right in two vid rec

[kiki_miserychic]

People in fandom tend to forget that there's a person behind the anon submitted vids. They think it's an excuse for them to rude about a vid because their friend's name isn't on it.

VID REC:
Right in Two (Supernatural plus additional source footage) - I'm not seeing the vid the way that a lot of people are. I see it as a genuinely thoughtful and thought out vid.

I read it as the angels come down to earth (Castiel mainly for the vid), looking down on the human "mud monkeys" as lower beings. The news clips seem to come from human events that show the worst of human behavior, like race riots, deaths during civil unrest, riots rising from rallies, racial tension from gang rape, protests turning violent, and police shootings. Castiel takes this all in from the world that's all around him, noted by the tv. The use of the sequence of Dean's death in the 2:20s and the eye zoom makes me think the vidder is implying that it's like hell on earth.

Castiel figures that God is in heaven and has given up on the earth on the awful creation, so Castiel gives into the human nature of the vessel. Castiel and other angels become so influenced by the world around them that they seemingly participate in the reenacting out of the events, the stink of humans and earth having taught them racially modivated violence.

Concept-wise, it's like the vidder is saying that people are taught by the media to see people that are racially different as the "bad guy."

I don't know if this is the intent behind the vid or not. It's my interpretation of the vid, which I'm not going to try and say is the meaning. It's one person's opinion.

Comments

[thuviaptarth.livejournal.com]

People in fandom tend to forget that there's a person behind the anon submitted vids. They think it's an excuse for them to rude about a vid because their friend's name isn't on it.

I don't know what to say about this, because I don't know which comments you've seen that you think are rude. I guess what I can say is I think it generally makes people paranoid and honest discussion of vids harder when people make ad hominem attacks on nameless others--that is, claiming that they're criticizing a vid, or implicitly that they praise other vids--because of friendship or lack thereof rather than because of their stated aesthetic and/or political reasons.

[kiki-miserychic.livejournal.com]

I think everyone has a different view on what is and isn't rude. One person might see something as rude, while another sees it as honesty. I did not link to the comments and/or posts because I would see that as rude behavior. One that I will not engage in.

I also don't see how I'm making "ad hominem attacks on nameless others" when I've never said their thoughts are invalid. The end of my post says that my interpretation is one person's opinion. I never once say that I'm the ultimate right. In fact, I say that I don't know if that was the intent behind the vid or not. If I'm implying anything, it's that I'm not right.

I think there are people seeing lack of a named vidder as a reason to be rude because they aren't aware of the feelings behind it. I also think that people would be discussing the vid differently if there was a vidder's name attached to it.

Yes, I do think some people praise other vids because of relationship to the vidder. In this situation there is no vidder name attached, so no relationship. I'm not saying that's the only factor when discussing a vid, but it is a factor for some people. I have thought this for the last year or so. Friendships play, at least some part, in the nature of how a person feedbacks a vid.

[thuviaptarth.livejournal.com]

Saying that people are being rude about a vid because someone's name isn't attached to it is saying that the criticism people have made is invalid because of personal feeling. That's attacking the person who made the criticism, rather than arguing that the criticism is wrong or pointing out where courtesy fails.

I think everyone has a different view on what is and isn't rude.

Well, yes. That's why calling out unspecified behaviors as rude doesn't change anyone's mind about how they're going to act -- if they don't see what they're doing as rude, complaints about rude people aren't going to reach them. If you don't want to change anyone's behavior but just to express your frustration to people who already know what you're talking about, then cool. What you're doing works for that.

[kiki-miserychic.livejournal.com]

I said people are being rude about the vid because there's not a vidder name attached to the vid. The way in which some people are wording things is rude, as far as I'm concerned. I absolutely did not say their interpretations are invalid. Interpretations of vids are opinions.

People can read my statements anyway they want and it doesn't change what I meant. People can also think what I said was rude. That's their opinion. People can also think I'm attacking others for being rude when I think I'm pointing it out.

I don't see how saying people are being rude, when I think they are, is rude. I see it as making a statement of something I see. Like I said, people have their own opinions on what is rude.

If I wanted to change anyone's behavior I would have commented on those posts and/or comments saying so. I'm reccing the vid and hopefully prompting people who have not watched to the vid to watch it and form their own opinion.