@nobreadnojam

1 year ago

Quick analysis because I love Hozier's art and this vidoe is just great. About the performance, it starts from the guy and the girl meeting and falling in love. they then proceed to unveil each other's wardrobe. or 'costumes.' focus on how they themselves don't choose the costumes, its the other, this can refer to the expectations we put on the other person regarding their mesculinity/femininity. the way this is choreographed and runs smooth can show that we most often let others, even if it may be our partner define or limit our masculinity/femininity, like it is expected of them. Hozier's costumes get him into the role of the someone who is more hands-on with their work. like a typical male they are also only work attires (enforcing man as main breadwinner of the family) while for the lady she's wearing what may be a nurse uniform or a chef or just in a dress (role of a housewife) which shows her role as the nurturing female. Hozier, dressed as a solider goes off to war, again something which may be expected of him. The couple part and the woman is starts to beautify herself by painting herself as aphrodite. (the statue in front of her). this is enforcing traditional masculine/feminine roles on them again and again. Hozier comes back with an arm missing and when his lover greets him his reaction is not the most welcoming. This could be the aftermath of the war. this could be just his envy that while she was at home he had to go out and he gave a part of himself too. (point is, he's not happy) Venus de Milo (the statue on the table) doesn't have arms, the woman looks at her and then she's seen removing her arms too (not sure how THIS worked. did she cut them?) it could metaphorically show her attempts and efforts to become a 'perfect' female. or just one who was the most beautiful. This could also show (and this is only my interpretation) her response to her husband losing his arm. to maybe sympathise with him. to swooping down to meet him (can this reflect on her trying not to hurt the male ego? i dont know.) But she does meet him, it's shown in the performance that the kids are watching when her arms goes to touch his. hozier then, will embrace his lover and show affection (interesting tangent on how he won't show affection when she was in a better 'place' than him and now that she isn't and now that she has embodied aphrodite fully (i.e. reached peaks of femininity idk?) he's then comfortable to show love. cue: child, who is revealed by the woman. and when hozier the father) goes to meet him the exchange is not the most warm. The father only shakes the little boy's hand and almost is looking down at him. this is not the interaction between a boy and his father. the father is wholly treating it as meeting another man. an adult. and when toys are revealed to the boy and he goes for the doll before anything else the father gets mad. he snatches it and throw it away. he's teaching his son how to be a 'man' (cue: toxic masculinity) the boy grows violent and starts smashing all the toys (because he wasn't allowed to express himself fully) while the mother does nothing until grabbing the boy's arm and putting the cloth over it. same arm his father also lost. this could show how both the parents are enforcing these roles and expectations on the boy while he's really too young to understand or retaliate. (the lyrics, seven new ways that you can eat your young, fits so well because this sis showing how youth gets destroyed. how trampling on their individual egos and personas while trying to make this cliche traditional story for yourself and imposing it on other only will eat away at your young.) the father unveils the costumes of the young boy then. which are all similar to the ones hozier was wearing at the start. the boy has been molded into this shape created by his parents and the society. thank you for coming to my tedtalk.

4.5K |