Some of you may have seen references to the recent controversy over the new Everclear video for their song "Hater," which features a Jesus figure roaming the streets and smoking, beating up an old woman, and engaging in sexual activity with prostitutes (and there is more offensive material than that). I don't necessarily recommend watching the video, although it's out on the internet if you want to do so. Just be forewarned that it is extremely offensive and even contains a small amount of nudity. I thought it was worth mentioning here because of the explanation that Everclear's frontman, Art Alexakis, has given for the video.
Alexakis was interviewed on the O'Reilly Factor tonight, and a partial transcript (the website notes it is edited for "clarity") can be found here. As usual, O'Reilly does his best to prevent any sort of reasonable discussion, but some of Alexakis' comments are still enlightening. He notes that the Jesus figure is not supposed to be Jesus, but a representation of a Jesus who "made the wrong choice." The video is dedicated to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and the band's intent seems to have been to criticize the brand of Christianity they believe is exemplified by these two figures, rather than to attack Christianity as a whole (as many have assumed). The song refers to Alexakis' divorce and his own feelings of hatred which resulted from that experience. The video, however, recontextualizes the song to criticize those who use religion to justify their own hatred of other people, as Alexakis notes in another interview: "Politically, I thought it was a really cool statement (dedicated to all the people who use religious beliefs to justify their own hateful feelings)." (Note: One could argue that this does not describe Robertson and Falwell, but the band's perspective seems to be that it does)
Please note that I am not defending the video. Frankly, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. While I am sympathetic to the band's stated concerns, many of the video's images are terribly offensive. I often land on the side of artistic expression, but at the same time I don't really see much value in using art to deliberately offend, as the majority of this video seems calculated to do. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
i think i have an opinion of it, based on what i know of the band and the interview i read, however, i can not find the video? i found 'Hater' by Everclear, but it wasnt the video you mentioned?? where can we find it?
If you are looking for the video, I found it on ifilm.com
The band did indeed release the full, unedited video for posting on Ifilm. Sorry I didn't provide a link - I'm a little reluctant to add a physical link to the video, given its content.
In a world where trust wasn't an issue a video like that (if truly meant to have the symbolism they said it does) would be an awesome form of art that I could totally back. Unfortunately, we don't live in a trustworthy world. I even have troubles believing that they meant the video to be benign to Christians as a whole. So I agree. I would endorse the video if I felt I truly could back its message.
I have not seen the video, so I am relying upon Jake's description here. Based on what I'm reading, allow me to engage in a bit of deconstruction. The message of the song and the interpretation offered up by Everclear's own frontman really turns upon itself and ultimately doesn't accomplish what it intends to.
If they mean for this Jesus to be the epitomy of the kind of behavior that "right wingers" condemn, my question would be: who wouldn't, right or left, condemn the behavior of a person who beats up an old lady? Am I to understand that Everclear would promote "understanding" for those who beat up old ladies? Thus, on this level the song fails to work as a critique of right wing fundamentalist Christianity.
There seems to be a terrible irony at work here. Everclear claims they have constructed this pretend Jesus in order to make a point that those who make wrong choices should not be hated but rather shown mercy. So be it. But in the process, it would seem that they have created such a despicable character that they end up eliciting from the average viewer the very response they do not wish to see.
I'm not here to defend Robertson or Falwell. But I do wonder if Everclear is making a broader statement than they're letting on. In our pluralistic, relativistic culture, it is hard to think that they are simply reacting to extreme examples of religious hatred or bigotry. I would dare say that like many of their pluralistic contemporaries, Everclear would view as a hate-filled bigot anyone who believes that Jesus is calling people to avoid certain behavior and lifestyles while adopting others. Like they're contemporaries, Everclear sees their behavior as so ingrained with their identity that they cannot see that someone can criticize certain actions or behaviors while still loving the person who performs them.
--Scott in Cincy
I don't think Everclear was creating a character to sympathize with or endorse. Rather the opposite is true. They're trying to show the kind of "Jesus" that Falwell or Robertson represent - a kind of Jesus that is, in fact, repulsive to everyone. Or should be, at least.
i think the art's interpretation can only come from the artist, if in fact it meant what he said, then that is the face value we should have in it. i dont have a problem with it. in fact, its quite interesting.
Based on my understanding of Alexakis' comments, Cari's comment is correct - the video is supposed to present the type of Christ represented by people like Falwell and Robertson. Honestly, I'm perfectly willing to accept that Alexakis is on the level when he says the video is not meant to bash all Christians, but to argue against a specific brand of Christianity that Everclear believes to be harmful. I accept his explanation for two reasons: 1) I cannot find them right now, but I know I have seen comments by Alexakis in the past that indicated he was not necessarily hostile to Christianity; and 2) more importantly, I do not have any good reason not to do so. I think sometimes we Christians default a little too quickly to the attitude of "the world is against us." Besides, as Cari pointed out to me, if they're willing to release a video that will obviously offend so many Christians no matter what explanation they give, I'm not sure what reason they would have to lie about their intentions.
Given that I accept his explanation of the band's intent, however, I can still evaluate whether I think he was successful getting his point across. Unfortunately, I don't - I think the sheer offensiveness of the video overshadows the point he is trying to make - shock value isn't always positive, and in this case I do think they went too far, no matter their intentions. Most of the video I am not too awful bothered by, given their stated goal in producing it. However, there is a scene in which the Jesus figure pulls the Eucharist out of his pants and gives it to the prostitutes - obviously a twisting of "this is my body" - and it is a little too much for me. Such scenes move beyond constructive critique or dialogue and shock/offend simply for the sake of shocking and offending.
Justin, I think you would agree with me, but I would argue that the artist's interpretation of his art, while important, is not the only place a true interpretation of art can come from. The beauty of art and literature (and sometimes a frustration as well) is that its meaning is largely derived from what occurs between the art and its "reader," and often the author's intention is completely ignored. Roland Barthes' "Death of the Author" convincingly argues this idea in connection with literature - that the author becomes so far removed from the text that his intention for it may have no bearing on the reader's interpretation of the text. Thus there is a tension which is always present during the interpretation of any "text" (be it literature, a painting, a piece of music, a movie, etc.) between the reader's own interpretation and and the meaning the author intended for it to have.
I agree, Scott, that the band's approach is ultimately self-defeating. Your point about the straw man is well taken - I had been thinking something similar, but was unsure quite how to say it, so thanks for doing it for me. :)
I agree to some extent that Falwell and Robertson wouldn't necessarily preach that kind of Jesus, but some televangelists have been known to engage in illicit sex and other activities that they wouldn't necessarily preach from the pulpit in favor of but in partaking of these activities are, in a sense, preaching with their lives. Which is what Christians are supposed to be doing, preaching with our lives, but fail so often at. And I think that the kind of Jesus / Christian that Everclear is speaking out against is the kind that is callous to others, in whatever form that may be. I don't believe they were very successful in their attempt, but I do think it's important for us as Christians to take a good hard look at our lives and ask ourselves if we're that kind of Christian - if we're callous with others and engaging in activities that we wouldn't preach with our mouths. I think people are sick of the inconsistencies and just want honesty.
Post a Comment