Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:59 PM
cthulu2016 (10,960 posts)
If it was "Romney Style" folks would get it
The video for Gangnam Style is one of the funniest pieces of social commentary to come down the pike in years.
On the off chance anyone doesn't know, Gangnam is the Beverly Hills of South Korea. And an intentionally absurd dance where you dress like someone going to an Indiana prom in 1975 while riding an imaginary horse is a very, very funny thing.
And the character's anger is hilarious... wagging his finger in your face. And his sloth. And his puerile lust. His utter and absolute self-satisfied insubstantiality. And his irascible assertion of his upper-class style while sitting on the toilet... Like if Luis Bunuel were a choreographer.
If it was labeled "Monty Python's upper class twit contest—part II" it would be an easier read.
9 replies, 1189 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
If it was "Romney Style" folks would get it (Original post)
|Hong Kong Cavalier||Dec 2012||#4|
Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:17 PM
Bicoastal (12,645 posts)
9. I dunno if that's QUITE accurate.
You're right about the "Beverly Hills" of Seoul stuff, and you're right about plugging Romney in, BUT--
I wouldn't call it a socialist satire on the corruption of the ruling class, though. I think it's more akin to Weird Al's "White & Nerdy." In the music video, he's a declasse goofball attempting to be a Jay-Z-like playah.
Here's what he said in an interview:
"People who are actually from Gangnam never proclaim that they are—it's only the posers and wannabes that put on these airs and say that they are "Gangnam Style"—so this song is actually poking fun at those kinds of people who are trying so hard to be something that they're not."
There's no criticism of the wealthy going on--the sloth and lust are all part of the "wannabe" act, and as far as I can see the anger you describe doesn't really exist. Add to this the fact that Psy biographically actually IS a rich kid who made good, and I'd say it's not the stinging critique of social morays you may think it is.
But art can be interpreted anyway you like, so who am I to judge?