02:51.549 I’ll link the music video, the earlier version from 00:02:51.549 --> 00:02:55.549 his comedy special, and an even earlier youtube upload in the description 00:02:55.549 --> 00:02:58.609 so you can watch all three version I'll be talking about, if you want. 00:02:58.609 --> 00:03:01.119 The other two are more optional. But the music video 00:03:01.119 --> 00:03:05.119 functions as a fun, dark short that goes unexpected places 00:03:05.119 --> 00:03:07.349 and it’s also best to hear the final version of the song 00:03:07.349 --> 00:03:09.629 before you listen to me talk about its evolution. 00:03:09.629 --> 00:03:12.249 Burnham, especially as he has gotten older versus when 00:03:12.249 --> 00:03:14.277 he was an edgelord teen youtube star, 00:03:16.356 --> 00:03:19.166 has done a great job with taking subjects where an easy, 00:03:19.166 --> 00:03:21.986 demeaning joke could be made and instead applying some 00:03:21.986 --> 00:03:23.933 level of nuance and empathy. 00:03:23.933 --> 00:03:27.569 The song "Art is Dead" is off of his special "words words words" 00:03:27.569 --> 00:03:31.201 Repeat Stuff is off of his special "What" as is "Sad". 00:03:31.201 --> 00:03:33.997 In his next special, "Make Happy", there are three great 00:03:33.997 --> 00:03:37.227 examples of this as well- "Lower Your Expectations" 00:03:37.227 --> 00:03:39.297 "Pandering", and "Kill Yourself". 00:03:39.297 --> 00:03:40.897 There are other songs and other examples 00:03:40.897 --> 00:03:43.147 but for brevity’s sake I’m sticking to six. 00:03:43.147 --> 00:03:45.929 (because, as we all know, I am known for my brevity) 00:03:45.929 --> 00:03:49.279 For all of these songs, you start with one surface-level 00:03:49.279 --> 00:03:52.579 joke, whether it’s parody or a cliched joke 00:03:52.579 --> 00:03:56.259 or a shock value joke or... whatever. 00:03:56.259 --> 00:03:59.511 Art is Dead is the most serious of all of these examples 00:04:02.121 --> 00:04:05.211 but it does still take that surface premise- art is dead now, 00:04:05.211 --> 00:04:08.112 modern performers are shallow and immature 00:04:31.617 --> 00:04:35.421 and adds an unexpected layer of self-deprecation and self-loathing 00:04:41.278 --> 00:04:44.138 entertainers are entitled, whining monsters, 00:04:44.138 --> 00:04:46.475 and Burnham is one of them. 00:05:22.745 --> 00:05:25.186 "Sad" takes hacky shock sadness jokes, 00:05:27.194 --> 00:05:29.644 some of which are, admittedly, kind of funny, 00:05:38.359 --> 00:05:40.715 and subverts them in the last verse, 00:05:57.206 --> 00:06:00.756 implicating both Burnham as a performer for exploiting tragedy 00:06:00.756 --> 00:06:03.235 for cheap laughs AND his audience, who 00:06:03.235 --> 00:06:05.382 has been laughing along the entire time. 00:06:57.871 --> 00:06:59.961 I’ll get to "Repeat Stuff" in a minute. 00:06:59.961 --> 00:07:02.618 "Lower Your Expectations" has elements of 00:07:02.618 --> 00:07:05.388 “men are like this, women are like this!” 00:07:05.388 --> 00:07:08.010 battle of the sexes gender essentialism, 00:07:16.662 --> 00:07:20.332 but it’s more an exploration of the unrealistic expectations 00:07:20.332 --> 00:07:23.802 put on any gender, including how these expectations 00:07:23.802 --> 00:07:27.802 can be contradictory - societal expectations of men to be both 00:07:27.802 --> 00:07:30.536 gentle feminists and chivalrous tough guys, 00:07:39.659 --> 00:07:41.697 women to be both model-level attractive 00:07:41.697 --> 00:07:43.998 and down-to-earth and humble. 00:07:53.147 --> 00:07:56.717 It’s a critique of culture, of impossible heteronormative 00:07:56.717 --> 00:07:59.023 standards of what LOVE is, 00:08:08.836 --> 00:08:12.089 and it’s not putting people down for not meeting these expectations 00:08:12.089 --> 00:08:15.309 It also ends with Burnham making fun of himself for even 00:08:15.309 --> 00:08:18.309 pretending to know about life and love at his age. 00:08:25.601 --> 00:08:26.761 "Pandering" 00:08:29.356 --> 00:08:31.819 is a parody of modern country music, 00:08:31.819 --> 00:08:35.039 but rather than making fun of poor people or southern people 00:08:35.039 --> 00:08:37.117 or people who live in rural areas, 00:08:37.117 --> 00:08:40.117 Burnham focuses on how rich musicians, well, 00:08:40.117 --> 00:08:42.707 PANDER to a working-class demographic that they 00:08:42.707 --> 00:08:44.562 have nothing in common with. 00:09:22.905 --> 00:09:26.315 As someone, who gre up around a lot of working-class southern people 00:09:26.315 --> 00:09:29.235 I appreciate the avoidance of easy-hit jokes. 00:09:29.235 --> 00:09:31.125 At times those jokes are there there 00:09:45.799 --> 00:09:49.401 but hopefully they are more at the expense of this persona 00:09:49.401 --> 00:09:51.211 of a wealthy musician, 00:09:51.211 --> 00:09:53.801 or maybe at the expense of country-songs like this one 00:10:17.780 --> 00:10:20.260 which always rubbed me the wrong way, 00:10:25.300 --> 00:10:29.300 "Pandering" is about a respect for art regardless of its origin 00:10:29.300 --> 00:10:33.959 I think country music gets a bad rep, you know, why 00:10:33.959 --> 00:10:37.320 it that when Bruce Springsteen sings about a fucking turnpike 00:10:37.330 --> 00:10:41.700 - it is art, and when someone sings about a horse - it' dumb. 00:10:41.700 --> 00:10:42.410 Apparently, I dunno... 00:10:42.410 --> 00:10:45.320 I think some of the greatest songwriters of all time are country-artists 00:10:45.320 --> 00:10:47.210 Dolly Parton, Willie Nelson, you know, 00:10:47.210 --> 00:10:50.660 they've been writing honestly. That is art! And I wold never bash that. 00:10:50.660 --> 00:10:54.480 The problem is: with a lot of modern country music 00:10:54.480 --> 00:10:58.970 what is called "stadium country music", it's sort of Keith Urban 00:10:58.970 --> 00:11:00.780 brand of country music 00:11:08.500 --> 00:11:10.100 is that it is not honest 00:11:10.100 --> 00:11:12.883 - And it's what we do, anyway. it's what you're doing 00:11:12.883 --> 00:11:14.913 you create, we create, these guys are creating 00:11:14.913 --> 00:11:16.203 and I get to do it with music 00:11:16.203 --> 00:11:19.554 And a respect for human beings, regardless of how much money they have. 00:11:19.554 --> 00:11:23.440 And it makes of both the impulse to write-off a genre or a region 00:11:23.440 --> 00:11:27.440 as "redneck trash" and the people who play into these stereotypes 00:11:27.440 --> 00:11:29.574 as outsiders and manipulate their audience, the same way 00:11:29.574 --> 00:11:32.457 pop-star Burnham in "Repeat stuff" does to teenage girls. 00:11:44.826 --> 00:11:48.344 How a lot of country music has a creepy, vaguely rape-y vibe to it 00:11:53.699 --> 00:11:56.939 And how the songs are formulaic and exploitative 00:11:56.939 --> 00:11:58.969 and have no real respect for their audience 00:12:00.872 --> 00:12:03.742 One of my favorite parts of the song isn't a particularly 00:12:03.742 --> 00:12:05.542 clever rhyme of reference 00:12:09.140 --> 00:12:11.734 It's just Burnham saying "I don't like dirt!" 00:12:12.742 --> 00:12:14.702 It's worth noting too that while Burnham is playing 00:12:14.702 --> 00:12:17.562 a character here, he still talks in the first-person 00:12:24.815 --> 00:12:28.450 There's also a similar joke about dumb Alabama rednecks elsewhere 00:12:28.450 --> 00:12:30.170 in the special - here it is in full. 00:12:30.170 --> 00:12:33.167 We just played in Alabama, they ust liked the lights, I didn't even need 00:12:33.167 --> 00:12:34.417 to do jokes! 00:12:35.747 --> 00:12:39.977 "Motherfucker's got moving candles!". No... Not quite 00:12:41.255 --> 00:12:44.625 Alabama was actually nice. You're elitist pricks. 00:12:45.718 --> 00:12:46.928 Is that fun? 00:12:47.271 --> 00:12:49.789 And here's a clip from Burnham's guest appereance 00:12:49.789 --> 00:12:52.236 on "Parks and Rec" in 2014. 00:12:57.568 --> 00:13:00.708 Where he plays a sort of "Repeat Stuff", "Pandering" 00:13:00.708 --> 00:13:05.618 hybrid country-youtube star, who uses vague allusions to his mother 00:13:05.618 --> 00:13:07.558 and the troops to get views. 00:13:07.558 --> 00:13:11.558 - His latest song, "Beutiful, like my mom (support the troops)" has like 00:13:11.558 --> 00:13:13.680 2 million hits on Youtube! 00:13:26.430 --> 00:13:27.930 - Bunch of dirty hecks! 00:13:27.158 --> 00:13:30.398 Next is "Kill Yourself". 00:13:43.514 --> 00:13:46.144 In my political correctness video I criticized 00:13:46.144 --> 00:13:49.694 George Miller for making "kill yourself" song and used a clip of Burnham 00:13:49.694 --> 00:13:52.324 regretting his own Helen Keller jokes because of how those could've 00:13:52.324 --> 00:13:54.143 been used to bully a deaf person. 00:13:54.143 --> 00:13:57.743 For "Kill Yourself", which speaks on inspirational pop songs and how 00:13:57.743 --> 00:14:01.313 you shouldn't turn to pop-music or pop-artists to sustain you emotionally. 00:14:01.313 --> 00:14:04.630 They're only there to use you for your money. After all, 00:14:04.630 --> 00:14:07.143 it's about how you are sold overly simplified narratives 00:14:07.143 --> 00:14:09.876 and simple solutions for complex problems 00:14:09.876 --> 00:14:12.276 that you should seek actual professional help for. 00:14:12.276 --> 00:14:15.996 - ... that life's toughest problems don't have simple answers. 00:14:16.504 --> 00:14:19.274 You shouldn't just be "Brave", you shouln't just "Roar" 00:14:19.274 --> 00:14:20.734 you shouldn't "kill yourself" 00:14:20.734 --> 00:14:23.154 Burham goes pretty far out of his way to state that he 00:14:23.154 --> 00:14:24.864 understands depression. 00:14:24.864 --> 00:14:28.169 But I understand that it's a sensetive subject and you're probably just 00:14:28.169 --> 00:14:30.390 hearing me say that... 00:14:30.390 --> 00:14:32.809 Briefly hints that he has struggled with mental health issues himself 00:14:32.809 --> 00:14:35.196 I've dealth with... I don't want to be insnensitive 00:14:35.196 --> 00:14:38.226 Says that if you're depressed, you should seek a therapist 00:15:02.162 --> 00:15:06.320 And then jokes that if you can only find meanng for your life in 00:15:06.320 --> 00:15:11.512 Katy Perry songs, then, well, never mind. You should definitely just kill yourself. 00:15:22.297 --> 00:15:25.397 Part of makes me this song less able to be weaponized 00:15:25.397 --> 00:15:29.397 to bully some kid, or less likely to encourage an actual suicidal person 00:15:29.397 --> 00:15:33.124 are the ways he couches the jokes in empathy and the ridiculous 00:15:33.124 --> 00:15:35.471 and over-the-top suicide methods that he suggests. 00:15:43.160 --> 00:15:46.441 The only parts of "Kill yourself", that I would criticize, actually, 00:15:46.441 --> 00:15:49.505 are the extremely hack jokes about AIDS 00:15:51.589 --> 00:15:53.169 and Oprah being fat 00:15:55.326 --> 00:15:59.616 which in 2016, almost seem like Burnham was being intentionally unfunny. 00:15:59.616 --> 00:16:03.237 Overall, though, the juxtaposition between an empathetic 00:16:03.237 --> 00:16:07.417 and supportive Burnham and the one suggesting suicide methods works. 00:16:10.483 --> 00:16:13.273 - I feel like you pulled back. 00:16:14.923 --> 00:16:18.263 Maybe it's on account of the fact, that I'm telling you to kill yourself, 00:16:18.263 --> 00:16:19.543 but for a moment 00:16:20.528 --> 00:16:23.428 Especially, because he pushes the edge of the "Kill yourself" line 00:16:23.428 --> 00:16:26.590 then softens it, then pushes, then softens again. 00:16:26.590 --> 00:16:29.225 I definitely feel like, if he had written this as a teenager 00:16:29.225 --> 00:16:32.689 it would've been less empathetic. And without that sharp juxtaposition 00:16:32.689 --> 00:16:36.124 between the empathy and the suicide joke, it would've been less funny 00:16:36.124 --> 00:16:37.894 and less effective overall. 00:16:37.894 --> 00:16:41.699 I do find his work and his songs funny. But even if they weren't funny 00:16:41.699 --> 00:16:44.809 to me, even if, objectively, you don't get the laughs out of them 00:16:44.809 --> 00:16:48.449 that I do, I wanted to break down what he's doing with his body of work, 00:16:48.449 --> 00:16:52.390 and the way that he handles these jokes - Not just smugly rampaging through 00:16:52.390 --> 00:16:54.405 our culture and striking down easy targets 00:16:54.405 --> 00:16:57.835 but navigating satire with empathy for young people. 00:16:57.835 --> 00:17:00.958 and downtrodden people and people with mental health issues. 00:17:00.958 --> 00:17:04.958 And over and over taking aim at himself just as much as everyone else 00:17:04.958 --> 00:17:06.529 if nor moreso. 00:17:06.529 --> 00:17:09.479 - How does he do it? How does he pretend to do it? 00:17:09.479 --> 00:17:13.479 How does he remain contrived? I'm not honest for a second up here! 00:17:13.479 --> 00:17:15.539 Art is a lie! Nothing is real! 00:17:15.539 --> 00:17:19.539 A comic can be funny and have ocassional moments of insight 00:17:19.539 --> 00:17:22.939 when they're indiscriminately shotgunning everything, as many comics do. 00:17:22.939 --> 00:17:24.649 And don't you dare criticize them! 00:17:24.649 --> 00:17:27.559 - This could be a little offensive, but, you know, my motto is: 00:17:27.559 --> 00:17:29.659 if you can laugh at one group of people, you gotta be able to laugh at 00:17:29.659 --> 00:17:31.199 them all. Ya know? 00:17:31.199 --> 00:17:34.819 This song is gonna seem terribly offensive, but, eh, remember: it's satire 00:17:34.819 --> 00:17:37.659 and please, don't kick the shit out of me. 00:17:37.659 --> 00:17:38.759 Jeez... 00:17:42.301 --> 00:17:46.301 In 2009, when he was 18, Burnham was protested against 00:17:46.301 --> 00:17:48.811 at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. 00:17:49.920 --> 00:17:51.602 An article from the Columbia Daily Tribune states: 00:17:52.243 --> 00:17:55.713 About 15 protesters, including members of the Gay-Straight Alliance, 00:17:55.713 --> 00:17:57.753 Black Students Association, 00:17:57.753 --> 00:18:01.170 International Club and the Cultural Diversity Organization 00:18:01.170 --> 00:18:04.237 held signs and rallied outside Champ Auditorium, 00:18:04.237 --> 00:18:05.937 where the concert took place. 00:18:05.937 --> 00:18:09.389 The article then mentions Bo being uncomfortable while interacting 00:18:09.389 --> 00:18:13.389 with a disabled fan, after his act that repeatedly mocked disabled people 00:18:13.389 --> 00:18:16.891 (though the fan was clearly fine with offensive humor, 00:18:16.891 --> 00:18:20.491 and it's possible that the author was reading some into the situation). 00:18:20.491 --> 00:18:25.310 In a 2009 Boston Herald interview, which I paid 4 dollars to access, because 00:18:25.310 --> 00:18:27.339 even the archived version was behind a paywall, 00:18:27.339 --> 00:18:30.819 Burnham said: "It's so ironic, because gay bashers were the ones 00:18:30.819 --> 00:18:34.929 labeling me in high-school", and "I try and write satire that's 00:18:34.929 --> 00:18:37.759 well-intentioned, but those Intentions have to be hidden. 00:18:37.759 --> 00:18:40.987 It can't be completely clear. and that's what makes it comedy" 00:18:40.987 --> 00:18:45.317 But then, 7 years later, in a 2016 CBS interview 00:18:45.317 --> 00:18:47.203 on political correctness he said: 00:18:47.203 --> 00:18:50.983 "Well, I just think, like, comics are cry-babies and like, give me a break. 00:18:50.983 --> 00:18:53.755 You get up there and you talk for an hour and then they have 00:18:53.755 --> 00:18:55.215 and impulse to be heard too? 00:18:55.900 --> 00:18:58.950 If it's rock n' roll, then who cares what they think about it? 00:18:58.950 --> 00:19:01.720 And truly, like, political corectness with young people 00:19:01.720 --> 00:19:04.840 for me, it's an over-correction. For a serious problem, like bigotry 00:19:04.840 --> 00:19:08.438 and racism, but no comedians are being thrown in jail 00:19:08.438 --> 00:19:11.580 They're getting, like, lit up on twitter maybe a few times, they go through 00:19:11.580 --> 00:19:15.580 you know, and that's wrong and maybe bad sometimes. 00:19:15.580 --> 00:19:19.768 But again, this is from people, who have had their opinions heard relentlessly 00:19:19.768 --> 00:19:23.348 Hours every night, all the time, and then a blogger gets up 00:19:23.348 --> 00:19:26.214 and expresses their opinion in a blog, and it's like: what?! 00:19:26.214 --> 00:19:29.840 How do you not understand that the audience has the same impulse that you do?" 00:19:30.646 --> 00:19:33.176 Don't kill yourself! 00:19:33.970 --> 00:19:37.271 I don't like explaining jokes, but the joke where I tell everyone to kill 00:19:37.271 --> 00:19:40.831 themselves might deserve an explaination. DO NOT! 00:19:42.467 --> 00:19:46.137 And if you're offended, do not write a blog. I apologize immediately! 00:19:46.137 --> 00:19:47.707 "Sorry!" - right away! 00:19:47.707 --> 00:19:51.357 You know, my mother is a hospice nurse so it's hard for me to look at, you know 00:19:51.593 --> 00:19:54.970 a couple college kids with signs outside a comedy show and think that 00:19:55.417 --> 00:19:58.797 I'm... you know, up against anything, structually. 00:19:58.830 --> 00:20:02.200 It's rare, and more rewarding to find someone who started out that way, 00:20:02.200 --> 00:20:05.780 then grew up and uses his platform and his art to tackle what 00:20:05.780 --> 00:20:08.460 upsets him and disturbs him in a wider culture. 00:20:08.460 --> 00:20:12.931 Crafting clever or shocking juxtapositions and ripping open contradictions. 00:20:12.931 --> 00:20:16.771 Over and over trying to call attenton to wide-spread exploitation 00:20:16.771 --> 00:20:19.299 that we accept and ignore. 00:20:19.299 --> 00:20:22.699 In a 2013 interview with Vulture he said:"I don't think it's very 00:20:22.699 --> 00:20:26.479 cynical to be critical of the media. Being critical of what pop-stars 00:20:26.479 --> 00:20:31.575 and celebrities say seems obvious to me. I hope it's level-headed. I find pop-culture 00:20:31.575 --> 00:20:35.265 and celebrity to be very cynical. When I'm being critical about it 00:20:35.265 --> 00:20:38.935 I hope I'm not being too cynical about it. Realistic, I think. 00:20:38.935 --> 00:20:42.935 Or, hopefully, just showing what people swallow without thinking about it 00:20:42.935 --> 00:20:46.315 just because they have real jobs. Where I have this silly job, where 00:20:46.315 --> 00:20:48.350 I think about it all the time. 00:20:48.350 --> 00:20:50.385 It's not like Burnham is afraid to offend anyone either. 00:20:54.638 --> 00:20:58.868 Or that his stage persona is strictly sensitive and gentle, and thoughtful 00:20:59.960 --> 00:21:04.500 If I fuck a kid, I'm a pedophile, but if a kid fucks me - I'm a pedophile, again?! 00:21:04.890 --> 00:21:05.825 Twice in a week? 00:21:05.825 --> 00:21:09.730 Part of the persona, even as he's gotten older, has been using 00:21:09.730 --> 00:21:11.603 offensive humor to push the people in his audience away. 00:21:11.971 --> 00:21:13.781 Bo Burnham: Macaroni and... Audience: Cheese! 00:21:13.801 --> 00:21:17.801 Our favorite chips, salt and v... Wow! 00:21:17.928 --> 00:21:19.680 Who said it?! 00:21:19.361 --> 00:21:22.421 And while I wouldn't consider it the strongest aspect of his work, 00:21:22.421 --> 00:21:26.171 it does make the moments of empathy seem sincere, rather than compulsory. 00:21:26.184 --> 00:21:29.544 OK, now for the actual subject of the video! Sort of! 00:21:29.544 --> 00:21:32.881 I'm gonna talk about the song first, then I'll get to the music video. 00:21:32.881 --> 00:21:36.387 This interview was uploaded to Youtube on May 3rd 2013. 00:21:36.452 --> 00:21:39.903 His special "what" dropped on December 13th of 2013 00:21:39.903 --> 00:21:43.903 on Youtube and Netflix. As did the seperate perfomance of the show 00:21:43.903 --> 00:21:47.903 that's on the album. Which, as an additional track, included 00:21:47.903 --> 00:21:49.713 the studio version of Repeat Stuff. 00:21:49.713 --> 00:21:53.375 That being the exact same version later used in the music video. 00:21:53.530 --> 00:21:58.240 The full music video for "Repeat Stuff" dropped on September 24th 2014. 00:21:58.327 --> 00:22:01.617 These are the earliest versions of the song I can find on Youtube. 00:22:01.784 --> 00:22:05.504 Both from a performance at a Trocadero Theatre in Philadelphia 00:22:05.504 --> 00:22:10.994 on December 4th 2010. Meaning, here he's 24, here he's 23, here he's 22, 00:22:10.994 --> 00:22:12.974 and here he's 20 years old. 00:22:12.974 --> 00:22:16.024 He might've started writing the song when he was 19 or even younger. 00:22:16.024 --> 00:22:19.764 I'm not sure. I mention all that both to show that this was an evolution over 00:22:19.764 --> 00:22:23.454 a period of at least 4 years to get to the final music video 00:22:23.454 --> 00:22:26.324 and that Burnham was very, very young when he first started it. 00:22:26.374 --> 00:22:30.374 There are only a handful of uploads of older versions of "Repeat Stuff" 00:22:30.374 --> 00:22:34.153 on Youtube. The first few are shorter than the final version 00:22:34.153 --> 00:22:35.353 "This song is a work in progress." 00:22:35.353 --> 00:22:37.733 And Burnham draws attention to the song being unfinished. 00:22:46.040 --> 00:22:49.000 - How do you get out of a song you haven't finished? 00:22:49.000 --> 00:22:53.870 Sound-man, hit the third track for me please, hit the third track 00:22:54.946 --> 00:22:57.511 He also says "my producer", instead of "my agent". 00:23:02.056 --> 00:23:04.246 These segments here were eventually cut. 00:23:24.534 --> 00:23:27.664 And the "girl with no arms" bit was more aggressive and less funny. 00:23:32.116 --> 00:23:35.550 There were other minor changes over time, before the finished version 00:23:35.550 --> 00:23:38.718 came out on "what". Apart from a Jason Derulo joke, 00:23:45.457 --> 00:23:46.477 - Jason Derulo... 00:23:46.477 --> 00:23:49.547 the only real difference in the song, between a "what" version 00:23:49.547 --> 00:23:52.867 and a studio version used in the music video, is Burnham pretending 00:23:52.867 --> 00:23:54.747 to perform oral sex on Satan. 00:23:54.917 --> 00:23:57.437 - Oh, Satan, you taste so good! 00:23:57.437 --> 00:23:58.877 and making weird noises... 00:24:05.058 --> 00:24:08.667 versus in-the-studio version, where layered distorted voice clips are used. 00:24:08.859 --> 00:24:11.819 "I am a servant of dakrness" Repeat stuff, repeat stuff... 00:24:13.107 --> 00:24:16.627 The effect is similar, though. The "what" version even has visual 00:24:16.627 --> 00:24:19.709 elements that are repurposed for the music video. Gentle blue and magenta 00:24:19.709 --> 00:24:23.239 lights are used for most of the song. With sudden red light blasting 00:24:23.239 --> 00:24:26.989 accompanied by nazi salute as an over-the-top gag highlighting the evil 00:24:26.989 --> 00:24:30.669 and exploitative nature of these performers. The "what" version allows 00:24:30.669 --> 00:24:34.669 for further audience implication. The nazi salute comes partially as a joke 00:24:34.669 --> 00:24:38.959 at their expense. Just as he's gotten them to enthusiastically sing along 00:24:39.216 --> 00:24:43.216 - Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, everybody! 00:24:44.197 --> 00:24:46.997 - Come on, louder, I can't hear you! 00:24:50.434 --> 00:24:54.044 His voice is a little different as well. In the "what" version the juxtaposition 00:24:54.044 --> 00:24:56.927 between his faux-carefree pop star voice and his evil voice 00:24:56.927 --> 00:25:00.527 is more played-up and both are more cartoonish. One - sillier 00:25:01.708 --> 00:25:06.498 Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff... 00:25:06.851 --> 00:25:09.130 and one - more menacing. 00:25:09.180 --> 00:25:13.871 Fuck em! Who needs em! 00:25:14.180 --> 00:25:18.420 All of the songs, I've mentioned here, are in some way about exploitation. 00:25:18.420 --> 00:25:21.320 "Repeat Stuff" included, but it has a larger scope 00:25:21.329 --> 00:25:25.129 The surface-level joke here is very clear and easily accessible. 00:25:25.224 --> 00:25:29.224 Pop-stars pump out repetitive, simplistic hits, and are part of a machine 00:25:29.224 --> 00:25:32.634 that traps young girls in a cycle of self-loathing and turning to them 00:25:32.634 --> 00:25:35.094 for love and comfort, in exchange for money. 00:26:02.585 --> 00:26:07.195 The video adds other aspects in addition to this - axes of exploitation on display 00:26:07.195 --> 00:26:12.608 in the music video are on the basis of race, gender, age, ability and income 00:26:12.608 --> 00:26:16.268 An audience member is only valuable as far as they can consume his product 00:26:16.268 --> 00:26:19.870 or be used by him to sell his product to consumers. Take this bit- 00:26:37.981 --> 00:26:41.491 For the record, little girls who don’t have arms CAN use itunes, 00:26:41.491 --> 00:26:43.931 being disabled doesn’t preclude you from enjoying pop music 00:26:43.931 --> 00:26:45.411 and being just as exploited- 00:26:45.411 --> 00:26:48.785 While Burnham clearly meant it as a dig at sociopathic capitalism 00:26:48.785 --> 00:26:50.525 I have known enough disabled people that enjoy music 00:26:50.525 --> 00:26:52.001 that I figured I’d mention it. 00:26:52.001 --> 00:26:55.154 The actors in the video who are black or mixed race are shown literally dancing 00:26:55.154 --> 00:26:59.154 at Burnham’s command for Burnham’s amusement, and him using “swag” 00:26:59.892 --> 00:27:05.032 is both a funny juxtaposition of slang vs his satanic monster character AND 00:27:05.032 --> 00:27:08.512 an example of how white pop stars appropriate black vernacular. 00:27:08.512 --> 00:27:14.102 The change bit is weird- I guess, like, a visual gag, it’s more silly than anything 00:27:14.102 --> 00:27:17.277 but maybe also an implication of pennies paid for the work 00:27:17.277 --> 00:27:21.277 black artists put in, and as a further gag he says “what the fuck” 00:27:21.277 --> 00:27:23.907 here not even understanding them or what is happening. 00:27:23.907 --> 00:27:27.213 Burnham is also playing multiple characters and incorporating multiple 00:27:27.213 --> 00:27:31.213 layered personas in this video. There’s the persona that little girls fall 00:27:31.213 --> 00:27:34.473 in love with- the Bieber-esque Bo, there’s the behind-the-scenes cult leader 00:27:34.473 --> 00:27:38.023 Satanic monster behind that persona, and there are a surprising number 00:27:38.023 --> 00:27:41.551 of incorporations of Burnham himself or his original persona 00:27:41.551 --> 00:27:42.651 separate from the video. 00:27:42.651 --> 00:27:46.651 The Bieber parody is that surface-level joke and most of the non-satanic 00:27:46.651 --> 00:27:48.841 lyrics are from this point of view. 00:27:48.841 --> 00:27:51.711 “Repeat Stuff” sounds similar to Bieber's song “Baby” 00:27:59.837 --> 00:28:03.587 and the video is in part a parody of his “Confident” music video. 00:28:03.587 --> 00:28:07.587 There’s a little bit of insidiousness to the character though it doesn’t start overt 00:28:07.587 --> 00:28:11.117 for example, he’s androgynous in a way that lowers the guards of female 00:28:11.117 --> 00:28:14.607 fans and as a cover to mask how sexually exploitative he is. 00:28:14.607 --> 00:28:17.397 There are jokes about an agent performing oral sex on him 00:28:17.397 --> 00:28:21.133 but it’s not homophobic. Rather, it’s a web of sexual predation on all 00:28:21.133 --> 00:28:25.973 sorts of people, - men around him, women in his video, a young girl, whatever. 00:28:26.335 --> 00:28:31.195 Where the video gets wild and visually interesting is when Satanic Cult 00:28:31.195 --> 00:28:35.195 Leader Burnham comes in. He is Satan in human form. 00:28:35.195 --> 00:28:39.765 His music is a plague and his purpose is virgin sacrifice. 00:28:39.765 --> 00:28:43.765 As far as people his own age, he’s surrounded by a cult of sycophants 00:28:43.765 --> 00:28:46.575 engaged in bizarre, child-like behavior. 00:28:46.575 --> 00:28:49.975 It’s a funny juxtaposition to have a bunch of people in their late teens 00:28:49.975 --> 00:28:52.991 and early twenties playing with toys- especially because the only actual 00:28:52.991 --> 00:28:56.991 fans shown are very young- it reminds me of tobacco ads that target children, 00:28:56.991 --> 00:29:00.561 or a corporate idea of what kids would like or want. 00:29:00.561 --> 00:29:04.261 The cult all also literally drink kool-aid together, emphasized 00:29:04.261 --> 00:29:07.645 by this group suicide pantomime that I always found pretty funny. 00:29:07.645 --> 00:29:12.018 There are multiple overt references to the illuminati. I don’t know if they’re related 00:29:12.018 --> 00:29:15.478 or if it’s some other weird reference, but this guy’s hand signal reminded 00:29:15.478 --> 00:29:19.343 me of Jay-Z’s roc-a-fella records diamond hand sign that paranoid conspiracy 00:29:19.343 --> 00:29:22.653 theorists have insisted is related to the illuminati or satan or whatever. 00:29:22.653 --> 00:29:26.241 The video also has a bunch of one-frame text inserts, being 00:29:26.241 --> 00:29:30.605 subliminal messages are a cliched aspect of brainwashing conspiracy theories. 00:29:30.605 --> 00:29:35.018 Some of the messages are silly jokes, but many of them involve encouraging 00:29:35.018 --> 00:29:38.723 the pursuit of money and fame, tying back into the key themes 00:29:38.723 --> 00:29:41.794 of the video and of Burnham’s typical message. 00:29:41.794 --> 00:29:45.364 There are a few satanic symbols and references throughout the video, 00:29:45.364 --> 00:29:47.474 some overt and some more subtle. 00:29:47.474 --> 00:29:51.094 Did you notice that the cross he wears and puts in his mouth is upside-down? 00:29:51.094 --> 00:29:53.754 Even more extreme are the comparisons to Hitler. 00:29:53.754 --> 00:29:57.354 There are the illuminati nazi armbands, the hitler speech in the background 00:29:57.354 --> 00:30:01.054 the actual nazi salutes- it’s played for shock laughs and to catch 00:30:01.054 --> 00:30:03.874 the audience off guard in the "what" version but is more a piece 00:30:03.874 --> 00:30:06.544 woven into a wider tapestry of evil in the music video. 00:30:06.544 --> 00:30:10.100 The color symbolism that carried over from the what. version, 00:30:10.100 --> 00:30:13.421 while simple, is really effective, and it builds out a solid and 00:30:13.421 --> 00:30:15.281 consistent color palette for the video. 00:30:15.281 --> 00:30:19.931 I really like the look of the video and the costume design and the visual motifs. 00:30:19.931 --> 00:30:23.931 Whether intentional or not, the opening shot reminds me of Halloween and Bo’s 00:30:23.931 --> 00:30:28.021 outfit and a jumpsuit worn by Michael Meyers are a similar shade of navy. 00:30:28.301 --> 00:30:31.232 My favorite cut in the entire video is this one. 00:30:31.232 --> 00:30:34.051 All of these songs I have talked about have juxtapositions played 00:30:34.051 --> 00:30:38.821 for comedy, but the one here is genuinely sad and creepy. 00:30:38.821 --> 00:30:42.821 You have Bo moving and dancing and being silly, leaned back on the car 00:30:42.821 --> 00:30:45.431 with casual body language, then you cut to him just looming 00:30:45.431 --> 00:30:49.133 over a girl’s corpse, staring directly at the camera. 00:30:49.133 --> 00:30:52.551 It’s made even more effective by a later shot with the same setup 00:30:52.551 --> 00:30:55.558 but of Bo dancing, incorporating both the violence 00:30:55.558 --> 00:30:57.988 and the manufactured carefree silliness. 00:30:57.988 --> 00:31:01.988 Burnham is very tall- google says 6’5”- and normally he plays up being 00:31:01.988 --> 00:31:05.988 skinny and lanky in an effeminate way with dancing or slapstick 00:31:05.988 --> 00:31:08.638 (in a 2013 interview with NPR he said 00:31:08.638 --> 00:31:12.306 "The comedy club environment, unless you're very careful about it, it's kind of 00:31:12.306 --> 00:31:17.676 creates a very tough, very, I think, masculine comedian 00:31:17.676 --> 00:31:21.676 that can be very combatant on it, you know, twelve PM Satruday show 00:31:21.676 --> 00:31:24.529 and the crowd's getting a little rowdy. As opposed to I think I was able 00:31:24.529 --> 00:31:29.899 to make this sort of weird, slightly androgynous theatrical comedy 00:31:29.899 --> 00:31:33.399 that would've been squashed had I brought it around the clubs. 00:31:33.399 --> 00:31:37.399 This shot is the only time I’ve seen his height used deliberately to look 00:31:37.399 --> 00:31:40.863 hulking and intimidating. He works as the video’s villain not 00:31:40.863 --> 00:31:44.023 in spite of his lanky physicality but because of it and I could see 00:31:44.023 --> 00:31:46.746 the aesthetic and the character working in a more traditional 00:31:46.746 --> 00:31:48.656 narrative horror short or feature film. 00:31:48.656 --> 00:31:51.396 There are also some small weird shots and jokes that I liked. 00:31:51.396 --> 00:31:53.526 Why does this person’s hoodie just say “hoodie”? 00:31:53.526 --> 00:31:57.166 These posters on the girl’s wall are references to two of Burnham’s 00:31:57.166 --> 00:32:00.354 old music videos- "words words words" from september 2010 00:32:00.354 --> 00:32:03.147 and "oh bo" from october 2010. 00:32:03.147 --> 00:32:05.057 This shot is so funny. 00:32:05.057 --> 00:32:08.217 What are they even doing? What are you all doing? 00:32:08.217 --> 00:32:12.743 I tried to see if 1213 has any meaning but only found weird angel stuff. 00:32:12.743 --> 00:32:17.333 In the vocal montage you can very quietly hear him insulting his audience. 00:32:28.133 --> 00:32:31.513 His face on magazine is so dour and serious. 00:32:31.513 --> 00:32:34.133 I know they probably had to reverse this in editing, 00:32:34.133 --> 00:32:36.433 but why is this guy walking backwards? 00:32:36.433 --> 00:32:39.623 Artemis looking into the camera before this cut is so brilliant. 00:32:39.623 --> 00:32:40.893 It's such a great touch. 00:32:40.974 --> 00:32:46.416 And, well, during the course of making this video, I also discovered my own mystery 00:32:46.416 --> 00:32:50.036 one that I did not expect. 00:32:50.036 --> 00:32:54.036 So, if you did what I suggested and watched the youtube upload 00:32:54.036 --> 00:32:58.036 of Repeat Stuff, did you notice that something was off 00:32:58.036 --> 00:33:00.780 when I used this clip at the beginning of this video? 00:33:00.780 --> 00:33:04.510 t’s from an alternate version of the "Repeat Stuff" music video. 00:33:04.510 --> 00:33:07.760 There’s a discrepancy. Could it be a conspiracy??? 00:33:07.760 --> 00:33:08.648 The illuminati?! 00:33:08.648 --> 00:33:12.718 So I don't know much about the technical specifics or the industry standard specifics 00:33:12.718 --> 00:33:15.617 of this overall, but I've seen a lot of times where someone 00:33:15.617 --> 00:33:18.585 who worked on a music video will have an upload of that video 00:33:18.585 --> 00:33:21.448 on their personal vimeo account as part of their portfolio 00:33:21.448 --> 00:33:23.898 separate from the popular and official youtube upload. 00:33:23.898 --> 00:33:27.898 Vimeo is a more professional website and compresses videos significantly 00:33:27.898 --> 00:33:32.598 less than Youtube does, so, when I am looking for versions of music videos 00:33:32.598 --> 00:33:36.268 or short films to use in essays, I will check both youtube and vimeo 00:33:36.268 --> 00:33:38.928 for uploads and try to use whichever one looks better. 00:33:38.928 --> 00:33:42.328 At some point I watched the vimeo upload of "Repeat Stuff" 00:33:42.337 --> 00:33:45.217 on the channel of Rami Hachache, the music video's director. 00:33:45.217 --> 00:33:48.462 Since I had seen the youtube version a million times in the past year 00:33:48.462 --> 00:33:51.706 and since I’m a neurotic, obsessive, I IMMEDIATELY 00:33:51.706 --> 00:33:53.966 noticed a difference between the two uploads. 00:33:53.966 --> 00:33:57.736 It's a clip I had never seen before and the color balance is completely off 00:33:57.736 --> 00:34:01.756 so it stands out a lot and I feel like I would have caught it just on that even if 00:34:01.756 --> 00:34:05.756 I wasn’t as familiar with the other cut. It's at around 1:21 in both 00:34:05.756 --> 00:34:09.376 versions. I rewatched a couple times and I think I kind of caught 00:34:09.376 --> 00:34:12.814 that the clips before it were different as well. So being a 00:34:12.814 --> 00:34:16.096 very normal person who definitely does not have too much time on my hands, 00:34:16.096 --> 00:34:19.906 I grabbed both versions at 1080 and I synced them up and layered 00:34:19.906 --> 00:34:23.906 one on top of the other in the timeline with the top one at around half opacity 00:34:23.906 --> 00:34:27.386 I sat there and I watched the whole video. This starts at around 1:12 00:34:27.386 --> 00:34:31.066 if you are watching the full videos. Even all of the subliminal text bits 00:34:31.066 --> 00:34:34.386 match up. The only discrepancy was the one I had noticed. 00:34:34.386 --> 00:34:36.046 And a few clips preceding it. 00:34:36.046 --> 00:34:38.976 I really like in the vimeo version the way his body language 00:34:38.976 --> 00:34:42.376 makes a nice transition from from him looking down with his arms out 00:34:42.376 --> 00:34:46.156 and how it adds movement and connectivity between two cuts 00:34:46.156 --> 00:34:48.066 where before it was pretty arbitrary. 00:34:48.066 --> 00:34:50.977 And I got really curious. Why is this here? 00:34:50.977 --> 00:34:54.627 I feel like it's a better transition, but the color is off and that makes 00:34:54.627 --> 00:34:57.707 it look unfinished, even though the timing of the cut is great! 00:34:57.707 --> 00:35:00.777 Here's a comparison of me doing around two minutes of rough 00:35:00.777 --> 00:35:02.978 color correction work in premiere to show the difference and 00:35:02.978 --> 00:35:04.240 how easy it would be to fix. 00:35:04.240 --> 00:35:09.100 Why wasn’t it fixed? Especially if the rest of the video looks and sounds exactly the same. 00:35:09.100 --> 00:35:12.790 Apart from the end of the Youtube version, having a Burnham ad tacked on 00:35:12.790 --> 00:35:16.250 The Vimeo version also has a nice, professional-looking thumbnail 00:35:16.250 --> 00:35:18.060 that the youtube version doesn’t. 00:35:18.060 --> 00:35:23.520 So, here came the real challenge. I wondered, was the director's version 00:35:23.520 --> 00:35:27.290 uploaded prior to the youtube version, hence the unfinished shot? 00:35:27.290 --> 00:35:30.740 Or was it uploaded after, since they would, of course, want to premiere it 00:35:30.740 --> 00:35:34.474 on Burnham's youtube channel for maximum views and impact? 00:35:34.474 --> 00:35:38.984 Youtube has a date clearly visible: "Published on Sep 24, 2014" 00:35:38.984 --> 00:35:44.044 but on vimeo it just said "4 years ago". 4 years ago under the video, 00:35:44.044 --> 00:35:47.424 4 years ago on a bunch of comments. "4 years ago" doesn't help me! 00:35:47.424 --> 00:35:50.504 So then I keep looking and googling around 00:35:50.504 --> 00:35:55.569 and I find this this random blog post on some blog called "spiral of hope" 00:35:55.569 --> 00:35:59.249 on how in order to see the date a video was uploaded to vimeo 00:35:59.249 --> 00:36:02.943 you have to download the video’s XML file. So using their template 00:36:02.954 --> 00:36:05.554 and changing the URL to match the video's ID 00:36:05.554 --> 00:36:09.168 I download the XML file of the "Repeat Stuff" upload, and 00:36:09.168 --> 00:36:14.869 there it is- "2014-09-24". It went up the same day. 00:36:14.869 --> 00:36:19.279 I learned nothing, basically, but like the virtual woman segment of "fake friends 2" 00:36:19.279 --> 00:36:21.359 I found it weird and interesting. 00:36:21.359 --> 00:36:24.429 I really enjoy strange inconsequential deep dive mysteries. 00:36:24.429 --> 00:36:27.418 I wanted to be a detective when I was a little kid and I enjoy 00:36:27.418 --> 00:36:29.938 looking into stuff that nobody else cares to look into. 00:36:29.938 --> 00:36:32.118 I might try to reach out to and interview Hachache 00:36:32.118 --> 00:36:34.003 after I publish this video. 00:36:34.003 --> 00:36:37.003 I'd rather get my own ideas and interpretations out there before I talk to him 00:36:37.003 --> 00:36:40.193 and if I do interview him I will definitely bring up this tiny discrepancy 00:36:40.193 --> 00:36:41.803 that I found really interesting. 00:36:41.803 --> 00:36:45.523 Pop stars and boy bands can be a safe and non-threatening 00:36:45.523 --> 00:36:49.193 place for young people to have crushes. I'm not demonizing young people 00:36:49.193 --> 00:36:52.815 for being fans of pop stars or demonizing musicians for making music 00:36:52.815 --> 00:36:57.435 pop or not. But, while Nazi iconography is a little extreme 00:36:57.435 --> 00:37:01.155 for any satirical music video, I do feel that all of the Illuminati 00:37:01.155 --> 00:37:04.149 Satan stuff - meant as cultural shorthand for evil 00:37:04.149 --> 00:37:07.449 - is apt in describing the tangible negative effects these 00:37:07.449 --> 00:37:10.789 these relationships can have on young people- being tricked into thinking 00:37:10.789 --> 00:37:13.418 spending their parents’ money on more merch and more 00:37:13.418 --> 00:37:15.818 music will help fulfill them or make them happy. 00:37:15.818 --> 00:37:19.298 The first “demon eyes” shot is this one 00:37:24.076 --> 00:37:27.536 - on an explicitly sexual line and played as a joke, 00:37:27.536 --> 00:37:30.696 But the most shocking and upsetting aspects of the "Repeat Stuff" 00:37:30.696 --> 00:37:35.246 music video are how predatory Burnham is in moments, where it isn't played up for laughs 00:37:35.246 --> 00:37:39.526 Him looming over a corpse is one and others are the creepy shots of him 00:37:39.526 --> 00:37:42.936 outside of a teenage girl's room where it’s almost implied that 00:37:42.936 --> 00:37:44.928 he’s masturbating to her photograph. 00:37:44.928 --> 00:37:48.808 The little girl has Egghead, his real-life book of poems, by her bed. 00:37:48.808 --> 00:37:52.159 Bunrham's persona with regard to sex is usually portrayed 00:37:52.159 --> 00:37:55.619 as him being non-threatening and inept and immature. 00:37:59.609 --> 00:38:04.149 I talked about his physicality being used differently to express physical violence 00:38:04.149 --> 00:38:06.944 The same can be said about him being sexually predatory. 00:38:06.944 --> 00:38:10.394 The beginning of the song praises the girl Bo is speaking to for giving 00:38:10.394 --> 00:38:11.534 her heart to him. 00:38:14.020 --> 00:38:17.070 but by the end we see that it’s not given, it’s taken. 00:38:17.070 --> 00:38:20.700 She reaches out to touch him with this stunned look of reverence 00:38:20.700 --> 00:38:24.281 in her eyes and he murders her and eats her heart, 00:38:24.281 --> 00:38:27.123 surrounded by ephemera of his own real-life career. 00:38:27.123 --> 00:38:30.683 In the Vulture interview, Burnham said, “...with “Repeat Stuff,” 00:38:30.683 --> 00:38:34.053 so much of the pop songs have absolutely no artistic function 00:38:34.053 --> 00:38:37.243 and only function to sell something to little girls. 00:38:37.243 --> 00:38:40.833 That particular genre in my opinion targets very precarious things 00:38:40.833 --> 00:38:44.833 about little girls: their own insecurity and self-esteem issues. 00:38:45.623 --> 00:38:47.337 This poem is called "Ashley". 00:38:47.356 --> 00:38:50.476 Little Ashley hung magazine spreads on her wall, after picking the 00:38:50.476 --> 00:38:51.906 magazines out in the mall. 00:38:51.906 --> 00:38:55.524 Models and actresses, singers and more, with cleavage and makeup 00:38:55.524 --> 00:38:56.874 and glamour galore! 00:38:56.874 --> 00:38:58.464 All of her heroes were finally nearer. 00:38:58.464 --> 00:39:01.504 Her whole room looked perfect - except for the mirror. 00:39:01.504 --> 00:39:05.504 "That to me is a little bit predatory and a little bit evil. 00:39:05.504 --> 00:39:08.887 I’m fine with things not being original. I want hardcore 00:39:08.887 --> 00:39:12.087 content to be the product of someone’s beliefs and for them to 00:39:12.087 --> 00:39:14.327 make something that connects with people as opposed to 00:39:14.327 --> 00:39:17.029 making something that is meant to sort of trick people and just 00:39:17.029 --> 00:39:20.669 sell them something, to have your way with them and then leave them.” 00:39:20.669 --> 00:39:24.759 Burnham’s treatment of sexual assault language in this interview and in the imagery 00:39:24.759 --> 00:39:28.759 in his video may seem flippant, but I can see what he’s going for 00:39:28.759 --> 00:39:35.129 not only with stars fostering trust and love in fans to in return harvest fame 00:39:35.129 --> 00:39:39.669 and money from, but also real-world consequences for young fans 00:39:39.669 --> 00:39:44.099 who DO meet their idols or famous crushes and let their guard down or see 00:39:44.099 --> 00:39:48.099 his person they’re a fan of with rose-colored glasses who end up, 00:39:48.099 --> 00:39:52.859 at the best, used and hurt and with a new “don’t meet your heroes” mindset, 00:39:52.859 --> 00:39:56.675 and at worst assaulted- this applies to feminist comedians who 00:39:56.675 --> 00:40:01.475 took advantage of fans or colleagues as well as rock and pop stars who have 00:40:01.475 --> 00:40:05.525 historically had a habit of statutory raping teenage groupies. 00:40:05.525 --> 00:40:08.525 - I can do whatever I want, all right? If I want to shoot a paintball gun 00:40:08.525 --> 00:40:10.445 at my dad, I'm gonna do it! 00:40:10.765 --> 00:40:14.045 So. Why didn’t Burnahm come up with a fake name 00:40:14.045 --> 00:40:16.445 or character name for the video? 00:40:16.445 --> 00:40:18.845 Jon Lajoie’s pop parody 00:40:31.558 --> 00:40:34.108 uses his name as a flashy background 00:40:34.108 --> 00:40:37.428 but he plays characters totally unrelated to his own youtube 00:40:37.428 --> 00:40:41.748 music career sans one cameo, and in “Pandering”, a music style parody 00:40:41.748 --> 00:40:43.028 of a different genre, 00:40:43.278 --> 00:40:45.048 - You know, like THAT genre? 00:40:45.542 --> 00:40:48.475 Burnham is clearly playing someone separate from himself. 00:40:48.478 --> 00:40:51.764 But here a deliberate choice was made for the evil pop 00:40:51.764 --> 00:40:55.214 Satan to be Burnham. In the "what." version he's happily serving 00:40:55.214 --> 00:40:59.214 Satan as an accomplice, but in the music video he IS Satan. 00:40:59.214 --> 00:41:01.675 It's next-level self-deprecation. 00:41:01.675 --> 00:41:05.165 This is beyond brand recognition or an easy go-to. 00:41:05.165 --> 00:41:07.455 This is self-implication. 00:41:07.455 --> 00:41:10.345 This shot of him- in a white T-shirt at a piano- 00:41:10.345 --> 00:41:12.665 is a quintessential Burnham image. 00:41:12.665 --> 00:41:16.485 He wears the same shirt when he smothers the girl to death with her own pillow. 00:41:16.485 --> 00:41:20.025 How many of Burnham's fans, especially when he was a YouTube star, 00:41:20.037 --> 00:41:21.587 were teenage girls? 00:41:22.919 --> 00:41:25.559 Here’s a clip from the track “Out of the Abyss” 00:41:25.559 --> 00:41:29.309 from the album performance of "what." that I used in the intro 00:41:29.309 --> 00:41:32.009 of the first episode of "Fake Friends". 00:41:32.162 --> 00:41:35.592 - I'm giving you attention, girl that's wooing. Are you happy now? 00:41:35.999 --> 00:41:38.671 - You love me? That's very nice. You love the idea of me, you don't know me 00:41:38.671 --> 00:41:41.711 but that's ok. It's called a "Parasocial relationship" 00:41:41.711 --> 00:41:43.691 - it goes one way, and is ultimately destructive. 00:41:43.691 --> 00:41:45.911 But please, keep buying all my shit forever. 00:41:47.746 --> 00:41:52.916 That's how it works! Capitalism! I'm trapped! It's terrible! 00:41:52.916 --> 00:41:55.786 I'm a horrible person! All right. 00:41:55.786 --> 00:42:01.503 right after this aside, Burnham segues into the album performance of "Repeat Stuff" 00:42:01.503 --> 00:42:03.893 How many audience members screamed at him that 00:42:03.893 --> 00:42:07.513 they loved him despite his rebuking them when they did? 00:42:15.357 --> 00:42:19.357 My experience even with an audience a fraction of the size of Burnham's 00:42:19.357 --> 00:42:22.302 is that people like you a lot more more when they perceive you as 00:42:22.302 --> 00:42:25.018 being honest, even if what you're being honest about is how your 00:42:25.018 --> 00:42:26.898 audience sometimes scares you. 00:42:26.898 --> 00:42:29.838 Or, in his case, if you feel like you're exploiting them. 00:42:29.838 --> 00:42:32.699 It's the quality of “heart” that Horton and Wohl talked about. 00:42:32.699 --> 00:42:36.009 So even as I insist that my audience doesn't know me 00:42:36.009 --> 00:42:38.869 and should be inherently suspicions of the idea of emotional 00:42:38.869 --> 00:42:42.109 intimacy with someone they're a fan of, I get messages from strangers telling 00:42:42.109 --> 00:42:45.769 me I'm a good person or asking me for help with very personal life 00:42:45.769 --> 00:42:48.769 problems that I'm not remotely qualified to help with. 00:42:48.769 --> 00:42:52.499 Many people told me my last big video made them cry and changed how they 00:42:52.499 --> 00:42:54.045 interact with media online. 00:42:54.045 --> 00:42:57.175 That's great! That's awesome! That's what I wanted! 00:42:57.175 --> 00:42:59.793 to reach people emotionally and intellectually. 00:42:59.793 --> 00:43:03.483 but having that kind of power makes me feel strange and uneasy. 00:43:03.483 --> 00:43:06.903 When thousands of people trust you and care about your 00:43:06.903 --> 00:43:10.132 opinions and what you think they should do in their day-to-day lives, 00:43:10.132 --> 00:43:12.897 It's a responsibility I wasn't really prepared for. 00:43:12.897 --> 00:43:16.397 you have to take conscious effort not to end up playing into it for 00:43:16.397 --> 00:43:19.337 your wallet or your ego. Not that I'm in any danger 00:43:19.337 --> 00:43:22.377 of turning into a rapey Satan monster and not that 00:43:22.377 --> 00:43:24.837 Burnham 100% saw himself as one either. It's just that the more 00:43:24.837 --> 00:43:27.347 I grow my fan base the more I can relate to Burnham's 00:43:27.347 --> 00:43:29.757 anxieties and the more I appreciate his work. 00:43:29.757 --> 00:43:33.297 The "Repeat Stuff" music video has over 100,000 views on Vimeo 00:43:33.297 --> 00:43:35.357 and over 10,000,000 on YouTube. 00:43:35.357 --> 00:43:38.217 I really appreciate how accessible it is and how clear 00:43:38.217 --> 00:43:41.717 the message it has is while remaining uncompromising in its dark tone. 00:43:41.717 --> 00:43:44.897 Hopefully, it didn't just preach to the choir or fuel those making 00:43:44.897 --> 00:43:48.307 fun of teenage girls for loving pop stars, because if you spend any 00:43:48.307 --> 00:43:50.647 time looking at it there's so much more to it! 00:43:50.647 --> 00:43:54.587 I've received dismissive comments on the first Fake Friends from people who 00:43:54.587 --> 00:43:57.601 found Burnham annoying but that seems to have decreased 00:43:57.601 --> 00:44:02.065 as I showed less of his song clips and more of his self-loathing anti-fame rhetoric. 00:44:02.065 --> 00:44:05.855 Like I said before, I don't care if you like him or find him funny or not 00:44:05.855 --> 00:44:09.335 I just wanted to share my appreciation for what he's doing on a technical 00:44:09.335 --> 00:44:11.795 level as well as an ideological one. 00:44:15.231 --> 00:44:18.001 Most of the Vimeo vs YouTube video discrepancy segment 00:44:18.001 --> 00:44:21.192 was repurposed from a patreon post I made while researching. 00:44:21.192 --> 00:44:23.932 Thanks to Michael Brown for other research help and a couple other 00:44:23.932 --> 00:44:25.492 unnamed folks for help as well. 00:44:25.492 --> 00:44:28.382 The genius page for "Repeat Stuff" helped my research some, 00:44:28.382 --> 00:44:31.658 especially with the Bieber parody aspect, and it links this music video 00:44:31.658 --> 00:44:33.738 by Axis of Awesome 00:44:35.350 --> 00:44:37.960 - link in the description - that explores the 00:44:37.960 --> 00:44:41.320 “sung with the same four chords” aspect of Burnham's parody. 00:44:41.320 --> 00:44:43.770 I don't know much about the mechanics of music and I 00:44:43.770 --> 00:44:46.773 wanted to focus on writing and filmmaking but that’s 00:44:46.773 --> 00:44:49.983 worth watching for some further elaboration on how derivative 00:44:49.983 --> 00:44:51.743 a lot of these songs are in their construction. 00:44:51.743 --> 00:44:55.743 If you enjoyed this video and want to check out more of my work, 00:44:55.743 --> 00:44:58.727 I'd recommend the first two "Fake Friends episodes and my essay 00:44:58.727 --> 00:45:00.937 on political correctness and empathy. 00:45:00.937 --> 00:45:03.807 Long time viewers might have noticed that I was able to spend 00:45:03.807 --> 00:45:07.581 more time on motion graphics, visual effects, redoing voiceover, 00:45:07.581 --> 00:45:10.731 and the like for this video, and that I finished it relatively 00:45:10.731 --> 00:45:12.801 quickly for a video of its length. 00:45:12.801 --> 00:45:16.499 That's a direct result of my patreon support growing significantly after 00:45:16.499 --> 00:45:17.789 "Fake friends 2". 00:45:17.261 --> 00:45:21.000 If you want to support my work, I have my patreon for ongoing donations 00:45:21.000 --> 00:45:24.280 and a Ko-fi for one-time donations. Thanks!