One thing I found interesting is that you extended Inside's critique to a state of ubiquity rather than it being centered in strictly the Internet or digital media. In interviews, especially about his film 8th Grade, Bo talks about how he focuses so much on digital media and how it influences younger individuals. The special itself exists in that same scope, focusing almost entirely on the effect of digital media on the individuals of today (sometimes juxtaposed against real-life, like in "30"). Also, "White Woman's Instagram" never actually insults or critiques white women's Instagrams. It just points out many obvious things, but you related your response to Bo's intentions. In the end, I found your critique good. I disagree on certain points, but it was still good. The only weakness I see is that you (to my mind) conflate your response to Inside as Bo's intent, but that's my opinion. Good job, friend. Got my sub. :-)
I'm glad you enjoyed it! While I use the suggestion of intent as shorthand, I don't really care about his actual intent. The vast majority of people will never consume any external media and so I try to focus my analysis on the work itself. I don't actually ever use the word "intent" except to say "art and art movements don’t need intention." I think what you are referencing is what I'd call my "reading." To use your example I say this about WWI: "The comparison to Heaven is to poke fun at how safe, samey, and shallow these Instagram’s are but also as a reminder of how much of a lie they are." Better language would be "pokes fun" instead of "is to poke fun" but either way there's a suggestion of intent there that you are picking up on. But to me it doesn't actually matter what he intended, I am just commenting on how I perceive it, and how I believe others perceive it, and so therefore you might assume that's how I think it's intended to be perceived. But that last bit doesn't matter. This is why I don't talk about intent or response at all because you can't do it without this kind of complex and boring explanation or couching everything you say in a bunch of caveats of "this is just how I perceived it." This is all just how I perceived it. Everything I say is how I perceive it, so I just skip to the part where I say it. That being said, even if he is intending to critique the internet or digital media *only* that's not necessarily clear to the viewer and so isn't relevant to the analysis. Moreover, since it's increasingly clear that there is no clean distinction between digital culture and our culture at large I just don't buy that we can separate them so easily. This is good stuff to go over though because I totally get how it can seem like I'm making assumptions about his intent, but talking about this in the actual videos would really drag them down.
You've made good observations but seem to overlook that Bo isn't really all that vague about how he feels. He hates superficiality and hates that it's a part of him as well. He's spoken candidly about hating the fact that he craves attention as an artist. The comparison to one night in Miami isn't really fair. One night in Miami is about people coming together while sharing the complexity of their world views and how they vary. Inside is specifically about isolation. It is about being alone, inside your own head. That's it. Of course the other story, about historically revered figures no less, is going to be more inspiring. But the time Inside is reflecting is a time in which being in room with people wasn't even an option for some. He's exaggerating that isolation for impact but again, when locked in a room with only yourself to talk to what are you going to end up reflecting on?
I thought Burnham’s ‘Inside’ was absolutely brilliant. It’s no surprise that to point out shallowness, that he had to be somewhat shallow himself. However, he did it with a perfectly sublime balance of sarcasm and cynicism. I believe his self loathing was genuine. I usually hate the “tortured artist” schtick, but this was done so incredibly well that I bought into it. Yeah, it can feel obnoxious at times, but isn’t our current society equally obnoxious? And isn’t that the point he’s trying to make? Opinions will vary, but I feel that history will remember ’Inside’ as one of the most consequential pieces of art of this decade.
I hope how conflicted I was came through in the video, because I agree with you. I just thought something was missing, and I think it's partly that "current society" bit. I'm not sold that our past cultures were less obnoxious. But I do think it was brilliant.
I feel like the only reason that the tortured artist idea works is he is blaming no one but himself for it. He is not blaming his mental health, he says that that is the premise of the special. He doesn't blame the government or anyone else. It is a goal and self imposed torture in the universe of the special.
@@PlaysTheThing I agree with your point about “current society”. There’s a level of privilege in his outlook there that just drives me insane. The fact that he would ever claim that anything about the modern day is WORSE than the time before it really makes it clear that he doesn’t care to think outside of the perspective of a hetero white dude with a big pile of money. Social media might be mentally harmful, but its bad specifically because it records the cruelty that human beings have ALWAYS been spouting at each other. Cyberbullying, while awful, is not more harmful than real, violent, physical bullying. At least social media bans open, blatant racism and slurs. Back in the 80s it was common to hear such things with no punishment whatsoever. Ultimately, modern society has only JUST started really trying to give all human beings equal rights. To claim that any time BEFORE that could be preferable is so ignorant and privileged that I can’t believe Bo hasn’t been called out.
@@engelberthovel8566 I think that's a good explanation, I agree that the idea that the current day is worse than like the 80s or 90s is insanely privileged. However, he doesn't *actually* say that it's worse and I think that gives him a lot of cover. He only sort if implies it...maybe. This goes back to the earlier criticism again, right? I don't know what he actually thinks. Does he think its worse? That would be privileged. Parts of the special seem to imply that. But we can't be sure. Because he's laced it in so much irony.
@@PlaysTheThing I don't think he means to be sending a message of comparison. He's complaining about the negative consequences of technology within capitalist realism. He's not saying these are more negative than child labor or slavery or patriarchy or homelessness or genocide or whatever else (In fact I think he's decently aware of the influence/legacy of these facets of human 'civilization' and beautifully, hauntinly, depressingly depicts one way that they relate to his (and the average western) perspective in How the World Works). As I said in my initial comment, I think what's missing here is that y'all are getting bogged down in your efforts to decipher a more concrete message from the words themselves, rather than putting that responsibility on the expression and artistry. If we focus on that side it much easier to let go of the need for an articulatable thesis from the special. The special in its entirety IS the thesis. That it is ambiguous is the point. That it is equally ironic and sincere is the point. That it's hypocritical is the point! We can say whatever we want about the person behind the art being privileged, sure, but that privilege's influence over the art is not taken for granted. It is indeed willingly and beautifully embraced. Lastly, @engelberthovel8566, I feel by saying "to claim that any time before that could be preferable is so ignorant and privileged..." you are implying that the present (or at least at time of the release of Inside) is the best moment for humanity. I would argue there is a certain ignorance and privilege to THIS perspective, as it implies a linear trajectory for human history which flies in the face of established archaeological and anthropological evidence and betrays a certain narrow scope of humanity's problems, the very scope you are accusing Burnham of, perhaps (or maybe it's more like that image from that one movie that nobody has actually seen where the person holding a gun to the other person's head has a gun to theirs, who has a gun to theirs, etc, etc)
Here I am one year after this video came out, but hey, that's the algorithm I guess. Anyway, great analysis! Thanks for the sincerity and clarity in your own intentions. I have to wonder if you were intentionally or partially intentionally paying more attention to that for this video in particular, since it sounds like the "weaknesses" of inside for you were it's lack of these as priorities. I do think your analysis is missing something, however. It's hard to know where to begin, but my general impression is that you're spot on with every layer except for the final one which leads to your perception of weakness in the special (not that it's 'perfect'... but I wouldn't know what to label as perfect so maybe it does deserve it idk). There are, I think, a couple of tells for this. The first is juxtaposing the "beautiful artistry" of the film with it's allegedly shallow subject matter, and concluding that this does render the piece itself somewhat shallow, or perhaps just 'not as deep' as it otherwise could have been. The second is putting this special side by side with One Night in Miami. I'm sure that you could probably articulate the value of satire much more eloquently than I could, which is why I'm surprised that it went unacknowledged during this comparison. If we take your simplified definitions for modernism, post modernism, and meta modernism at face value, I'd say A Night in Miami maps best onto a modernistic category (of course it's far more complicated than this but I'm just doing this to make the point). "Sincerity and optimism" seemingly leave ZERO room for satire as a genre of storytelling. One Night in Miami is trying to be as in-your-face realistic and sincere and genuine (though not necessarily optimistic, though one could easily make that argument I think) as it possibly can be. It's aim is to take precisely this approach to its story. But this isn't to say that the approach is all a film needs in order to achieve depth, nor is it to say that lacking this approach precludes depth. I'm sure you're aware of this already, but I do see this as a blind spot in the construction of the video, and perhaps in your understanding of Inside. Though, like the people misunderstanding white woman's instagram, I don't really blame you for this blind spot. Call me charitable, but I think people having this blind spot is *foreseen* by burnham. I don't necessarily think this is the case in a conscious way. I don't think there is a clear intention that you can decipher when reading between the lines of his songs that you have failed to uncover. My point is that, just like in good satire, the sincerity shines through in the effort itself. You can *feel* the humanity in the art, the ambiguity, the "weakness". It is a feature of satire that only a fraction of the audience will understand the critique. We can struggle with this fact and debate whether or not this feature renders the genre ultimately unhelpful (or perhaps just having an ultimately disappointing cap on how deep it can be), but I do think there is a sincerity in both the tradition of this mode of storytelling and in this particular instance of it that goes underacknowledged in your video. Let's start out by assuming it's there, by prioritizing it as a meaningful, at least pseudo intentional layer of the film. From here, we have a new, rich lens through which to question the narratives presented to us. Anything from the ambiguity of a self obsessed guy incisively critiquing self obsession to the very parasocial dilemma existing within the viewer on year later as they defend the video in a youtube comment. I think Burnham's art *shows* us a true contending with these challenges. It bares itself to us in this way, and that is both a silver lining in our current times (the moments of sincerity on instagram despite its format and legacy demanding we're anything but as showcased in white woman's instagram) and a subversion of our current times. But I don't think it does this from the naive perspective that things are so different from how they used to be. I think the timelessness (and I say this fully knowing that it's only been like a year and a half lol) comes from the sincerity/beauty in the effort to understand, lash out at, be humbled by the problems of the times. We have to manifest the times we live in before we even have a chance at being relatable in the future. We have to surrender to that 'limitation' in order to have any sort of wisdom to impart. I think all of this applies to Bojack Horseman (one of my favorite shows ever), and undertale (I haven't really played nier or watched the other items but I'm sure the through line is arguable). I don't know if I'm saying that you're missing a crucial piece of the metamodernism picture or if I'm saying that meta modernism is missing a crucial piece of the human picture lol, but I'm definitely walking away from this video feeling like something is missing. The ambiguity in sincerely acknowledging adherence to a self referential approach to story telling or message sending definitely seems like a meta modernist quirk, but I think that the more important quirk, at least in much 'good' art these days, is the sincerity in the ambiguity of self referential storytelling. It's the world we're living in, and the only way to confront that is to live in it for a time yourself. I can't think of a more admirable effort in media that I've seen recently than this special. I definitely think Everything Everywhere All At Once really hits this home (though this video came out before that film did so I understand it's omission lol. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a video on that film out... first time viewer) Anyway, after saying all of this I feel compelled to clarify that I think this was a great video and my aim is respectful critique (I hope in the same spirit as your critique of Inside-- good art that you have some qualms with ;)) Thanks for reading if you made it this far!
Hey thanks for your thoughts. I was sufficiently conflicted about the special that I really don't disagree with anything you wrote. I agree that the One Night comparison is in no way fair, and that many satirical things fall victim to the same problems I claimed existed in Burnham's special. A Modest Proposal would be a good counterexample here: it's so over the top that it isn't possible to believe that it's serious, but that doesn't mean something more on the line has less value just that is more likely to be misunderstood or used out of context. From a metamodernist perspective, I think it's that metamodernism is *usually* ultimately optimistic and I'm not sure that his special *was* ultimately optimistic. But even a year later, I'm still conflicted about this.
This conflict between shallowness and and and reality is on more display in make happy the monologue before kanye rant is some of the most real and sincere thing I have ever heard then jumps in to him ranting about Pringle cans and boritoes to more of the sincerity watch make happy
I think by isolating the sketches and judging them by themself misses the point of the story arc and progression of the main character (and only character) Bo. Of course the sketches jokes and makes fun of our society today, but it's done from the perspective of the movie's protagonist Bo, through his "journey" to make a comedy special in isolation. And yes it's a narcissistic movie, but that's the point. We follow literally one person isolated with himself and his slow descent into angst and depression, as the sketches goes from lighthearted joking about white women's instragram to ending in a ego death in All eyes on me. Shallowness is just a sub theme of the movie, but that just my opinion.
The slow transition and how it was reinforced by appearance (the beard) and the content is something I really enjoyed. I just think making something "the point" doesn't change what it is, and taking the sketches one by one illustrates that. However, you might be right: the slow descent might be what it's really about and shallowness is just a sub-theme, or a by-product of that. I think the cultural critiques are all centered on shallowness though. I think whether you are impacted more by the content (the critiques) or the journey (the descent) probably depends the viewer and changes what it's main theme is for each person, though I'd have to think about it more. Good point though.
@@PlaysTheThing I'm sorry if my comment maybe seemed dismissive of your video, but thats not the case. I think you makes some great points in your analysis and I enjoyed your video. I just don't see Inside as a comedy special, but a movie about the character Bo Burnham making his comedy special. It's even structured as "the heros journey" with him starting outside going inside before finally returning "Home" outside again by overcoming change. The themes in the movie about social media, angst, depression, isolation, shallowness etc. certainly mirrors our world and that is the "dragon"/challenge Bo has to overcome. But that's how I feel when seeing the movie and I think thats maybe why it is so relateable to some people, beacuase many have to overcome these challenges themeself.
I did not take it as a dismissal at all: I always appreciate thoughtful comments, and I think that's a really interesting interpretation I hadn't considered, so thank you. I like the idea of looking at it as more of a movie with the trappings or aesthetics of a comedy special.
I really, truly believe that this is the truth, and the point of the last shot. With Bo repeating over-and-over since the release of Make Happy just how much he dislikes the prevalent winds of irony, This-Is-Bullshit-And-I'm-So-Above-This cynicism, and presumption of authority, while also viewing this all as inherent to comedy, it's really hard to see him making this special with the purpose of just taking part in all of those things again. If you combine that with the fact that _Make Happy_ was intended to tell an honest narrative of trying and failing to be honest, and that _Eighth Grade_ 's stated purpose was to faithfully portray the anxiety inherent to that experience, then I really don't see how _Inside_ could be anything other than a story about a comedian during quarantine, with the story being the point.
Exactly. It is his alchemical journey. He turned inside. Introspection. Found the answers within himself, isolated. Ego-death indeed but also more... hermetics? There is a lot of duality and singularity symbolism as well in this album. 'Everything and anything, all of the time' may pertain to the internet but it returns in different songs. Apt description of the singularity, knowing. ' 'The internet is NOT a test, haha', so it is in his mind. Betwoon good and bad, duality. 'We are going to a place where everybody knows'... isn't a location to me. It is when there is 0 ignorance, all us known. Dont be scared of it. That is some very universal gnosticism stuff from old days... and there is a lot more there. Look me in the EYE instead of EYES? Its almost over, its just begun? Might have found some bad stuff about our world along the way as well.ong fhe way as well. 'Went to google for rerealization, didnt like what I found'. 'Earth is heating up, what is going on. Rearranging'. And good old Socko... what does that mean, really? Sicko? He has stated that Bo Burnham, the artist that performs is a character. Then... who is the sock puppet? And hey. All subjective drivel from me from a perspective that many dont support or just frankly dont know about. But shallow? Good video, I enjoyed it a lot but anything but to me.
I think personally, i was comfortable not knowing how Bo actually felt, even after he slams Jeff Bezos as he doesn't claim anything concrete. Because personally, i have a lot of critical thoughts that make me think "Maybe i don't like this issue", by my own self doubt and awareness of my own shallowness, as a human, prevents me from having the capacity to form such a concrete statement or political view. I guess it made his process of making the special more relatable? I for sure in his position, would not have made my actual thoughts clear because that can be frightening, even to the people you love, and the very next day, you could always go back on it, and i think having a second part to bezos reflects that unsureness yet rapid and extreme changes in mood on certain issues, especially when confined during quarantine. I thought it was really enjoyable seeing his mind race, change, do over ideas as the special went on without saying how he felt, because than he's able to contradict himself or be on the other end of the spectrum but you don't feel like he's playing a different character. (even if this has the possibility of the show being all written at once rather than over the course of a quarantine, it's very effective in making me feel miserable in my own thoughts, not having any trust in a stance because of the "I know I'm a shallow person and I'll probably go back on it anyway so whats the point?" kind of notion) I think all the songs were appropriate with what they covered in relation to him not showing his actual stance, and in a certain way, strengthen the social commentary on a broader spectrum, but now I have to rewatch it now because this video is so well done and thought provoking! God I can't wait to rewatch this after watching inside again!
While my credulity will not be fluffed up with praise like other commenters (though I did appreciate the video), I simply want to offer my own critique. In particular, I struggle to find any way to reasonably understand or justify your criticism at 8:43 and 9:10. You said "a whole special about our shallowness and [his] shallowness is still shallow", but you didn't follow up on why that was inherently bad, nor why it was something that could've been avoided--you immediately flipped back to a positive appraisal instead of explaining the negative one you'd just made. Regardless as to whether or not you intended to dodge a better justification, it's a rather significant mistake to make, considering you based the title of the entire review upon that particular statement. You seem to have managed to come to the conclusion that the show was hypocritical and dishonest due to it being... intentionally hypocritical and dishonest. You specifically pointed out that the show was "relentlessly narcissistic", which, while true, is an invalid criticism. It's a *meta*-modernist film. *Meta* meaning about or aware of itself. Yes, Burnham makes criticisms about people being shallow and self-obsessed. All the while, he explicitly acknowledges his narcissistic hypocrisy, hence him being aware of himself. Similarly, he explicitly acknowledges that him being aware of his mistakes does not absolve him of them--which applies to itself. On the first "meta" level, he's aware of his own problems. On the second level, he's aware that his awareness does not absolve him. On the third, the previous two combine and begin to loop; he's aware that he cannot use awareness of awareness to absolve himself. The point of Burnham indicating this vicious cycle is that *there is no way for him to avoid it*--you can't prove to someone that you're not a narcissist without talking about yourself. I would argue that there is a distinct difference between the introspective aspects of Burnham's previous works and that of the more meta-introspective aspects of INSIDE. In Make Happy and what., his introspection highlighted his and others' self-obsession, hypocrisy, and ignorance (etc.) as often being tragically comedic. In INSIDE, though Burnham similarly makes comedy based on said tragedies, he distinctly turns the comedy into self-loathing whenever these things apply to himself. When he pokes fun at other people, he finds it necessary, in turn, for him to rip into himself, lest he be too hypocritical and, by extension, distasteful. He's not trying to be relatable when he hates himself, nor is he fishing for others' pity; it's simply the only thing he thinks he can do to let others know that he doesn't *want* to sound like an ignorant, hypocritical, "relentlessly narcissistic" person.
I don't say why shallowness is inherently bad or how he could have avoided it, because I don't think the first is necessarily true or that the second is necessarily possible. Shallowness speaks to a lack of depth, *not* something necessarily bad. It's only hypocritical or dishonest if Burnham himself thinks that the shallowness of our society is a bad thing, but he doesn't take a position on that in the special. At this point we're going to start going in circles. Is shallowness bad -> he kind of implies shallowness is bad -> his special is also kind of shallow -> but maybe it's not necessarily bad -> is shallowness bad. A lot of things you say I partly agree with, which is why I'm so conflicted on the special and hopefully that came across in the video. But one thing that you are dead wrong about is that you can't prove to someone you aren't a narcissist without talking about yourself. Yes you can. Just talk about something else. Shut up about yourself. The point is this: if we live in a self-obsessed culture, and if that's a problem, this special is not the antidote. It's just another reflection of that culture. The antidote is to talk about things with sincerity and honesty. Sincerity being the opposite of cynicism, and honesty being the opposite of *obscuring* one's true opinion. What does he really think about Amazon? What does he really think about anything he talked about in the special? Hard to say. If we're trying to combat self-obsession and shallowness that is not the way. One last note, you are misusing the meta prefix in your critique, though understandably. The "meta" in "metamodernism" comes from the Greek word "metaxy" which means "in-between" not the Greek "meta" prefix which refers things that are about their own category.
Okay okay, very interesting… i feel for the point, very well put and beautiful vid,, there’s a FD Signifyer video that makes a similar point, that Burnham is portraying something next to that void, he feels like a puppet or a sock on a hand of white culture comedy. He’e a marter of his own niche traditions, a fallen statue. He wants to bring it down and show the corruption of our ego. Its a performance. And it can become its own critizism.
Huh, I really thought it came out this year. Well that's what assumptions do to you. It does make sense though, the Oscars don't tend to go for stage to film movies.
this comment is by no means factual this is purely how i feel but he feels fake and just boring to me. What he says sounds deep but doesn't ever really hit it feels improper i think the best way to sum how i feel is his art is just plain and easy wich is okay but i don't think that "inside is deep" or says anything new or complex
How deep and meaningful do you expect a comedy special to be? And the references to the Labor Theory of Value and Class Struggle throughout the special tells you he is a critic of Bezos and Amazon. How were you unsure of that?
Plenty of comedians specialize in being deep and meaningful, but that's not my expectation that's what I perceived as the response to it. I also understand that he's "a critic" of Amazon but he doesn't really say exactly why or how except with vague signifiers, and it's hard to know if that's part of the cultural critique or not. Vague nonspecific support of a socialist utopia is very trendy, and since he's making fun of trends...I don't know where to draw the line. I don't remember him referencing the LTV, but that would be just another example of this, it's something people *want* to be true because it would be nice if our work directly related to cost but the theory crumbles in the real world where scarcity and demand clearly exert influence on price. None of this is serious discussion about class, labor, or modern society, and that lack of seriousness and specificity makes me unsure what he really thinks.
See? You're doing the trendy thing. There's no conversation there, there's no actual discussion about what could replace markets or if markets are even replaceable considering they've been around long before capitalism existed. I don't know what you think capitalism means or how it looks good on paper or what parts of it don't work. There's a lot of different ways capitalism can function, from the Gilded Age to the New Deal era, so what are you talking about exactly? And that's the same attitude Burnham takes, flippant trendy non-serious discussion, so is it parody or is it his real opinion? How are we to know? I mean, we can look at his statements elsewhere sure, I mean how are we to know by looking at the special itself?
@@PlaysTheThing ya took the bait. Markets are inefficient. Production in hope of fulfillment leads to TONS of waste. Property is illegitimate. The Land was here before you, who the fuck gave you exclusive rights to it? Growth for the sake of growth is unsustainable. Capitalism has not brought people out of poverty, it condemns more and more people to it. Poverty is the inability to meet basic human needs. A primitive society that hunts for their food and lives in huts would not be considered an impoverished one, however a family in NYC that has to skip meals and choose between paying the electric or gas bill would be considered living in poverty. Just because Capitalism fueled technological advancement, doesn't mean we're better off.
Is it bait if you just don't say anything specific and I point that out? This is better, though I believe most of the things you are talking about here have existed since we left hunter-gatherer society and I don't know how we get rid of them without going back to that society. Nevertheless, now you are making specific claims even if you don't have solutions, which is more than Bo is doing, which was my point. Not that I think you should have solutions, solutions are hard, I don't have solutions for those problems either. I'm not trying to argue for or against capitalism, Bezos, or Amazon, just point out how vague "critiques" can be a problem.
I don't really think that the special is meant to critique shallowness. Bo has refuted many times in the past the idea that current generations are self-obsessed, a good example being one of his award speeches for Eighth Grade.
Whether he meant it or not, it is what seemed to tie all the different bits of it together, from my perspective. I think it's clearly meant to critique something, right? What would you say it's critiquing if not that?
@@PlaysTheThing I mean, you're going in with the mindset that it _has_ to be pedagogical. He said during Eighth Grade Q&As that he used to only speak on ideas he had the answers to, and opinions about, whereas he now tries to communicate and present the realities he sees, regardless of whether he has any commentary to add. He's long wanted to drop the irony and just tell a story. I don't think Inside is meant to function as a critique, but moreso as a description of what existing in the current moment is like. I will grant, you could argue that there is a complication. It's likely Robert is simply playing the comedian Bo Burnham™, same as Elsie played Kayla, so you may have some of the irony he sees as inherent to comedy during bits. But, any irony present would not not the point; it's Bo™'s experience which is always the point, regardless of whether it's 100% authentic or not. Honestly though, if you have any questions about his intentions, I can't recommend watching his various interviews for Eighth Grade enough. They really provide a lot of background, and coming off the back of these, it becomes very evident that Bo would never make a special with the intent of criticizing people or their actions. If there is criticism, it's criticism of the systems which cause the unfortunate realities, with the sole purpose of urging empathy and understanding for those dealing with them.
Hmm. I don't really care about intention for the reasons I stated in other comments here, so I probably shouldn't have used the word "meant." I mean, doesn't it *come across* as a cultural critique? Burnham doesn't sit on the couch next to the average viewer and explain his intentions so I don't think they are particularly relevant.
@@PlaysTheThing Respectfully, "from my point of view, the Jedi are evil" isn't really a great take lol. That's a lot like taking the story of the tortoise and the hare and saying, "I don't really care about the point, I'm just saying, doesn't it seem like it implies you have to be an animal to win races? This is why it's a really bad story, it discourages people from exercising!" Like yeah, maybe if you're purposely misinterpreting it, but the fact that you're alone in your misinterpretation would seem to suggest that it's a you problem, rather than a reflection of the art itself. If you're actively ignoring information to support your viewpoint... I had a bit of a rough day, so I genuinely apologize if this comes off as slightly antagonistic, I don't really intend to be that rude with it, but idk, this take really comes off as a bit silly and willfully ignorant lol
That's not what I said at all. Obviously we are talking about the point, but the point and the authors intention are only tenuously related, if at all. Do you know what the original intent of the tortoise and the hare story is? No, we only care about our shared cultural understanding of the story. Do you know what George Lucas was intending to say with that "from my point of view" line? No, why would we care, it's awful no matter how you slice it and even if he had a really good reason that doesn't make the line and it's sentiments *in the movie* any less dumb. Again: the author's intention and the audience's perception are not linked so their intention cannot be used as evidence for how audiences perceive it, because, as I said, the author doesn't sit down with every viewer and explain it to them. Also they could be lying to themselves, or to us, or they could be out of touch, or something else entirely. It's not reliable. So the question remains: do many of the sketches seem to critique the shallowness of our culture, or not? Because even if he didn't intend to, it might have happened anyway. I didn't intend to suggest that Mando should never talk to Groghu in that one video but I still, to this day, get hundreds of comments suggesting that I did. Which means it came across that way. I don't get to blame the audience for not understanding my intention, and so I won't accept Burnham's intentions as evidence of how his work comes across to people.
One thing I found interesting is that you extended Inside's critique to a state of ubiquity rather than it being centered in strictly the Internet or digital media. In interviews, especially about his film 8th Grade, Bo talks about how he focuses so much on digital media and how it influences younger individuals. The special itself exists in that same scope, focusing almost entirely on the effect of digital media on the individuals of today (sometimes juxtaposed against real-life, like in "30"). Also, "White Woman's Instagram" never actually insults or critiques white women's Instagrams. It just points out many obvious things, but you related your response to Bo's intentions.
In the end, I found your critique good. I disagree on certain points, but it was still good. The only weakness I see is that you (to my mind) conflate your response to Inside as Bo's intent, but that's my opinion. Good job, friend. Got my sub. :-)
I'm glad you enjoyed it! While I use the suggestion of intent as shorthand, I don't really care about his actual intent. The vast majority of people will never consume any external media and so I try to focus my analysis on the work itself. I don't actually ever use the word "intent" except to say "art and art movements don’t need intention." I think what you are referencing is what I'd call my "reading." To use your example I say this about WWI: "The comparison to Heaven is to poke fun at how safe, samey, and shallow these Instagram’s are but also as a reminder of how much of a lie they are." Better language would be "pokes fun" instead of "is to poke fun" but either way there's a suggestion of intent there that you are picking up on. But to me it doesn't actually matter what he intended, I am just commenting on how I perceive it, and how I believe others perceive it, and so therefore you might assume that's how I think it's intended to be perceived. But that last bit doesn't matter. This is why I don't talk about intent or response at all because you can't do it without this kind of complex and boring explanation or couching everything you say in a bunch of caveats of "this is just how I perceived it." This is all just how I perceived it. Everything I say is how I perceive it, so I just skip to the part where I say it.
That being said, even if he is intending to critique the internet or digital media *only* that's not necessarily clear to the viewer and so isn't relevant to the analysis. Moreover, since it's increasingly clear that there is no clean distinction between digital culture and our culture at large I just don't buy that we can separate them so easily. This is good stuff to go over though because I totally get how it can seem like I'm making assumptions about his intent, but talking about this in the actual videos would really drag them down.
You've made good observations but seem to overlook that Bo isn't really all that vague about how he feels. He hates superficiality and hates that it's a part of him as well. He's spoken candidly about hating the fact that he craves attention as an artist.
The comparison to one night in Miami isn't really fair. One night in Miami is about people coming together while sharing the complexity of their world views and how they vary. Inside is specifically about isolation. It is about being alone, inside your own head. That's it. Of course the other story, about historically revered figures no less, is going to be more inspiring. But the time Inside is reflecting is a time in which being in room with people wasn't even an option for some. He's exaggerating that isolation for impact but again, when locked in a room with only yourself to talk to what are you going to end up reflecting on?
Right? Totally ridiculous comparison of art, very much lost me there. Apples and oranges
I thought Burnham’s ‘Inside’ was absolutely brilliant. It’s no surprise that to point out shallowness, that he had to be somewhat shallow himself. However, he did it with a perfectly sublime balance of sarcasm and cynicism. I believe his self loathing was genuine. I usually hate the “tortured artist” schtick, but this was done so incredibly well that I bought into it. Yeah, it can feel obnoxious at times, but isn’t our current society equally obnoxious? And isn’t that the point he’s trying to make?
Opinions will vary, but I feel that history will remember ’Inside’ as one of the most consequential pieces of art of this decade.
I hope how conflicted I was came through in the video, because I agree with you. I just thought something was missing, and I think it's partly that "current society" bit. I'm not sold that our past cultures were less obnoxious. But I do think it was brilliant.
I feel like the only reason that the tortured artist idea works is he is blaming no one but himself for it. He is not blaming his mental health, he says that that is the premise of the special. He doesn't blame the government or anyone else. It is a goal and self imposed torture in the universe of the special.
@@PlaysTheThing I agree with your point about “current society”. There’s a level of privilege in his outlook there that just drives me insane. The fact that he would ever claim that anything about the modern day is WORSE than the time before it really makes it clear that he doesn’t care to think outside of the perspective of a hetero white dude with a big pile of money. Social media might be mentally harmful, but its bad specifically because it records the cruelty that human beings have ALWAYS been spouting at each other. Cyberbullying, while awful, is not more harmful than real, violent, physical bullying. At least social media bans open, blatant racism and slurs. Back in the 80s it was common to hear such things with no punishment whatsoever. Ultimately, modern society has only JUST started really trying to give all human beings equal rights. To claim that any time BEFORE that could be preferable is so ignorant and privileged that I can’t believe Bo hasn’t been called out.
@@engelberthovel8566 I think that's a good explanation, I agree that the idea that the current day is worse than like the 80s or 90s is insanely privileged. However, he doesn't *actually* say that it's worse and I think that gives him a lot of cover. He only sort if implies it...maybe. This goes back to the earlier criticism again, right? I don't know what he actually thinks. Does he think its worse? That would be privileged. Parts of the special seem to imply that. But we can't be sure. Because he's laced it in so much irony.
@@PlaysTheThing I don't think he means to be sending a message of comparison. He's complaining about the negative consequences of technology within capitalist realism. He's not saying these are more negative than child labor or slavery or patriarchy or homelessness or genocide or whatever else (In fact I think he's decently aware of the influence/legacy of these facets of human 'civilization' and beautifully, hauntinly, depressingly depicts one way that they relate to his (and the average western) perspective in How the World Works).
As I said in my initial comment, I think what's missing here is that y'all are getting bogged down in your efforts to decipher a more concrete message from the words themselves, rather than putting that responsibility on the expression and artistry. If we focus on that side it much easier to let go of the need for an articulatable thesis from the special. The special in its entirety IS the thesis. That it is ambiguous is the point. That it is equally ironic and sincere is the point. That it's hypocritical is the point! We can say whatever we want about the person behind the art being privileged, sure, but that privilege's influence over the art is not taken for granted. It is indeed willingly and beautifully embraced.
Lastly, @engelberthovel8566, I feel by saying "to claim that any time before that could be preferable is so ignorant and privileged..." you are implying that the present (or at least at time of the release of Inside) is the best moment for humanity. I would argue there is a certain ignorance and privilege to THIS perspective, as it implies a linear trajectory for human history which flies in the face of established archaeological and anthropological evidence and betrays a certain narrow scope of humanity's problems, the very scope you are accusing Burnham of, perhaps (or maybe it's more like that image from that one movie that nobody has actually seen where the person holding a gun to the other person's head has a gun to theirs, who has a gun to theirs, etc, etc)
Here I am one year after this video came out, but hey, that's the algorithm I guess.
Anyway, great analysis! Thanks for the sincerity and clarity in your own intentions. I have to wonder if you were intentionally or partially intentionally paying more attention to that for this video in particular, since it sounds like the "weaknesses" of inside for you were it's lack of these as priorities.
I do think your analysis is missing something, however. It's hard to know where to begin, but my general impression is that you're spot on with every layer except for the final one which leads to your perception of weakness in the special (not that it's 'perfect'... but I wouldn't know what to label as perfect so maybe it does deserve it idk).
There are, I think, a couple of tells for this. The first is juxtaposing the "beautiful artistry" of the film with it's allegedly shallow subject matter, and concluding that this does render the piece itself somewhat shallow, or perhaps just 'not as deep' as it otherwise could have been.
The second is putting this special side by side with One Night in Miami. I'm sure that you could probably articulate the value of satire much more eloquently than I could, which is why I'm surprised that it went unacknowledged during this comparison. If we take your simplified definitions for modernism, post modernism, and meta modernism at face value, I'd say A Night in Miami maps best onto a modernistic category (of course it's far more complicated than this but I'm just doing this to make the point). "Sincerity and optimism" seemingly leave ZERO room for satire as a genre of storytelling. One Night in Miami is trying to be as in-your-face realistic and sincere and genuine (though not necessarily optimistic, though one could easily make that argument I think) as it possibly can be. It's aim is to take precisely this approach to its story. But this isn't to say that the approach is all a film needs in order to achieve depth, nor is it to say that lacking this approach precludes depth. I'm sure you're aware of this already, but I do see this as a blind spot in the construction of the video, and perhaps in your understanding of Inside. Though, like the people misunderstanding white woman's instagram, I don't really blame you for this blind spot.
Call me charitable, but I think people having this blind spot is *foreseen* by burnham. I don't necessarily think this is the case in a conscious way. I don't think there is a clear intention that you can decipher when reading between the lines of his songs that you have failed to uncover. My point is that, just like in good satire, the sincerity shines through in the effort itself. You can *feel* the humanity in the art, the ambiguity, the "weakness". It is a feature of satire that only a fraction of the audience will understand the critique. We can struggle with this fact and debate whether or not this feature renders the genre ultimately unhelpful (or perhaps just having an ultimately disappointing cap on how deep it can be), but I do think there is a sincerity in both the tradition of this mode of storytelling and in this particular instance of it that goes underacknowledged in your video.
Let's start out by assuming it's there, by prioritizing it as a meaningful, at least pseudo intentional layer of the film. From here, we have a new, rich lens through which to question the narratives presented to us. Anything from the ambiguity of a self obsessed guy incisively critiquing self obsession to the very parasocial dilemma existing within the viewer on year later as they defend the video in a youtube comment. I think Burnham's art *shows* us a true contending with these challenges. It bares itself to us in this way, and that is both a silver lining in our current times (the moments of sincerity on instagram despite its format and legacy demanding we're anything but as showcased in white woman's instagram) and a subversion of our current times.
But I don't think it does this from the naive perspective that things are so different from how they used to be. I think the timelessness (and I say this fully knowing that it's only been like a year and a half lol) comes from the sincerity/beauty in the effort to understand, lash out at, be humbled by the problems of the times. We have to manifest the times we live in before we even have a chance at being relatable in the future. We have to surrender to that 'limitation' in order to have any sort of wisdom to impart.
I think all of this applies to Bojack Horseman (one of my favorite shows ever), and undertale (I haven't really played nier or watched the other items but I'm sure the through line is arguable).
I don't know if I'm saying that you're missing a crucial piece of the metamodernism picture or if I'm saying that meta modernism is missing a crucial piece of the human picture lol, but I'm definitely walking away from this video feeling like something is missing.
The ambiguity in sincerely acknowledging adherence to a self referential approach to story telling or message sending definitely seems like a meta modernist quirk, but I think that the more important quirk, at least in much 'good' art these days, is the sincerity in the ambiguity of self referential storytelling. It's the world we're living in, and the only way to confront that is to live in it for a time yourself. I can't think of a more admirable effort in media that I've seen recently than this special. I definitely think Everything Everywhere All At Once really hits this home (though this video came out before that film did so I understand it's omission lol. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a video on that film out... first time viewer)
Anyway, after saying all of this I feel compelled to clarify that I think this was a great video and my aim is respectful critique (I hope in the same spirit as your critique of Inside-- good art that you have some qualms with ;))
Thanks for reading if you made it this far!
Hey thanks for your thoughts. I was sufficiently conflicted about the special that I really don't disagree with anything you wrote. I agree that the One Night comparison is in no way fair, and that many satirical things fall victim to the same problems I claimed existed in Burnham's special. A Modest Proposal would be a good counterexample here: it's so over the top that it isn't possible to believe that it's serious, but that doesn't mean something more on the line has less value just that is more likely to be misunderstood or used out of context.
From a metamodernist perspective, I think it's that metamodernism is *usually* ultimately optimistic and I'm not sure that his special *was* ultimately optimistic. But even a year later, I'm still conflicted about this.
This conflict between shallowness and and and reality is on more display in make happy the monologue before kanye rant is some of the most real and sincere thing I have ever heard then jumps in to him ranting about Pringle cans and boritoes to more of the sincerity watch make happy
Goddamn man your videos are always so worth the wait. Excellent work as always
Thank you!
I think by isolating the sketches and judging them by themself misses the point of the story arc and progression of the main character (and only character) Bo. Of course the sketches jokes and makes fun of our society today, but it's done from the perspective of the movie's protagonist Bo, through his "journey" to make a comedy special in isolation. And yes it's a narcissistic movie, but that's the point. We follow literally one person isolated with himself and his slow descent into angst and depression, as the sketches goes from lighthearted joking about white women's instragram to ending in a ego death in All eyes on me. Shallowness is just a sub theme of the movie, but that just my opinion.
The slow transition and how it was reinforced by appearance (the beard) and the content is something I really enjoyed. I just think making something "the point" doesn't change what it is, and taking the sketches one by one illustrates that. However, you might be right: the slow descent might be what it's really about and shallowness is just a sub-theme, or a by-product of that. I think the cultural critiques are all centered on shallowness though. I think whether you are impacted more by the content (the critiques) or the journey (the descent) probably depends the viewer and changes what it's main theme is for each person, though I'd have to think about it more. Good point though.
@@PlaysTheThing I'm sorry if my comment maybe seemed dismissive of your video, but thats not the case. I think you makes some great points in your analysis and I enjoyed your video.
I just don't see Inside as a comedy special, but a movie about the character Bo Burnham making his comedy special. It's even structured as "the heros journey" with him starting outside going inside before finally returning "Home" outside again by overcoming change. The themes in the movie about social media, angst, depression, isolation, shallowness etc. certainly mirrors our world and that is the "dragon"/challenge Bo has to overcome. But that's how I feel when seeing the movie and I think thats maybe why it is so relateable to some people, beacuase many have to overcome these challenges themeself.
I did not take it as a dismissal at all: I always appreciate thoughtful comments, and I think that's a really interesting interpretation I hadn't considered, so thank you. I like the idea of looking at it as more of a movie with the trappings or aesthetics of a comedy special.
I really, truly believe that this is the truth, and the point of the last shot. With Bo repeating over-and-over since the release of Make Happy just how much he dislikes the prevalent winds of irony, This-Is-Bullshit-And-I'm-So-Above-This cynicism, and presumption of authority, while also viewing this all as inherent to comedy, it's really hard to see him making this special with the purpose of just taking part in all of those things again.
If you combine that with the fact that _Make Happy_ was intended to tell an honest narrative of trying and failing to be honest, and that _Eighth Grade_ 's stated purpose was to faithfully portray the anxiety inherent to that experience, then I really don't see how _Inside_ could be anything other than a story about a comedian during quarantine, with the story being the point.
Exactly. It is his alchemical journey.
He turned inside. Introspection. Found the answers within himself, isolated. Ego-death indeed but also more... hermetics? There is a lot of duality and singularity symbolism as well in this album. 'Everything and anything, all of the time' may pertain to the internet but it returns in different songs. Apt description of the singularity, knowing. '
'The internet is NOT a test, haha', so it is in his mind. Betwoon good and bad, duality. 'We are going to a place where everybody knows'... isn't a location to me. It is when there is 0 ignorance, all us known. Dont be scared of it. That is some very universal gnosticism stuff from old days... and there is a lot more there. Look me in the EYE instead of EYES? Its almost over, its just begun?
Might have found some bad stuff about our world along the way as well.ong fhe way as well. 'Went to google for rerealization, didnt like what I found'.
'Earth is heating up, what is going on. Rearranging'.
And good old Socko... what does that mean, really? Sicko? He has stated that Bo Burnham, the artist that performs is a character. Then... who is the sock puppet?
And hey. All subjective drivel from me from a perspective that many dont support or just frankly dont know about. But shallow? Good video, I enjoyed it a lot but anything but to me.
I think personally, i was comfortable not knowing how Bo actually felt, even after he slams Jeff Bezos as he doesn't claim anything concrete. Because personally, i have a lot of critical thoughts that make me think "Maybe i don't like this issue", by my own self doubt and awareness of my own shallowness, as a human, prevents me from having the capacity to form such a concrete statement or political view. I guess it made his process of making the special more relatable? I for sure in his position, would not have made my actual thoughts clear because that can be frightening, even to the people you love, and the very next day, you could always go back on it, and i think having a second part to bezos reflects that unsureness yet rapid and extreme changes in mood on certain issues, especially when confined during quarantine. I thought it was really enjoyable seeing his mind race, change, do over ideas as the special went on without saying how he felt, because than he's able to contradict himself or be on the other end of the spectrum but you don't feel like he's playing a different character. (even if this has the possibility of the show being all written at once rather than over the course of a quarantine, it's very effective in making me feel miserable in my own thoughts, not having any trust in a stance because of the "I know I'm a shallow person and I'll probably go back on it anyway so whats the point?" kind of notion) I think all the songs were appropriate with what they covered in relation to him not showing his actual stance, and in a certain way, strengthen the social commentary on a broader spectrum, but now I have to rewatch it now because this video is so well done and thought provoking! God I can't wait to rewatch this after watching inside again!
This is a very meta-modernist critique of Inside.
Alternate real title of the video.
While my credulity will not be fluffed up with praise like other commenters (though I did appreciate the video), I simply want to offer my own critique. In particular, I struggle to find any way to reasonably understand or justify your criticism at 8:43 and 9:10. You said "a whole special about our shallowness and [his] shallowness is still shallow", but you didn't follow up on why that was inherently bad, nor why it was something that could've been avoided--you immediately flipped back to a positive appraisal instead of explaining the negative one you'd just made. Regardless as to whether or not you intended to dodge a better justification, it's a rather significant mistake to make, considering you based the title of the entire review upon that particular statement.
You seem to have managed to come to the conclusion that the show was hypocritical and dishonest due to it being... intentionally hypocritical and dishonest. You specifically pointed out that the show was "relentlessly narcissistic", which, while true, is an invalid criticism. It's a *meta*-modernist film. *Meta* meaning about or aware of itself. Yes, Burnham makes criticisms about people being shallow and self-obsessed. All the while, he explicitly acknowledges his narcissistic hypocrisy, hence him being aware of himself. Similarly, he explicitly acknowledges that him being aware of his mistakes does not absolve him of them--which applies to itself. On the first "meta" level, he's aware of his own problems. On the second level, he's aware that his awareness does not absolve him. On the third, the previous two combine and begin to loop; he's aware that he cannot use awareness of awareness to absolve himself. The point of Burnham indicating this vicious cycle is that *there is no way for him to avoid it*--you can't prove to someone that you're not a narcissist without talking about yourself.
I would argue that there is a distinct difference between the introspective aspects of Burnham's previous works and that of the more meta-introspective aspects of INSIDE. In Make Happy and what., his introspection highlighted his and others' self-obsession, hypocrisy, and ignorance (etc.) as often being tragically comedic. In INSIDE, though Burnham similarly makes comedy based on said tragedies, he distinctly turns the comedy into self-loathing whenever these things apply to himself. When he pokes fun at other people, he finds it necessary, in turn, for him to rip into himself, lest he be too hypocritical and, by extension, distasteful. He's not trying to be relatable when he hates himself, nor is he fishing for others' pity; it's simply the only thing he thinks he can do to let others know that he doesn't *want* to sound like an ignorant, hypocritical, "relentlessly narcissistic" person.
I don't say why shallowness is inherently bad or how he could have avoided it, because I don't think the first is necessarily true or that the second is necessarily possible. Shallowness speaks to a lack of depth, *not* something necessarily bad. It's only hypocritical or dishonest if Burnham himself thinks that the shallowness of our society is a bad thing, but he doesn't take a position on that in the special. At this point we're going to start going in circles. Is shallowness bad -> he kind of implies shallowness is bad -> his special is also kind of shallow -> but maybe it's not necessarily bad -> is shallowness bad.
A lot of things you say I partly agree with, which is why I'm so conflicted on the special and hopefully that came across in the video. But one thing that you are dead wrong about is that you can't prove to someone you aren't a narcissist without talking about yourself. Yes you can. Just talk about something else. Shut up about yourself.
The point is this: if we live in a self-obsessed culture, and if that's a problem, this special is not the antidote. It's just another reflection of that culture. The antidote is to talk about things with sincerity and honesty. Sincerity being the opposite of cynicism, and honesty being the opposite of *obscuring* one's true opinion. What does he really think about Amazon? What does he really think about anything he talked about in the special? Hard to say. If we're trying to combat self-obsession and shallowness that is not the way.
One last note, you are misusing the meta prefix in your critique, though understandably. The "meta" in "metamodernism" comes from the Greek word "metaxy" which means "in-between" not the Greek "meta" prefix which refers things that are about their own category.
Okay okay, very interesting… i feel for the point, very well put and beautiful vid,, there’s a FD Signifyer video that makes a similar point, that Burnham is portraying something next to that void, he feels like a puppet or a sock on a hand of white culture comedy. He’e a marter of his own niche traditions, a fallen statue. He wants to bring it down and show the corruption of our ego. Its a performance. And it can become its own critizism.
This page is the best thing the algorithm has brought to me.
I'm glad you enjoy it :D
Unfortunately One Night In Miami won’t be eligible for an Oscar next year because it wasn’t nominated for this year’s when it was eligible.
Huh, I really thought it came out this year. Well that's what assumptions do to you. It does make sense though, the Oscars don't tend to go for stage to film movies.
9:07 you love yourself for synching up your speech with his lips right? like come on...... that shit was tight
The editing is my favorite part.
this comment is by no means factual this is purely how i feel but he feels fake and just boring to me. What he says sounds deep but doesn't ever really hit it feels improper i think the best way to sum how i feel is his art is just plain and easy wich is okay but i don't think that "inside is deep" or says anything new or complex
How deep and meaningful do you expect a comedy special to be?
And the references to the Labor Theory of Value and Class Struggle throughout the special tells you he is a critic of Bezos and Amazon. How were you unsure of that?
Plenty of comedians specialize in being deep and meaningful, but that's not my expectation that's what I perceived as the response to it. I also understand that he's "a critic" of Amazon but he doesn't really say exactly why or how except with vague signifiers, and it's hard to know if that's part of the cultural critique or not. Vague nonspecific support of a socialist utopia is very trendy, and since he's making fun of trends...I don't know where to draw the line. I don't remember him referencing the LTV, but that would be just another example of this, it's something people *want* to be true because it would be nice if our work directly related to cost but the theory crumbles in the real world where scarcity and demand clearly exert influence on price. None of this is serious discussion about class, labor, or modern society, and that lack of seriousness and specificity makes me unsure what he really thinks.
@@PlaysTheThing Capitalism looks good on paper, but it just doesn't work.
See? You're doing the trendy thing. There's no conversation there, there's no actual discussion about what could replace markets or if markets are even replaceable considering they've been around long before capitalism existed. I don't know what you think capitalism means or how it looks good on paper or what parts of it don't work. There's a lot of different ways capitalism can function, from the Gilded Age to the New Deal era, so what are you talking about exactly? And that's the same attitude Burnham takes, flippant trendy non-serious discussion, so is it parody or is it his real opinion? How are we to know? I mean, we can look at his statements elsewhere sure, I mean how are we to know by looking at the special itself?
@@PlaysTheThing ya took the bait.
Markets are inefficient. Production in hope of fulfillment leads to TONS of waste.
Property is illegitimate. The Land was here before you, who the fuck gave you exclusive rights to it?
Growth for the sake of growth is unsustainable.
Capitalism has not brought people out of poverty, it condemns more and more people to it. Poverty is the inability to meet basic human needs. A primitive society that hunts for their food and lives in huts would not be considered an impoverished one, however a family in NYC that has to skip meals and choose between paying the electric or gas bill would be considered living in poverty. Just because Capitalism fueled technological advancement, doesn't mean we're better off.
Is it bait if you just don't say anything specific and I point that out? This is better, though I believe most of the things you are talking about here have existed since we left hunter-gatherer society and I don't know how we get rid of them without going back to that society. Nevertheless, now you are making specific claims even if you don't have solutions, which is more than Bo is doing, which was my point. Not that I think you should have solutions, solutions are hard, I don't have solutions for those problems either. I'm not trying to argue for or against capitalism, Bezos, or Amazon, just point out how vague "critiques" can be a problem.
I don't really think that the special is meant to critique shallowness. Bo has refuted many times in the past the idea that current generations are self-obsessed, a good example being one of his award speeches for Eighth Grade.
Whether he meant it or not, it is what seemed to tie all the different bits of it together, from my perspective. I think it's clearly meant to critique something, right? What would you say it's critiquing if not that?
@@PlaysTheThing I mean, you're going in with the mindset that it _has_ to be pedagogical. He said during Eighth Grade Q&As that he used to only speak on ideas he had the answers to, and opinions about, whereas he now tries to communicate and present the realities he sees, regardless of whether he has any commentary to add. He's long wanted to drop the irony and just tell a story.
I don't think Inside is meant to function as a critique, but moreso as a description of what existing in the current moment is like.
I will grant, you could argue that there is a complication. It's likely Robert is simply playing the comedian Bo Burnham™, same as Elsie played Kayla, so you may have some of the irony he sees as inherent to comedy during bits. But, any irony present would not not the point; it's Bo™'s experience which is always the point, regardless of whether it's 100% authentic or not.
Honestly though, if you have any questions about his intentions, I can't recommend watching his various interviews for Eighth Grade enough. They really provide a lot of background, and coming off the back of these, it becomes very evident that Bo would never make a special with the intent of criticizing people or their actions. If there is criticism, it's criticism of the systems which cause the unfortunate realities, with the sole purpose of urging empathy and understanding for those dealing with them.
Hmm. I don't really care about intention for the reasons I stated in other comments here, so I probably shouldn't have used the word "meant." I mean, doesn't it *come across* as a cultural critique? Burnham doesn't sit on the couch next to the average viewer and explain his intentions so I don't think they are particularly relevant.
@@PlaysTheThing Respectfully, "from my point of view, the Jedi are evil" isn't really a great take lol.
That's a lot like taking the story of the tortoise and the hare and saying, "I don't really care about the point, I'm just saying, doesn't it seem like it implies you have to be an animal to win races? This is why it's a really bad story, it discourages people from exercising!"
Like yeah, maybe if you're purposely misinterpreting it, but the fact that you're alone in your misinterpretation would seem to suggest that it's a you problem, rather than a reflection of the art itself. If you're actively ignoring information to support your viewpoint...
I had a bit of a rough day, so I genuinely apologize if this comes off as slightly antagonistic, I don't really intend to be that rude with it, but idk, this take really comes off as a bit silly and willfully ignorant lol
That's not what I said at all. Obviously we are talking about the point, but the point and the authors intention are only tenuously related, if at all. Do you know what the original intent of the tortoise and the hare story is? No, we only care about our shared cultural understanding of the story. Do you know what George Lucas was intending to say with that "from my point of view" line? No, why would we care, it's awful no matter how you slice it and even if he had a really good reason that doesn't make the line and it's sentiments *in the movie* any less dumb. Again: the author's intention and the audience's perception are not linked so their intention cannot be used as evidence for how audiences perceive it, because, as I said, the author doesn't sit down with every viewer and explain it to them. Also they could be lying to themselves, or to us, or they could be out of touch, or something else entirely. It's not reliable. So the question remains: do many of the sketches seem to critique the shallowness of our culture, or not? Because even if he didn't intend to, it might have happened anyway. I didn't intend to suggest that Mando should never talk to Groghu in that one video but I still, to this day, get hundreds of comments suggesting that I did. Which means it came across that way. I don't get to blame the audience for not understanding my intention, and so I won't accept Burnham's intentions as evidence of how his work comes across to people.
bruh why do u have so little views?? Like it doesnt even make any sense?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯