Thursday, October 2, 2014

Who is Thom Yorke addressing when he sings the line, “You do it to yourself”? In the context of the music video for Radiohead’s “Just,” he is talking to his audience. He answers, with this line, the question that the music video raises to its viewers: “What makes this man lie down in the street?” Radiohead never divulges the literal answer to the question, but the music video uses it to engage viewers in the process of understanding its real intentions.

“Just” cautions its viewers against acting out of self-interest, like the crowd acts at the video’s end. This crowd does not come to the aid of the man on the ground but provokes him—despite his cries of “Don’t touch me!”—until they torture the secret from him. The music video intends for its audience to identify with the crowd, and uses this to build its warning against following the crowd in its actions.

Jamie Thraves, the director, promotes empathy for the crowd with several tactics. Suits permeate the video—even Thom Yorke is wearing a tie—to make the audience identify with this archetype for the common businessman. But the interest Thraves creates regarding the question he intends for viewers to repeat is his greatest tool in creating empathy, and sensitizing them to the fate of the crowd. Thraves’s use of subtitles anchors viewers to a definitive dialogue. The omission of subtitles at the end, the fallen officer, and the magnitude of the crowd lying down are meant to disconcert the audience because they disrupt the ordered world of the video. With the question unanswered, viewers are meant to demand one with the crowd’s intensity, and discover that, by asking this question, how alike they both are.

“Just” hints at who bears the responsibility for bringing the crowd to the sidewalk. At the younger man’s fist display of self-interest—“You could have broken my neck!”—he says the line with sudden anger. The music’s volume increases for emphasis, before the video cuts to Thom Yorke looking at the camera in contempt. It accuses viewers of their capacity to act just as the man does. The man on the ground prays, “You don’t know what you ask of me,” framing himself as religiously devoted and the crowd assailing him despite this. The fury of the younger man’s impatience portrays the crowd as equally antagonistic. Thus, the crowd’s role is reversed at the video’s end, making their self-interest obvious.


Radiohead intends for its audience to associate the self-interest of the crowd with what’s responsible for the crowd lying down. The video informs the viewer—if you suffer for indulging in your self-interest, you will have, ultimately, done it to yourself.

1 comment:

  1. Josh, I have to confess, your analysis confuses me. I'm not sure your argument makes sense. Personally, as a viewer, I don't necessarily identify with the crowd. I don't identify with any of the characters, but my sympathy lies with the man on the ground. He seems to be harassed, bullied almost. I don't understand your analysis that the producer wants us to empathize with the crowd. Do suits really demand "empathy"? This seems like a false assumption. I don't understand what you mean when you talk about "the question he intends for viewers to repeat." Am I supposed to "repeat" a "question"? Also, what do you mean when you write "the magnitude of the crowd lying down are meant to disconcert the audience because they disrupt the ordered world of the video." What is "the ordered world of the video"? What does this mean? Also, "magnitude" is a singular noun and requires a singular verb. You seem to write with a bunch of empty words and phrases in this post that don't really say anything. What about this sentence: "the music video uses it to engage viewers in the process of understanding its real intentions." This is an example of why the pronoun it can be problematic. What is the antecedent of the pronouns "it" and "its"? Do you have two different antecedents? Does the "question" have intentions?

    I wish you would have focused a bit more on the chorus of the song, "You do it to yourself." You talk about "self-interest," but I'm not exactly sure how you come to this conclusion. With some exceptions, you write well technically, but you seem to write with a lot of empty language that confuses me.

    ReplyDelete