Latest / Think Twice Show / The Morality of Pop Culture

Transcript

The Morality of Pop Culture · Think Twice Show

0:00
The Met Gala, no one is forcing these people to give them their
0:03
money. It's private, OK?
0:04
Take it away what these rich people are going to spend their
0:07
money on. Spend it directly on social
0:09
change, How about that? That would be the perfect thing.
0:10
But are they going to actually do that?
0:13
What it does is it funds cultural preservation.
0:16
This art has meaning to people. Capitalism is at a point where
0:19
it can absorb the critique of itself and re commodify it back
0:23
to us. Where does that leave us?
0:37
Welcome. Welcome to Think Twice.
0:38
This is your favourite show's favourite show.
0:41
My name is Benz. My name is Santa.
0:44
And today is another net positive or not, it's kind of
0:48
worked well for us, so we're sticking with it.
0:50
You haven't told us you hate it, so here we go.
0:54
And we're going to start off with the Met Gala.
0:57
To discuss the Met Gala is probably best I give some like,
0:59
historical context. Essentially, there is something
1:02
called the Costume Institute. The Costume Institute basically
1:05
preserves and looks after like costumes, essentially art.
1:09
It puts on exhibitions of fashion.
1:12
And the Costume Institute got moved into the Metropolitan
1:16
Museum of Art in about 1947, but it had to fund itself.
1:21
So how did it fund itself? It, it thought, OK, let's
1:24
fundraise for people that care about this, this bit of art,
1:28
these costumes. And that's how the Met Gala sort
1:31
of began in the first few years of it, like people didn't really
1:35
dress up to a theme. It was just there, they, they
1:37
give money, they support this 'cause they support, they care
1:41
about the costumes. And, and then as the years of
1:44
like sort of continued in 2015, ran a war like a particular
1:48
dress and that dress sort of changed things and people
1:52
started to care more about what people were wearing.
1:56
And as of today, that is a lot of what the conversation is
2:00
about. Yeah, as of recently, I think
2:02
it's made more than $30 million. Per event.
2:05
Per event. So it makes a lot of money for
2:07
the Costume Institute, and that is sort of a quick historical
2:12
reflection of the Met Gala. Whatever the Met Gala was
2:16
before, right now is a celebration of celebrity
2:20
culture, a display of like opulence and excess.
2:25
And for that reason, for me is a net negative.
2:27
I think we don't need that display of wealth and like that
2:31
excess. And ultimately the way I judge
2:33
these things, especially on net negative or not, is is this a
2:38
net positive for society? Is the overall impact of this
2:42
event or what the Institute of Costume, the Costume Institute
2:45
does, is it doing something to impact society in a positive
2:50
way? And this is basically just a
2:52
private fundraiser for the Costume Institute.
2:57
It's not explicitly for positive social change.
3:01
So I don't see how it can benefit us to have the Met Gala.
3:06
Now that said, I think there's one particular exception which
3:11
is a 2024 Met Gala that I will discuss in a bit more detail.
3:14
But before we get into that, I want to, I want to hear what do
3:17
you think is it net positive or net negative that?
3:20
Was a compelling argument, but I think it's a net positive.
3:24
Really. You're going to struggle, bro.
3:27
You're going to struggle to justify this one.
3:30
I thought it went backwards. I was like, why would it be a
3:32
net negative, right? Like right.
3:34
So the the display of wealth is probably like the the major
3:39
issue as to why it's in it negative, right?
3:41
Yeah, yeah. And I would say the celebration
3:43
of celebrity culture, so like the idealisation of the Rihanna
3:48
in the dress photo that that moment and elevating people to
3:53
that sort of status I think has negative impacts, of course,
3:57
particularly for young people. But what it does is it funds
4:01
cultural preservation, right? Like that's, that's basically
4:03
what that's the idea behind it. This art has meaning to people.
4:07
It don't have meaning to me, don't have meaning to you.
4:09
And but it has meaning to someone, obviously, because
4:11
they've been making a lot of money.
4:13
And I feel that cultural preservation is something I hold
4:17
in quite high regard. But you said that it doesn't
4:20
mean much to you. So like, why would you hold that
4:22
particular not that? Particular one, but like
4:24
cultural preservation. As a whole.
4:26
Yeah, because like when we discuss net positive or not,
4:28
we're not discussing like my own.
4:31
How I feel about it, it's supposed to weigh.
4:34
We're supposed to factor in everything, right?
4:35
Yeah. Of course, of course.
4:37
Exactly. And it uses the, it uses the
4:39
money to sort of support a public institution, which is the
4:42
museum. So when I like factor all of
4:47
that in, I'm like, is that a bad thing?
4:49
It's not, it's no one is forcing these people to give them their
4:52
money. The all the money is private, is
4:55
private. It's not, it's not public
4:57
funding. It goes to public funding.
5:00
It's a donation. And it's sort of like, OK, take
5:02
it away. What are these rich people going
5:04
to spend their money on? They've got plenty of things
5:07
they can spend their money on, spend directly on social change.
5:09
How about that? That would be the that would be
5:11
the perfect thing. But are they going to actually
5:13
do that? That's what I'm basically
5:15
saying. It's sort of like, well, these
5:16
rich people have this money that they want to spend and it's not
5:20
going to something like bad. I don't, I don't think it's the
5:23
best use of the money, but I never mind to tell someone else
5:25
how to spend their money. And that's why I think it has to
5:28
kind of, you know, really like I, I was going back and forth
5:31
back and forth like, is this a net positive or not?
5:34
Because it, because really truly, it's not for the
5:36
betterment of society. Society isn't better as a result
5:38
of it, but it's to call it a net negative.
5:41
Just it didn't feel right to me because it's private people
5:45
giving their money to A cause to help preserve art.
5:50
Do you know specifically how they preserve art?
5:52
Like what are they actually doing with that money?
5:54
Do you know? Because like, the materials
5:55
degrades because it's like wearable costumes, right?
5:58
The costumes that the celebs wear, no.
5:59
No, no, it's not the costumes that the celebs wear.
6:01
It's like there's like, it's not simply just that, it's like
6:04
there's other. They basically put on
6:06
exhibitions of art from pre, like many generations ago till
6:12
today. And it's supposed to like
6:15
intersect with identity, history, politics and you
6:19
basically create art around that.
6:21
And they basically have to preserve that, and it costs
6:23
money to do that. 30 Ms a year. This is way too much money.
6:27
You know what I mean? That's a lot of cash.
6:28
That's a lot of. Money.
6:30
And I think going back to that question you asked about like
6:32
what would this, what would these people spend their money
6:34
on? And I think to be clear, I think
6:37
it's also companies as well that donate to the Met Gala in, in.
6:43
It's not just like private rich individuals.
6:46
I think it's also a company, yeah.
6:47
In 1999 they started. So before 1999, it was sort of
6:52
a, it was a individual sort of thing.
6:55
And in 1999 came and Anna Wintour took over.
6:58
Well, she didn't take over them, but that's the first time that
7:00
she started the sponsorships. OK, So like companies could buy
7:03
a table? Yeah, and these tables are going
7:06
for like 400 K 300K today. Which is.
7:10
Stupid amount of money. It's always been like a sort of
7:14
elitist function. Before it was just for like
7:18
social acts, right? Like New York social acts.
7:21
And they come along and they pay this money and they're involved
7:24
in this sort of society, this community, whilst like now it's
7:29
a bit more corporate. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
7:32
But I think, I think going back to what you, you were saying
7:34
about this money, this 30 million, what, what can we do
7:37
with the 30 million if then, if they weren't going to spend it
7:40
there in a realistic sense. Last year there was a Tik toker
7:46
called Haley Khalil, right? She goes to the Met Gala.
7:51
She dresses up as Marie Antoinette.
7:53
That's her costume. For a bit of context, Marie
7:55
Antoinette was the last queen of France, right?
7:58
She spent loads of money, like I think it was in today's money,
8:03
it'd be like £3,000,000 on clothes.
8:05
And around the time that she was queen, there was starvation in
8:08
France, right? This was like the precursor to
8:11
the French Revolution. So the people are are upset.
8:14
They want political change and they're starving.
8:17
They don't have bread. She's told that the French
8:19
people are starving. They don't have bread.
8:21
And she very famously says let them eat cake.
8:24
And that sort of story, whenever she actually said that or not,
8:28
is very debatable. But it showed that story was
8:31
meant to highlight the disconnect that the French
8:33
monarchy had with the people, but not only the disconnect, but
8:36
the disdain that the ruling class had for working class
8:40
people and peasantry. That story encapsulated the sort
8:43
of inequality and like the divide between the haves and the
8:47
have nots. Now going back to Met Gala 2024,
8:51
Hayley Khalil, she's dressed up as Marie Antoinette.
8:54
She does a dance and a TikTok sound and she says let them eat
8:58
cake right into the camera and she posts it on TikTok.
9:01
Now that caused a massive backlash, right it?
9:06
Wasn't that satire? Or like, it wasn't satire.
9:08
It was like she was doing, she was flexing.
9:11
Oh, she was flexing as Marie Antoinette, playing the part of
9:15
Marie Antoinette and saying let them eat, you know?
9:17
You know, I thought that story was going like, in a way that
9:22
she was like symbolising how wrong this thing is.
9:26
I thought. I thought you no.
9:27
No, no, it was literally just, it was straight down the bar of
9:32
the camera. Let them eat cake.
9:33
And people just thought like, violated, like you're laughing
9:36
in our faces. Do you know what I mean?
9:38
Basically, there was a bit of a like digital revolution that
9:41
started off with that. That was the trigger.
9:43
But a lot of people sort of were trying to divest from celebrity
9:47
culture as as a as a result of like, and rightly so.
9:50
Yeah, rightly so. A lot of people described it as
9:53
The Hunger Games, and it resulted in something called
9:55
Blackout 2024. You might have remembered it
9:57
when loads of people would block and unfollow all of the
10:00
celebrities that they felt weren't voicing the political
10:04
opinion that they they felt that the celebrity should have
10:08
because they've got massive platforms.
10:10
You had the Met Gala and while you're saying let them eat cake
10:13
down the barrel of the camera, people are dying in Palestine,
10:16
like, and a lot of people wanted them to donate money to the
10:21
cause in Palestine. So part of that 2020, the the
10:25
blackout, 2024 was trying to get celebrities to do the thing that
10:29
people felt that they needed to. So I guess my point is that
10:35
through that sort of, you know, action, it's a micro action,
10:38
It's not, it's not much, but you can get the celebrities and the
10:42
companies and the people at the Met Gala to highlight the
10:45
problems that you feel are important.
10:47
You can direct that that money to the Gaza Relief Fund.
10:52
Do you know what I'm trying to say?
10:53
And people did actually do that. As a result, celebrities came
10:56
out, they apologised. They're like, I'm so sorry
10:59
because they're looking at their comments, they're looking at
11:01
their follow up accounts go down.
11:03
And yes, Blackout 2024 didn't change the world.
11:06
And the place that we're at right now is not much different
11:10
from where we were in 2024. But in today's Met Gala 2025,
11:14
we're definitely going to have a bit more of a political slant,
11:16
like the way that celebrities are going to conduct themselves
11:19
at the Met Gala. This year is definitely going to
11:21
be different as a result of what happened last year, so I think
11:26
it's fine for the people to voice their concern and try to
11:29
adapt the behaviour of that 30 million, try and get it to point
11:33
it to to the things that they care about.
11:37
You can get the money in the right places.
11:41
It's tough though. Like right?
11:42
I know it's tough, I know it's tough and it.
11:44
Well, just because like, it was set up for something.
11:49
But the Met Gala has always been a place for, like, performative
11:52
political action. There was a year that AOC turned
11:55
up to the Met Gala. She had on a white dress and
11:57
across the white dress, it said eat the rich.
12:00
You might remember that. I think so.
12:02
Yeah, I think caused a massive stir because like some people
12:05
were like, oh, like AOC, like she's for the people and other
12:09
people are like. Well, you're there.
12:11
Yeah, you're at the Medgar, you're with the rich people,
12:13
like you're kind of rich yourself.
12:15
So like it's always been a place for some sort of performative
12:18
political action. I guess the question is do we
12:21
want the them to to do that performance and potentially not
12:25
actually do the thing of activism or do we or do we want
12:31
them to just like if you're not going to be about it, then don't
12:34
talk about it because I think they should perform.
12:37
They don't think the performance.
12:39
Yeah, they should. They might as well they should.
12:40
At least perform. Yeah, yeah, at the very.
12:42
Least perform. You know what I mean?
12:44
And I think, I think if we can get the money directed as well,
12:47
if they can do actual things on top of that, that's, that's
12:50
great. But you can't get the money
12:51
directed. This is what I mean.
12:53
Like I don't, I don't get to that point because like the
12:57
purpose of the Met Gala is to fundraise or a Costume
13:02
Institute. That is the that is the problem.
13:05
I get that, and I'm not saying that it's the Met Gala's fault,
13:08
but I'm saying the fund, the people who actually donate to
13:10
the Met Gala can donate to other things.
13:13
That's right. Yeah.
13:14
It's not the Met Gala's fault necessarily.
13:16
Yeah. OK.
13:16
Because they they, you know, that's their event.
13:17
Like what? I think that's.
13:19
What they think is a need, you know.
13:21
What I mean, I also think there's an additional question
13:23
as to what the Costume Institute can can do for social change
13:27
outside of fashion, right? And within fashion, like can
13:32
they help change some of the exploitative practises within
13:36
fashion because that's their realm of expertise, you know
13:39
what I mean? But also the people were
13:43
donating the money like surely and, and some celebs did they
13:48
posted like fundraisers for like causes that they felt they
13:50
needed to after the fact. But I.
13:54
Just don't know. I actually it's like, OK, that
13:58
is 1 issue that you're solving that I don't really get, but you
14:02
it's important to you man, Solve, you know, like solve
14:07
another issue elsewhere. Do you get what I mean?
14:09
Like I just don't know about the convergence of loads of
14:13
different issues coming to this place.
14:14
Like that's that issue being solved there.
14:17
Take initiative and solve another issue.
14:18
Like what? Do you mean are you talking
14:20
about who you talking about there Met Gala or?
14:22
Well, because you're talking about the people, right?
14:24
The people that donate this money like.
14:27
And I guess the celebrities as well.
14:29
Yeah. And I'm sort of like in a sense
14:32
someone has to create something else in which funds another
14:37
problem. Do you know what I mean?
14:38
Like. Yeah, I hear it.
14:39
I hear it. Obviously there's a there's
14:40
another side to Black Out 2024, which is the celebrities, right?
14:45
People looked at those celebrities and they're like, we
14:49
made you famous. Like especially someone like
14:51
Hayley Khalil who like came up on TikTok.
14:54
I think people looked at that and they were like, you're using
14:56
this platform for bullshit. Like you're using this platform
14:59
to shit back on us. And I'm not having that,
15:03
especially when we're talking about the, you know, the
15:05
historical context of Marie Antoinette.
15:07
And I think I think in that sense, like that event and the
15:10
backlash to that event, I think for a lot of people, especially
15:13
like white America, it was probably the first time they
15:16
were like, I'm actually going to try to do something about this.
15:19
And I think obviously prior to that, a lot of people, there's a
15:22
lot of activism online. There's a lot of people that
15:24
were trying to protest against some brands and companies that
15:29
supported the genocide in Palestine, right?
15:33
But I think white millennial America for the first time
15:38
looked at their screens and they were like, they were violating
15:40
us in a way that I don't think they did prior to that, that
15:43
moment. And I think in that sense, Met
15:45
Gala 2024 was a net positive. Like accidentally in their
15:51
positive, yeah. They didn't mean for it to
15:53
happen like that. But honestly, I felt like what
15:56
happened after that, it was like people were like, oh, I can
15:59
actually do shit. Like and now again of of, you
16:04
know, 1 celebrity's 30 million followers, if she lost like 300
16:07
K 1%, it's like, yeah, it doesn't really matter to them.
16:12
But there were certain celebrities that came out and
16:15
apologised and were like, I haven't been politically active.
16:18
I think the famous 1 was Lizzo. Lizzo came out and said sorry
16:22
guys. Like it's been a really like
16:23
dark time for me, which is why I haven't been politically active.
16:27
Everyone was like, shut up. But I feel like celebrities felt
16:33
it a little bit. Do you know what I mean?
16:34
And I and I think that was a generally a good thing for the
16:37
Internet, even if it didn't really do much because who
16:40
knows, like a few years down the line, like instead of blocking
16:44
people, people might hit the streets.
16:47
You know, it's a progression. You hit the streets that don't
16:49
work and there's escalations past that.
16:51
Point that happens, man, the internet's not a real place.
16:53
Rough. That's very real.
16:56
That's enough. You read the comments.
16:57
No, that's. Not a real place.
16:58
No, it's a real place. Not a real place.
17:01
Guys, you read the comments all. Right, cool, cool, cool.
17:12
On to the second one. Net positive or not.
17:14
And this is the Cannes Film Festival, which was founded in
17:19
1946. I'm sure, like in the title,
17:24
it's kind of obvious what it is. It's a Film Festival, but it's
17:27
sort of different. It's sort of goes against
17:30
Hollywood norms and sort of champions interesting
17:35
storytelling and political ideas.
17:38
But it does have a diversity problem.
17:42
Only two black women have ever had films in a competition.
17:45
And in regards to women, in 2018, it was only 9%.
17:49
But in 2020 three, it was at its highest of 33%.
17:55
So you know, that's some change not for. 33% of films celebrated
18:00
were like, produced by women, yeah.
18:03
Were made by women but there was no black film makers in 2024,
18:09
which is tight, but it has given us classics like Fahrenheit
18:12
9/11, Pulp Fiction, The Pianist. So theft.
18:19
Is the Cannes Film Festival a net positive or not?
18:24
You know, just based off what you said about 2024 and the
18:27
amount of black produced in 2024, it's a net negative.
18:32
I ain't having that. That's.
18:35
Awful. I was kind of on the fence going
18:37
into this, but that that's. It we'll pull back the curtain
18:40
before the episode, tell us like, I'm not sure what I'm
18:42
going to say it was. Like it's come to.
18:43
Me though, and I probably said that and it was like, OK, it's
18:46
come to me. Yeah, I just think something
18:50
like film or a Film Festival, the extent to which like I'm,
18:55
I'm going to think is a positive or not is the extent to which it
18:58
can highlight marginalised stories.
19:01
Can it highlight the, the, you know, the stories of people that
19:04
aren't going to get recognition in mainstream like media and who
19:10
aren't going to necessarily get massive audiences just because
19:13
of the way, you know, the capitalism around media works?
19:17
If you're a marginalised producer and you're doing a
19:19
marginalised story, it's just difficult to get mass appeal.
19:22
The diversity problem is kind of Trump's all other problems.
19:27
I do appreciate though, that Cannes Film Festival does do a
19:30
little bit to like they, they try, they try.
19:33
It's not like they're they're completely exclusionary.
19:35
So the part of me always feels that it's always tough because
19:38
when when we talk about these sort of issues, I'm always like,
19:43
is this an arm of a larger system or is the arm infected as
19:48
well? Does that make sense?
19:49
Like is this the fault of capitalism or is it the fault of
19:56
the Cannes Film Festival? And it seems like it's more the
20:00
fault of capitalism and white supremacy, whilst like Cannes
20:06
Film Festival trying to affect that.
20:09
That's what it feels like to me. Yeah, yeah.
20:12
But when we're sitting here discussing it, there has to be
20:15
an appreciation that if they exist within that system and
20:22
they benefit from existing within that system as an arm of
20:25
that system, they still have to bear responsibility.
20:29
It's not just that capitalism's at fault.
20:31
And we can we can say the Cannes Film Festival don't have
20:35
responsibility because they're just operating within this one
20:37
they have. Responsibility.
20:38
But that's why I think they're trying to do what they do to
20:42
attack that. Do you get what I mean?
20:43
Like understanding that they have that responsibility and
20:47
then producing films like Fahrenheit 9/11 for example,
20:50
which is like. A did they produce that or are
20:53
you saying oh? Sorry, not produced.
20:55
Celebrated. OK, Yeah, cool.
20:57
And I think that won like the highest award there.
20:58
And it's, it might be the only documentary to actually do that,
21:01
but that is the idea that's they're so politically charged
21:05
and it's supposed to be against Hollywood's norms and against
21:08
what Hollywood sort of stands for with like the formulaic
21:11
structure. And it's supposed to push art,
21:13
push boundaries. I feel like it's doing the right
21:17
thing, which for me then makes it a net positive.
21:20
Obviously it has issues, but like for example the women, it
21:24
was 9% in 2018 and now it's 33% in 2024.
21:28
Like sorry, 2023 it was 29% of 23.
21:32
That's a pretty significant drop.
21:33
Around that time was the Me Too movement, right?
21:35
So like what happens in this sort of society that we live in,
21:40
this capitalistic, white supremacist patriarchy, right?
21:43
You don't realise that you are a benefit of it until it's kind of
21:48
too late. And then in around 2018 people
21:52
realised they were benefiting from patriarchy in a way they
21:55
probably didn't realise, and white men in particular.
22:00
And then as a result has changed that and try to to improve.
22:05
That I, I see what you're pointing at, like is that
22:07
increase as a result of Me Too? Or is it?
22:11
Can we give Cannes some credit for adapting their the way they
22:16
operate in response to Me too. Once they know something to be
22:20
true, they they make a change, if you understand what I mean.
22:23
And as a result for me, obviously, like if you haven't
22:26
clogged it, it's a net positive. Is there a part of you?
22:30
Is there a cynic within you, though?
22:32
That's like can have just cynically responded to me too
22:36
because they've been forced to. It's like they knew what they
22:40
were doing beforehand, they got nabbed and now they're just
22:43
correcting it. Is there not part of you that
22:46
thinks that's a possibility too? Didn't really consider that.
22:51
I think that's probably that is. A that is a yeah, that is a
22:54
that's a fair argument. Like we don't know, but that is
22:56
a fair argument. But then I also always argue
23:00
like, well, the benefits still happening, isn't it like, yeah,
23:04
you know what I mean? It's like Clack, whether whether
23:06
they got nabbed or not, like, well, women are now benefiting
23:10
from it, so that's a good. Thing yes, yes, that's that's
23:13
that's a completely fair all. Right.
23:14
Cool. Thank you for joining us.
23:17
See you soon. Take care.
23:18
See you later. Watch out.
23:31
I think I've got the 160 in the middle.
23:33
OK, 44, we'll see if they're still recording, all right?
23:39
Cool. Happy days.
23:42
It's funny that you spoke about the, the capitalist critique as
23:45
well. So, and this is slightly away
23:46
from Cannes specifically, but this is towards like media and
23:49
in, in general. I wanted to, to, to talk about
23:52
this like this critique of capitalism being sort of muted
23:55
or like the potency of it being reduced when it's actually being
23:59
shown to you via capitalism, if that makes sense.
24:02
So if you remember in Severance, right, the guys are kind of
24:07
rebelling against Lumen, right? Lumen is the man, the capitalist
24:10
structure. Like that's the symbol and the
24:13
employees are kind of rebelling against Lumen.
24:15
Lumen is in my sense, like the symbol for capitalism.
24:19
The the four guys, they rebel. They finally, you know, you
24:23
know, that switch where they get to come out of their confine and
24:28
go to the real world. And they kind of complete that
24:31
rebellion in in season 1, spoiler alert.
24:35
And in season 2, Lumen sits them all down in a room and shows
24:39
them a video of their own rebellion against Lumen, right.
24:45
And in showing them the rebellion and kind of
24:49
celebrating their own rebellion, I actually think Severance is
24:52
trying to say this is how capitalism can absorb critiques
24:56
of itself and commercialise that critique of itself within
25:01
capitalism. So going back to what we're
25:04
talking about in Black Mirror episode one, that episode is
25:10
being shown to us by a capitalist platform for profit.
25:15
Do you get what I'm trying to say?
25:16
Capitalism is at a point where it can absorb the critique of
25:19
itself and re commodify it back to us and sell it back to us.
25:22
So we get to feel like in some sense we are enjoying a
25:27
critique, but the capitalists still win.
25:30
But I'm not. You know, I'm not hugely against
25:32
capitalism like I'm more against say, unregulated capitalism,
25:38
like capitalism as like a sort of economic structure.
25:43
I don't think it's terrible. Like I, I actually don't.
25:46
Yeah, yeah. But you, you've agreed with me
25:48
in the past that we are a point where capitalism is on, like
25:52
we're seeing the, the, the after effects of unregulated
25:55
capitalism. Yeah, exactly.
25:56
Yeah, right. So we're both in the same place
25:58
that we both are in a position where we want to critique it.
26:01
Yeah, but if the critiques themselves are being absorbed,
26:07
re commodified and sold back to us, where does that leave us?
26:10
Now? It's worth saying that in.
26:12
So you're essentially saying, let me, let me be very clear
26:14
here, You're saying the shows are exhibiting critiques of
26:22
capitalism and they're turning it into a show for us to watch.
26:26
Correct. And, and that that means that
26:29
you actually can't rebel against capitalism.
26:32
There are there are academics that say this is actually a sign
26:36
that we will never actually leave the grips of capitalism.
26:39
I wouldn't go that far, but it definitely makes it a lot more
26:42
difficult. And now if we go back to the
26:44
Severance example, it's kind of like a critique of capitalism
26:49
that is embedded within another critique of capitalism because
26:52
it, yes, it's critique in capitalism.
26:54
But what it also shows is that whenever capitalism commodifies
27:01
critique and sells it back to us, it takes away the part of
27:04
the critique that actually made the difference.
27:07
So the guys, they sit in the the the room and they get to see
27:11
their own revolution like shown back to them.
27:16
That's what they're doing technically is what we are doing
27:18
when we watch Netflix to get my point then.
27:21
Yeah. But what happens is PT, the guy
27:25
who actually died for the revolution, and the Doctor Who
27:29
killed the brother, right? She employed genuine violence to
27:33
help that revolution. Those two people are very
27:37
suspiciously missing from the actual revolution.
27:39
Those two people started the revolution, right?
27:42
Without them, it doesn't happen. And that's why we're like us
27:45
watching the critique is kind of problematic because what we see
27:50
and enjoy is a bastardised form of the revolution.
27:55
And if we use that critique to move in the real world, we might
28:01
never get this done. We might never change
28:04
capitalism. We might never escape from the
28:06
grips of excessive capitalism. Nah, obviously you just dropped
28:13
a bomb on me. Now there's one part ever.
28:17
So I don't like you. But do you see like how the if
28:23
if it wasn't for the doctor and severance or PE PE started this
28:26
whole shit PE like coming out and and trying to contact Mark
28:31
is the reason why severance starts as a concept, right?
28:35
If the doctor doesn't kill that brother and he goes back, Mark's
28:40
done. If she doesn't give him the key
28:43
off the security guy, I forgot his name and puts it in Mark's
28:47
pocket and tells him how to navigate within the Lumen
28:50
building, none of this happens. But they don't get shown in the
28:53
film. They can't, because the violence
28:57
of the revolution would then be highlighted, which is the actual
29:00
problem for Lumen. Do you not think that that
29:03
speaks, that says something about where we are today?
29:07
No, I'm always, I'm always cautious to say like 1 show has
29:15
that much of an impact, if you know what I mean.
29:16
Sure, sure, sure. I just think it's highlighting
29:18
something that is in real life, in happening in real life,
29:20
whether it's severance or like. But how is it happening in real
29:24
life? Well watching critiques of
29:27
capitalism on Netflix. Well, enjoying Netflix
29:30
recreations of. Capitalism, you must understand
29:33
that, like, not everyone sees it like that.
29:35
Some people just see it as like, oh, going to work.
29:40
I could be like a different person.
29:41
That is genuinely how some people see the show.
29:44
Or which one? Severance or severance No.
29:50
And and and the. Yeah, I guess so.
29:52
But do you know? What I mean and, and the
29:53
dynamics of that, that's how some people watch the show.
29:56
They don't watch it as like a critique of capitalism.
30:00
It's got to be some sort of critique of the workplace at a
30:03
minimum for some people, right? Yeah.
30:05
This idea that you need to separate yourself, you know what
30:07
I mean? You're a different person at at
30:09
work. Yeah.
30:12
But like, I can't, I can't help them.
30:13
People like I'm talking about, I guess, my own perspective, yeah.
30:24
It's it's really interesting, but I just, I think if anything
30:29
it like it could, it could spark something in people as.
30:36
Well. Like particularly the Black
30:39
Mirror episode. Yeah, I feel like that could
30:41
like Severance is a little bit more complex.
30:44
Yeah, it's a bit more complex than nuanced.
30:46
Yeah. And layered.
30:47
Exactly, whilst whilst that Black Mirror episode can like
30:50
sparks out in people. Yeah, 45 minutes like you can,
30:53
it's, it's definitely digestible.
30:56
But I, I, I worry that we're just sitting there enjoying
31:00
capitalist critique and we feel like when we might, we might be
31:03
doing something when it's actually the opposite.
31:07
The, the, the thirst for like capitalist critique is quenched.
31:11
So you go to sleep thinking you've done something or you at
31:14
least had a revolutionary thought, right?
31:18
But actually that energy. But do.
31:19
You think it does take multiple thoughts to get there?
31:22
Yeah, and you and you recognise it's.
31:24
A period of time. Like it's at least helping along
31:27
the way. That's how I kind of saw it
31:29
because I I do think it takes a while to slightly get there and
31:32
connect all the dots before you're like, we need a
31:35
revolution. That's fair, That's fair.