World on Fire

As a student of history, peering into the lives and culture of people who have long since passed from our presence, I have always found it amusing to imagine how my own life and culture will be looked upon by the generations of those to come. It's disheartening, however, to realize that scholars of the past focus primarily on the flaws that men foster rather that the virtues that they uphold. Wars, scandals, the barbarianism of ancients; these are the things we study. How then, will we be remembered by those who study us?
LYRICS
If one from the future or present were to look at pop culture (a music video, per se) it could be assumed that we are very materialistic people. This isn’t news to most people, but the problem that it causes is quite often misunderstood. There is no misdeed in taking pleasure in some thing; the self-transgression occurs when we allow gadgets to suppress our personal relationships. If you look at a music video, chances are you will usually see someone obsessed with the bling dangling around their neck, their clothes that cost as much as some houses, or their cars with a hot tub in the back. In her video of the song “World on Fire,” Sarah McLachlan tries to show the flaw in this standard of producing videos, and does so very effectively.
In the beginning of the video, McLachlan uses the simplistic setting to establish an ethos persona that eliminates any possibility of hypocrisy in her message. It begins very simply, with a somber McLachlan sitting in a modest room, amber guitar over her lap. The room looks like an average apartment, or possibly a hotel room. There are white walls, a tan carpet, and brown furniture; everything is very lackluster. McLachlan is wearing a tank top, jeans, and no shoes. Her hair is done very casually. It’s almost as if the cameraman entered the room a few minutes ago and surprised her. The lack of impression is rather shocking, ironically.
The video is shot in very poor quality, probably by a machine that one could get their hands on at Wal-Mart. There is no camera movement, only straight forward shots. The first text that appears is very simple, yet blunt. “This video cost $150,000.” The dollar amount is in bold red font, augmenting the first thought that comes into the mind of the viewer; “That’s a lot of money for a video.” It’s rather surprising in an illogical way. The delay that comes next has perfect timing. It shows nothing but a straight shot of McLachlan, sitting strumming and singing. Twenty seconds later, as most people would be almost ready to change the video, text appears once again, but this time in pure white. “What’s wrong with this video? Well it only cost $15 to make.”
Up to this point, the set up for the argument has been completely logical, but with the next image, it begins to turn to a more argument which utilizes pathos. Almost instantly, an image of a world map appears with many of the globe’s poorest areas highlighted. This shifts the readers attention in a very rapid, and nearly uncomfortable fashion, from the artist’s face to the realization that there is a massive world outside of the white walls of that apartment. Overshadowing that image is a text that reads “$150,000 could make a difference to over 1,000,000 people.”
The rhetorical appeal of pathos aforementioned is amplified by the music being played. It is a somber, slightly sad, and almost tired song, but has a spark of hope somehow wrapped within the music; a hopeful lift after the minor 'fall', if you’re looking intimately at the music theory. (If you are into the theory aspect of music, the writer stratigically placed progressions as follows; C Major, D Minor, C Major, and later, F Major, A minor, G major. Somber lyrics and pictures are placed specifically at the minor 'falls' {where the music gets 'more sad'} and more hopeful lyrics and images are placed where the Major resumes.) Even though that by now the music has taken a back seat to the images due to the speed that they are coming at, it is grabbing the emotions of the viewer and telling them that there are major problems being addressed here, but somewhere down the road, the specifics unknown to the viewer, there is hope.
The text mentioned previously forces the viewer to ask themselves how $150,000 could affect one million people. This time, the audience isn’t kept waiting long, as a laundry list of ‘this is how’ soon follows. Text appears and makes a comparative statement that claims that $200 (in bold red font) could either be used in LA to pay a production manager for one day, or in Ethiopia to pay for 100 children’s school fees for a term.
It is a logical appeal that also employs pathos, as this seems very drastic and logical at the same time. The observer is forced to feel pity for the children that are shown because they have heard of the hardships that they have grown up with in their childhoods. It is also only logical that if one had to choose where the money would be better spent, most minds would put a higher precedence on tuition for 100 than advice on how to make a video from one. People watching understand that if a person in a third world county doesn’t go to school, they will most likely end up making sneakers for Nike. The great thing about people realizing this is that they are not thinking about themselves at this moment in time.
Several more texts appear, mentioning the $5000 for hair and make-up that was used to pay for 150 Afghani girls to go to school and the $500 for a studio playback that was used to buy enough nuts and bolts to hold together 50 houses in tsunami hit areas. The video always seems to be a few seconds ahead of the person watching it, because it was at this time that I was watching and wondering how much they wanted me to donate, and slightly after, a pure white text appeared and stated that they wanted no money. This plays onto the character of the artist, reassuring everyone that they aren’t running a con.
Possibly the best use of pathos in this video was the instance that a single African mother is introduced. At the moment they introduce her, the words “don’t want to be left alone” are sung in the background in a dual-media comination. The video mentions that the mother works two jobs, 16 hours a day, seven days a week to raise the $200 she needs to send her son to school for a year. When watching her, one notices that she cracks a smile, even in her pitiable situation. Immediately after, one can see that the words “Psalm 118 5-12” are painted in bold on her tin front door. At first glance, the verse shows that she is Christian and therefore relates her to many of the viewers that would be watching this video. But if one gives in to their curiosity and looks up the verse, they can find out why she is smiling. The gist of the verse states that despite the impoverished region to which she was born and the mistreatment that political entities have given her, she understands that they can do nothing to her soul, and that her happiness stems from the core of herself and her family that remains.
At this point in the video, the slides start to roll almost too fast to read. Two hours of film stock costs enough to build six wells. The money for a production supervisor could give independence to 100 Afghani widows. The catering to the studio for a day could buy 10,950 meals for street kids in Calcutta. The high rate of change gives the viewer a sense of just how many problems there are in the world.
The best logical argument came late in the song, when they mention that the $15,000 that would be used for styling costs could be used to help many of the 12 million people who are blind because of cataracts. It is an ironic statement that the money could be used to make something more aesthetic, or be used to allow people to see anything, aesthetic or not.
At the apogee of the song, the artist once again engages in a argument of pathos, by changing the pictures to more uplifting scenes; dancing, bright lights, people clasping hands, and clean running water. This gives people a slight hope that although there is bad, there is also good.
In her video, McLachlan urges viewers to understand the frailty of their existence; that rather than LA or NYC, they could have been born in Calcutta. She does not say that we are morally obligated to donate to any cause across the world, but just asks her audience to accept the realization that our problems would be considered luxuries to others in the world. The argument is the siren for a counter-culture. Look at the most famous cultural art set in LA right now; Nip Tuck, The Hills, Dr. 90210. It’s a very self absorbed culture. She’s not saying that you need to save the world, but don’t act like it revolves around you. And oh, does she argue it well.