posted
Today I stumbled upon this on Metafilter. Watch the video, or just look at the list of charities. The basic gist of it is, Sarah McLachlan made a standard $150,000 music video, but instead of spending the money on an expensive production, she had friends produce a very modest video for $15 which shows where the rest of the money went: worthy charities to improve living conditions for some of the world's poorest people. I thought it was a commendable gesture, and a powerful statement on the nature of global economic inequalities. I thought that regardless of one's political affiliation, this is a good deed. Then I read this post by someone calling himself Faze:
quote:So now that this little prostitute has enough money for herself, she wants to take livings away from the production assistants, make-up people, camera people, caterers, maintenance people, directors, lighting people, electricians, set dressers and their families, whose living depends on the creation of music videos and their like. She wants to kill economic activity in the business that has given her a good living, and give the money to her designated poor -- creating a whole new class of poor people in the process. It would be one thing if she said, "I'm giving up my car, my house, my expensive clothes and career to give all my personal money above mere survival expenses to the poor." But noo-o-o. She's saying, "I think all music stars should make $15 videos, and sacrifice YOUR job to give money to the poor." What a drip.
I figured he would later apologise, but then:
quote:The money that is spent making those three-minute videos doesn't go into the toilet. It goes into the lives of the people who write, produce, show, sell and sweep up after the making of those videos. It goes to pay for the food and education of children who are just as cute and deserving as the third world kids in the video. It goes to the lives and families of all the people who do business with the people who make music videos. Its called an ECONOMY, and it gives people jobs, and extra money, and enough of a feeling of security and well-being that they will give some of their surplus income to Oxfam or another charitable organization. To call for the destruction of an industry that employs lots of non-glamourous people (and lots of UNION people), so that this little chippie can pretend to be Mother Theresa, is arrogant, self-righteous and immoral.
Apparently I was wrong. It appears there are by all accounts literate people who can actually believe that this was an evil act. I have a very hard time understanding this.
I know not everyone will know that in purchasing power parity, 150 grand will go much further in the world poorest countries than in Hollywood, even buying the same goods; however, I would think everyone would at least intuitively understand that the money goes a great deal further when given to those who have literally nothing than when it goes into the Hollywood entertainment industry. Regardless of what one thinks of this industry, I can't see this as anything short of a decent, considerate act.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess is she didn't force them. The video does have a kind of homemade feel, and I'm guessing there are people out there with cameras and video editing software who have a charitable streak. Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sheesh...Sarah McLachlan wasn't actually advocating that everyone stop making music videos, was she? She wasn't saying that this is the only type of video she's going to make from now on, is she? I rather doubt it. One video made or not made by one artist isn't going to make or break the careers of all those people who work in the industry. Literate or not, this guy's still a moron.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: She's saying, "I think all music stars should make $15 videos, and sacrifice YOUR job to give money to the poor."
I guess my question is, is she saying this? Is this a one-time thing she's doing, or is she saying she's never going to make a "standard" video again and she's encouraging other artists to do the same.
If that is the case, s/he has some valid points, although he still phrases them in an extrememly rude way. If everyone stopped making videos all the time, a lot of people would be out of work, and investing the money in wages does, in the long run, create more wealth. (Although some charitable organizations follow this principle in how they distribute their donations, too.)
But if this is a one-time thing, and her "friends" who are helping her are industry people who are donanting their time and talents as well, then s/he ain't got nothing. And either way, s/he could have phrased it a lot better. And at least given McLachlan some credit for the intention, even if s/he doesn't agree with how she executed it.
Edit: I started typing this before everyone else said the same thing, really I did. I just use too many words
posted
*sigh* It's already been said. She's not dismantling the whole entire music industry. She's doing her part. What is this Faze person doing? Griping about it. Some people are never satisfied, so what can you do?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with what you people are saying about her intentions, but you are also missing my point about marginal utility. Even if this set a new trend, and artists began doing this en masse, yes, some people in the entertainment industry would lose their jobs, but that would be more than offset by the massive increase in the strength of the economies which recieved the charitable donations. This is because the wealth is not being destroyed when it is given away. It is an investment in infrastructure and workforce. The homeless, starving, sick and uneducated are not productive. Consider how much farther this money goes when dedicated to the aims of ameliorating these ills. Firstly, in PPP terms, the money is worth more in Africa than in Hollywood, secondly, it has a more substantive effect on the respective economy. In the case of the former, it can actually create one where none was possible before. A transformation from sub-subsistence to productive economy with healthy, well fed, housed and educated workers will generate wealth, and return the investment. It's Pareto efficent people!
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chaeron, you're assuming that the money actually reaches the people it is intended to reach. If it is being siphoned off by the organization, or by powerful people in the country it's going to, then it will matter very little in the long run, for the same reasons it will matter little in Hollywood.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
