Gaffaweb >
Love & Anger >
1986-10 >
[ Date Index |
Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
From: SSUD3%UK.AC.SUSSEX.VAX2@AC.UK
Date: 4-JUN-1986 17:09:23
RE: "the Big (Budgie) Sky Video" (Sorry, the system over here can't afford an extra prompt for inserting a subject...) Well, I really doubt that she purposely planned it to be random and somewhat incomprehensible, since she said in the last KBC newsletter that the thing she hates most about rock videos is how unstructured they are. I totally agree with this - unless the song is really unstructured and stream-of-consciousness to begin with. For me, at least, if the visual images are totally unrelated from the music, they tend to distract my attention from the music (maybe that's the point...) since I'm trying so hard to figure out what the fuck is going on on the screen. One thing about Kate's videos (especially her earlier ones) is that they tend(ed) to be fairly simple, with just her dancing around a stage, but moving her body and facial expressions in ways that complemented and illuminated parts of the song. This technique was employed effectively throughout ALL her videos (with the possible exception of "Army Dreamers", which to me totally kills the song - why is the mother of the dead soldier dressed up in army fatigues running around a forest with a plastic gun? - it was a bit too literal, i.e. "It's about the army, so lets dress her up as a soldier" I like the German TV version better, where she's dressed up as the mother in cleaning rags, doing a little waltz with her broom) Boy, I sort of got off the subject there. Anyway, as I was saying, this simple movement/music technique worked in all her videos, reaching its pinnicle in the original (non-mtv) video for "Running up that Hill". In this one, it looks like she had a lot of time to think of the choreography and exactly match it to what was being said in the music (example: the "christ on the cross" imagry during the lines about "You don't want to hurt me, but see how deep the bullet lies") "Cloudbusting" presented a problem in that it couldn't be easily set to a dance routine, and a "storyline" format probably worked better, although the idea of using the music as a "soundtrack" in the back of independent action on the screen is again very distracting. Still one of her best, though. OK, "Hounds of Love" totally bit the dust in my eyes, although I really have to watch it a few more times to look out for all the little things Doug Alan told me about. Basically, the propulsive rhythm of the song totally clashed with the visual images. I'm not sure how much I can really pick out what I didn't like about it... I guess I just didn't like it as much. Finally, with "the Big Sky," I saw somewhat of an improvement, but was put off by the ultra MTV fast-cutting manic action of it all. Once again, I probably have to see it a few more times to absorb all the visual layers. I think this would have been a really good video for mixing live action with animation, but I guess there wasn't time for it. On the other hand, she looks really endearingly cute and playful, and as someone else pointed out, that reynolds wrap jumpsuit she's wearing on the chimmney is to die for....it'll probably show up on Alexis in the next segment of Dynasty. Her dancing is somewhat dorky (maybe intentionally? - How easy is it to dance around on the top of a chimmney?), and those pants don't seem as baggy as they should....is she trying to cover up eating too many cadbury's bars? OK, I'll keep to artistic criticism here....Basically, I think that it's a pretty good video, but missed it's chance at being a GREAT one due to lack of time (if not neccessarily budget). It's interesting seen some really good videos being done these days that are a return to the "minimalist" (ha!) school, in which the band just performs the song. However, it takes a lot of creativity and personality to make this type of video work, and a good example of this would probably be the video of "Would I lie to You?" by Eurythmics. Oh well, let's see what comments this stirs up..... Hugh