Green Day- Wake me up when September ends video.

[Jen]

This was premiered on Channel 4, last night I believe and is now doing the rounds on the various MTV channels. You can see when its on from sky digital listings- it clocks in at 7 minutes.
The pieces from the band themselves are pretty simple performance shots on seperate circular stages, but the main focus of the video is the storyline. They've got Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) and Evan Rachel Wood (Thirteen) both of whom are looking rather grown up taking on speaking roles, as a young couple madly in love who's relationship seems to fall apart when he goes off to fight in the war.
It's a pretty huge video, and the two young actors nail their young loved up and then in turn angry and full of despair characters perfectly, with Jamie giving a rather nice american accent.
Basically its a damm good video to a damm good song, and its nice that they still managed a nod towards their feelings on the war. So well done Green Day.

[sophiefrombloke]

Too little, too late. I think anti-war sentiment is great. However, when it's used by a group to show how anti-establishment and punk they are, to no actual benefit to the people who have truly suffered from the Iraq war, then it's just sickening.

EDIT: Having actually seen the video...wow. I really have little respect for everyone involved in it:

[/list][/li][li]Billy Joe's teeth. Who really wants to see them?
[/li][li]About 1 clip of actual Iraqi people (women and children of course)
[/li][li]The song not actually being very good at all.
[/li][li]Not accepting the fact that they need a second guitarist.
[/list]

All in all, a stupid amount of money has been spunked away on creating a self-aggrandising video that has little use. The American public made their decision back in November. Very tasteless in my opinion.

[gabbygoo]

I haven't seent he video yet but love the song. I forecast a number one

[Jen]

Ok, what? It's not supposed to be about the war, its supposed to be about a girl who's boyfriend told her he'd never leave, and then buggered off to war. It's their love story thats the focus. The banh have already made their feelings clear on the war and Bush with "American Idiot".
And anyway, so what if the majority made their feelings clear in November, that doesn't mean that the people who disagreed have to completely change their feelings now.
I'm incredulous that you could find this video sickening.

[sophiefrombloke]

Jen said:

Ok, what? It's not supposed to be about the war, its supposed to be about a girl who's boyfriend told her he'd never leave, and then buggered off to war. It's their love story thats the focus.

Isn't the narrative of the video possibly an allegory for how Bush has treated his people? There's no set rules on how to interpret a music video. I must assume that it's got something largely to do with the war, with the war being the pivotal factor of it.

Jen said:

The banh have already made their feelings clear on the war and Bush with "American Idiot".
And anyway, so what if the majority made their feelings clear in November, that doesn't mean that the people who disagreed have to completely change their feelings now.
I'm incredulous that you could find this video sickening.

It wasn't actually the majority who made their opinions clear. No-one has to agree with who some people voted for. However, there's no point in making such a staunchly anti-war video at this time. I just don't see what Green Day, artistically, are trying to achieve. This will sell like hotcakes and people will love the video. I just think it's utterly insensitive. It futilises what war is.

[greyhag]

Yeah, the song is very whiney, I'd pay Billy Joe to go to elecution lessons to teach him to stop singing out of his nose. And the war bit just doesn't make sense at all, is he being forced to go, does he come back, what are they actually doing etc.

However, the love scenes, notabley the bit at the start are very well tought out, and especially Evan Rachel Wood does a sterling job. Thirteen was a kickass movie, and shes rather gorgeous.

Just seems Greenday tacked on their 'anti-bush' message needlessly onto an already fine video, diminishing the performaces of the 2 characters with overblown set-pieces.

Ho-Hum.

[Electrobix]

Jen said:

Ok, what? It's not supposed to be about the war, its supposed to be about a girl who's boyfriend told her he'd never leave, and then buggered off to war. It's their love story thats the focus. The banh have already made their feelings clear on the war and Bush with "American Idiot".
And anyway, so what if the majority made their feelings clear in November, that doesn't mean that the people who disagreed have to completely change their feelings now.
I'm incredulous that you could find this video sickening.

If a band made a video featuring analogies showing the way Thatcher basically fucked Britain up when she was Prime Minister you'd kind of think they should just get over it. No one with sense wants Bush in power but he is and no amount of arty videos that pretty much say "Grr we hate Bush" are going to change that. It's done now and there's no point in crying over it.

And I think everybody has the right to say they find a video sickening if they like. It's not anything shocking.

[Ella]

I loved the video. Ive seen it a few times now and it does seem to get better the more you see it.

Another brilliant song and video from the Green Day party!

[Jen]

Electrobix said:

It's done now and there's no point in crying over it.

I disagree, looking at the things he could do.

And I think everybody has the right to say they find a video sickening if they like.

Of course she has the right, I never said otherwise, but if she has the right to say its sickening then I have the right to say I completely disagree. It works both ways.

[Electrobix]

Jen said:

Of course she has the right, I never said otherwise,

I'm incredulous that you could find this video sickening.

You said that you couldn't believe Sophie could find the video sickening. That, to me, is implying that she is wrong for thinking that.

[gabbygoo]

Electrobix said:

You said that you couldn't believe Sophie could find the video sickening. That, to me, is implying that she is wrong for thinking that.

Of course Jen thinks Sophie is wrong for thinking that the video is sickening. That is what debate is about. You put your viewpoint across and you say you think the other person is wrong in their view point.

It isn't like Jen attacked Sophie as a person. She was just stating her view and disagreeing with Sophie

For what it is worth I agree with Jen and can not understand why Sophie thinks the video is sickening but hey we are all entitled to our views

[Steveweiser]

I saw this last night - can't see the entire video being shown on CD:UK, what with people being shot and blood spurting out and everything. I can see why they banned that Fightstar video now...

[sophiefrombloke]

gabbygoo said:

Of course Jen thinks Sophie is wrong for thinking that the video is sickening. That is what debate is about. You put your viewpoint across and you say you think the other person is wrong in their view point.

It isn't like Jen attacked Sophie as a person. She was just stating her view and disagreeing with Sophie

For what it is worth I agree with Jen and can not understand why Sophie thinks the video is sickening but hey we are all entitled to our views

So if my thoughts are wrong that means I'm not allowed to think what I want to. Which means I'm not allowed any thought. Right?

[Jen]

Sophie said:

So if my thoughts are wrong that means I'm not allowed to think what I want to. Which means I'm not allowed any thought. Right?

Somebody's missed the point. Me thinking you are wrong, or rather disagreeing with you doesn't mean you aren't allowed thoughts or opinions! For goodness sake. It just mean I don't agree with you.
Can we just talk about the video now and draw a line under this? There is nothing more tedious then arguing about arguing. Except maybe text speak.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sophiefrombloke]

Jen said:

Somebody's missed the point. Me thinking you are wrong, or rather disagreeing with you doesn't mean you aren't allowed thoughts or opinions! For goodness sake. It just mean I don't agree with you.
Can we just talk about the video now and draw a line under this? There is nothing more tedious then arguing about arguing. Except maybe text speak.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Urm, nay. You said that you were 'incredulous' that I could find the video sickening. Please do not make assumptions about me. You are probably aware that I am politcally liberal, however, do not jump to the conclusion that I'll like a piece of shit video like this. It's disgustingly self-righteous (the video, that is).

[gabbygoo]

Sophie said:

So if my thoughts are wrong that means I'm not allowed to think what I want to. Which means I'm not allowed any thought. Right?

With reasoning like that I would suggest you stop thinking

[Electrobix]

gabbygoo said:

Of course Jen thinks Sophie is wrong for thinking that the video is sickening. That is what debate is about. You put your viewpoint across and you say you think the other person is wrong in their view point.

It isn't like Jen attacked Sophie as a person. She was just stating her view and disagreeing with Sophie

But that's not what I was protesting about. My point was that implying that someone's opinion is wrong - 'I am incredulous that you find this video sickening' - is not debate.

Arguing about arguing is tedious, yes, but that too is part of debate. What is more annoying is saying someone is entitled to their views but simultaneously insinuating that their opinion is wrong or inferior.

[Jen]

Sophie said:

Urm, nay. You said that you were 'incredulous' that I could find the video sickening. Please do not make assumptions about me.

For crying out loud. You said, earlier in this thread that you found the video sickening. How am I assuming anything when you said it?

You are probably aware that I am politcally liberal, however, do not jump to the conclusion that I'll like a piece of shit video like this.

Where did I say or even insinuate this? Oh, what do you know, I didn't.

[Jen]

Electrobix said:

But that's not what I was protesting about. My point was that implying that someone's opinion is wrong is not debate.

Of course it is! How else are you going to debate if you don't have different opinions?

Arguing about arguing is tedious, yes, but that too is part of debate

Which is nice, but being as we aren't even talking about the video anymore and this is pretty much a closed conversation, then its against the rules.

. What is more annoying is saying someone is entitled to their views but simultaneously insinuating that their opinion is wrong or inferior.

I never said, or insinuated inferior- disagreeing with an opinion and thinking someones opinion is inferior are two very different things.
Of course she is entitled to her views- as I've said before- but I am also entilted to say I think they are wrong, and put mine across.

[marknyc]

oh, for chrissake