Rihanna’s “Te Amo” music video presents the artist’s
sexuality in a new way, highlighting the potential for a lesbian relationship
and her struggle with that realization. Rihanna typically tackles sexual themes
in nearly all of her music videos and stands as a sexual symbol herself. In “Te
Amo,” an attractive, feminine woman expresses her love for Rihanna, and Rihanna
experiences and considers the pleasures and pains that a queer love can bring,
and she struggles to take a stance regarding her own identity.
We defined the video as queer using multiple definitions.
According to Warner, queer protests norms and the idea of normal behavior
(xxvii). Any homosexual relationship accomplishes this version of queer.
According to Doty, individuals who find pleasure in texts that don’t match
their own sexual orientation can also mark a work as queer (6). We believe that
a straight-identified audience could also take pleasure in the visualization of
a sexual relationship between two hyper-feminized women.
Another aspect of the film is the portrayal of BDSM. BDSM
seems to be a common theme in Rihanna’s videos, however it remains a practice
that goes against commonly accepted sexual norms. Society tends to associate
BDSM with nonconsensual sex, but Rihanna shows it as a pleasure in which she
and her potential lover can engage. This representation of a typically taboo
sexual culture fulfills Warner’s definition of queer yet again.
A final characteristic marking this music video as queer is
the relationship shared between two hyper-feminized women. There exists a
stereotype in gay culture that when two women pair, one typically has a “butch”
presentation and the other a “femme” presentation. This is not the case in “Te
Amo.” Both women dress in feminine clothing, wear heavy amounts of makeup, and
use very feminine body language. Although Rihanna seems more domineering, she
still has a very feminine presentation. This partering between two “femme” women
fits Doty’s definition of queer because it falls outside of stereotypical
labels for lesbian women (7).
1. For nearly the first 50 seconds of the video, there is no music and also no contact between the two women. How does this strike you, or what do you think the function of this cinematic choice is in a music video that for the most part appears to be overtly about a potential lesbian relationship?
2. In an earlier blog on Hozier's Take Me to Church, you were questioned on why you thought feminine pronouns were used despite the video featuring two men. What does Rihanna's use of feminine pronouns do to our perception of the music video, in contrast to Hozier's?
3. While the two women's presentations as "femme" serve the purpose of breaking the stereotype of the "butch/femme" stereotype in lesbian relationships, in what other ways do you think their appearance is important?
In the video, there appears to be contradictions of gender roles between the two women. At first glance, both women are dressed rather feminine and appear to be “femme” women. There are, however, moments in the lyrics and video that suggest different gender roles.
ReplyDeleteThe lyrics seem to be explaining a woman who has fallen in love with Rihanna, but Rihanna does not want a romantic relationship, as she says, “I start to leave and she’s begging me and asking why it’s over” and “I’m not afraid to feel the love but I don’t feel that way.” From the lyrics, Rihanna takes on the male role as she falls into the stereotype of a male not wanting a serious, romantic relationship where a woman does. Rihanna also fits a male role as she is more the dominant throughout the video and the other woman is the submissive one.
Although the lyrics and performance do suggest that Rihanna would fit the stereotypical role of a male, her appearance in the video makes the opposite suggestion. Both Rihanna and the other woman in the video are dressed in rather feminine clothing. Rihanna is seen in a corset outfit and also a long flowing dress, which is stereotypically a “femme” presentation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with this post. To add on to that I would also say that for me personally, attire does not necessarily take away, or necessarily add anything to to level of masculinity or femininity you are trying to achieve. I would be alone in this boat, but I read Rihanna in this video as fairly masculine given her speech and actions. As Jordan has pointed out at first glance we see them as feminine, but something is amiss. Rihanna despite her appearance fits into a more masculine, stereotypical gender role through lyrics and speech.
DeleteTo reiterate, I may be alone in this way of thinking, but I do not care how someone dresses, it does not change who they actually are. I am a heterosexual male, but if I felt like wearing a dress one day it would not change who I actually am, only what is perceived of me. My actions will make up who I am while wearing that dress, or anything for that matter.
1. In terms of question one it seems to be more for dramatic emphasis. The other woman is arriving, wearing more "masculine" type clothing. In digression to the discussion of clothing both appear to find an semi-androgynous clothing type with the other woman wearing more pants than Rihanna. As well, Rihanna's clothing becomes more overtly sexualized despite her being in a more "dominant" role. Perhaps that is to reflect the power she has over this other woman. In terms of the BDSM references, I think it may also reflect the painfulness of the situation. The woman wants her, or even loves her, and Rihanna doesn't feel the same.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the last question I'm not sure there is really a distinction. It may be due to the way the video was produced, but their clothing is distinctly feminine and obviously sexualized. I think the roles reflect the specific part of the song. The other woman wears pants and in the scenes were there is simulated sexual activity they are both in a more feminine clothing. From watching the video I find the clothing isn't so much in the reflection of a "butch/femme" relationship but rather the ways that Rihanna is seducing the other woman, or rather the fantasy and pain from wanting someone who doesn't want you back.
In watching this music video for the first time, I am rather confused by the idea that no music or contact would be contrary to the overall video's message. I think that we need to stray away from the idea that there needs to be lyrics, sounds, or contact for sexual tension to be present in the music video. The way in which the film shots portray and go back and forth between the women creates a sort of feeling of foreplay, and so I think that it works almost as a way to lead into the rest of the video.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe the question was saying the first 50 seconds are contrary to the message, but rather what the function is, which I agree is to build foreplay and tension. There might not be any lyrics in the first 50 seconds, however, there are many sounds and forms of contact (although not human-to-human contact) happening in the first 50 seconds that completely builds the sexual tension.
DeleteBirds are chirping, which seems to signal the arrival of Rihanna’s lover, the sound of an engine shutting off and a door closing means she’s arrived. Rihanna is brooding on her furniture and walls near the sound of a hot fire crackling while it seems her lover is also brooding in her own way, on the top of a car in the sunlight. Both are experiencing heat in some way that leads to each other’s presence, until they approach each other and do some sort of slow tango-like movement, which does lead into the rest of the video.
I don’t believe the question was saying the first 50 seconds are contrary to the message, but rather what the function is, which I agree is to build foreplay and tension. There might not be any lyrics in the first 50 seconds, however, there are many sounds and forms of contact (although not human-to-human contact) happening in the first 50 seconds that completely builds the sexual tension.
DeleteBirds are chirping, which seems to signal the arrival of Rihanna’s lover, the sound of an engine shutting off and a door closing means she’s arrived. Rihanna is brooding on her furniture and walls near the sound of a hot fire crackling while it seems her lover is also brooding in her own way, on the top of a car in the sunlight. Both are experiencing heat in some way that leads to each other’s presence, until they approach each other and do some sort of slow tango-like movement, which does lead into the rest of the video.
One thing I thought was interesting about this video is the use of some aspects commonly used in "heterosexual" music videos. Specifically, there are several moments in which Rihanna is shot/filmed through the other woman's A-frame legs. The A frame technique is often seen in music videos either A. of a women filmed through a man's legs to show his dominance/her submissiveness or B. of a man through a woman's legs to objectify her or portray her sexuality and his interest in her body. I liked that Rihanna used that technique in this video. To me, it was another way that she queered femininity and the medium of music videos.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect commonly used in “heterosexual” music videos, specifically male artist music videos, is to have overly sexualized females hanging on and around the male artist as he performs. During this music video there is a point when a few shirtless, muscular, men perform on and around Rihanna and the other women. These men are also seen as back up dancers in the music video. This could be interpreted as queer as the male/female roles have switched in comparison to how music videos are normally produced. The men have taken a more submissive, sexualized role while Rihanna and the other women appear to be more dominant.
DeleteIn response to question two, I believe that the use of feminine pronouns in Rihanna's "Te Amo" takes the song to an even more queer place than Hozier's "Take Me to Church" reaches. To me, it shows that Rihanna is not afraid to show a more diverse range of sexuality and open the song up to an audience that is usually marginalized in popular music. While the music video for "Take Me to Church" is fairly queer, the song in itself is less so, and the reach of the song alone will go further than the reach of the music video (in terms of popularity). Rihanna's song itself is queer by nature and the music video is as well, and therefore this queering of popular music will reach a wider audience and quite possibly allow people to think about non normative sexual identities (or at least more so than "Take Me to Church").
ReplyDeleteIn response to question #1: I took the first portion of the video being silent as a way to intensify the video or a way to make viewers wonder what in the world is about to happen between these two women. Or possibly a way of saying when these two women are apart their lives are quiet, dull, and lonely but as soon as they are together their lives are exciting, full of life, and full of pleasure. Or in other words it is almost like the music starting is a metaphor for their time together and the silence is a metaphor for their time apart. In response to question #3: I think it is important to consider that yes it is very queering that Rihanna and Laetitia Casta are both representing “femme” lesbianism in a society that has very strict ideas for minority identities meaning typically when people think of a lesbian couple one is probably “butch” and one femme. But we should consider that this music video may have avoided including any butch lesbianism because as Ann M Ciasullo explains in her piece titled, Her (In)Visible: Cultural Representations of Lesbianism and the Lesbian Body in the 1990s, “butch lesbians are often viewed as unattractive causing them to be unconsumable in an image based culture” (Ciasullo, 602-604). With that being said it was probably safer to include two femme women keeping the video more artsy and not risking any negative reactions or disappointments from the media consumers or any RiRi fans.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if this video can be compared to the Christina Aguilara "Not Myself Tonight" that we watched in class. These lyrics remind me of the distance Christina places between her sexuality and identifying as lesbian:
ReplyDeleteListen we can dance,
but you gotta watch your hands
watch me all night,
I'm movin' to the night
because I understand
that we all need love
and I'm not afraid
to feel the love but I don't feel that way
Almost as if Rihanna is saying "you're hot but I'm not a lesbian". I can also see how others have read this as Rihanna playing the masculine role and saying she'd like to be intimate without a romantic relationship. Hard to really tell.
On a side note, I'm not sure if we're supposed to read the love interest in the video as having a different cultural background as the lyrics imply.
In response to question #1, I believe that the first fifty seconds of this video was soundless and no contact between the two women because the filmmakers wanted to give the viewers a sense of suspense. By suspense, I mean that the filmmakers wanted to create tension between the two women and have the viewers anticipate what's going to happen next between the women. I believe that the function of choosing to elimate music and contact in the first fifty seconds was as I said before to build the anticipation of the viewers. This video is a video that protests norms and I believe choosing to eliminate contact and music in the first fifty seconds brings viewers of all kinds in because now an individual would be anxious to see what is going to happen next.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tonijah in that the first fifty seconds of the video seems to be a cinematic choice to create tension and suspense. While there is no music, there are still other sounds present in the background; you can clearly hear the car moving along the path and the fire crackling in the background as Rhianna waits inside the castle. Rhianna’s lover slowly looks towards the castle, and stretches herself on the hood of the car before she is seen first walking in. Rhianna similarly is seen writhing and stretching inside. Both scenes can be taken as allusion to the sexual tension of the two—it seems as if they are both waiting for something or someone. The little sound we hear in these scenes also adds to this suspense—the fire heard crackling in the background could be an allusion the burning sexual tension that appears throughout the rest of the video. I agree with Tonijah in that the choice to eliminate contact and music in the first fifty seconds serves to make the viewer anticipate what will happen between the two and therefore serves to draw in a larger audience due to the built suspense.
DeleteWhile watching this music video, I was constantly switching back and forth between which one I thought was supposed to be the more dominant one, until I realized that I didn't sense much of a power differential at all. Their appearances are important here because they are both dressed provocatively on a similar level, which takes that out of the equation. Throughout it, all of the scenes where they are making physical contact switch off between who is in the more dominant role. I think you can definitely read this as queer because most relationships have an underlying power differential, especially within sexualized music videos.
ReplyDelete1. I feel like it adds a certain element that makes the whole intro seem really organic. Like even though we're given these presentations of two women in alternative wear in this weird castle out in the middle of the woods with a cool car, it just kind of... is. It reminds me a lot of a 30 Second to Mars video (Hurricane) how the viewer is just kind of given these non-normative images without a whole lot of explanation.
ReplyDelete2. I still don't understand that other video lol
3. I dunno. I feel like it leaves a lot more open. Even though they're clearly meant to have some sort of relationship, I feel like if either one fit more of a standard/stereotypical butch/femme dynamic then it would be less organic and seem more forced. I dunno if that makes sense.
I think that this music video could also be looked at from the perspective of Shange's theory of strategic queerness. She could be performing queerness by appearing to perform straight or queer but refusing both. Rihanna is similar to Nicki Minaj in the sense that she refuses to conform to homonormative or heteronormative labels. The face that she doesn't label herself as gay, straight, or bisexual, is one way that she is performing strategic queerness.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question one, I believe the silence at the beginning of the video was purposely inserted to create suspense. The two women, although not interacting with each other are creating a sense of sexual tension which is assumed to be between the two women. This to me seems like the video is eluding to the fact that it covers a topic that is seen in heteronormative society to be somewhat taboo. It creates an almost serious attitude for the video through it's lack of music and the only source of sound being the intimate breath at the beginning. The entire presentation at the beginning is meant to set the scene for a non-normative video to influence the viewer to read it queerly. I think without this short insert, the video might not be as suspenseful or striking in terms of it's queer content as it would seem less intimate and present two overly-sexualized black women which would allow it to be read as much more heteronormative without the intense and passionate allure that was established between them.
ReplyDeleteI want to discuss the significance of the femme/femme relationships a little. It's common for people to talk about how portrayals of femme/femme relationships break butch/femme stereotypes, but honestly how often do you even see a butch/femme relationship in popular media? With the exception of Orange is the New Black, I can't think of any butch women on TV. If media really wanted to be discursive, they could show a butch/butch relationship or a relationship where both partners were androgynous. I don't want to undermine femme/femme relationships but at this point portraying such a relationship in popular media isn't that radical anymore. I love Rhianna but is she queering popular media? Maybe not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ari here. Portraying butch would be queering popular media more than portraying femme/femme. Butch is what people are uncomfortable with. No one really cares about two femme women. It is generally accepted and even praised for being "hot."
DeleteI agree with everyone else in the sense that the introduction solely works to create tension and basically works for dramatic affect, but my main qualm also lies in Ari's argument. There is no butch-butch representation to the point where it does not exist in media. Other than Ellen DeGeneres, who reads ambiguous to me a lot of time, to create a truly queer example, a butch-butch relationship can be portrayed.
ReplyDeleteI can see the separation mentioned similar to Christina Augilera, but again, this entire video just seems to play on the fetishization of lesbianism and misogyny.
I thought this video was really really awesome! I liked the queerness of it but i still can see that the femme/femme relationship is portrayed partially due to attract the male audience. Lots of (probs hetero) guys would not be super into watching a butch/butch music video over this femme/femme one. I think it is very intentionally played out that way to be more appealing to a wider audience.
ReplyDelete1. I think the separate shots of the two women in the video was strategic in that it was to build up some kind of story or suspense. Perhaps this cinematic choice was to surprise the audience. At firsts glance, I did not assume there was going to be an overt lesbian relationship portrayed because, as mentioned, two femme presenting women do not fit into heteronormative ideals. However, I think Rihanna and the other woman DO fit into those hegemonic ideals when they are together because it seems as though their expression is for the male gaze.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question two, I really appreciate that Rihanna used female pronouns in this song. However I don't necessarily agree that this use of words makes her song in anyway more queer than Hozier's. I view these two songs as queer because they are both taking a stand against traditional power structures. Obviously the church and religion in general in Hozier's song, and a male dominated music industry in Rihanna's song. There are a number of ways we see Rihanna challenge this structure in her video (many mentioned above), but I particularly enjoy the way she takes on a masc persona at different times.
ReplyDeleteIn response to discussion 3, i think it is also challenging the assigned roles between a relationship . There is no absolute "dominant role" but both of you could be very femme or in other way both of you could be very masculine. Like the song's name I love you regardless of what you are.
ReplyDeleteAs a response to question 3, the idea of having a femme/femme relationship isn't really breaking the butch/femme stereotype since a butch/femme dynamic isn't that prevalent in popular culture anyways. They're still both heteronormatively attractive and the cinematography seems to be be working more for a heterosexual male gaze rather than for breaking a relationship boundary.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 1:
ReplyDeleteI think this serves to make the viewer question the intent of the two women. As this first portion of the video progresses, we see each woman become more and more sexualized and the intent becomes clearer. But right when the video starts, there are many different plots this video could take.
The intro sets the tone for the two women’s interactions with each other. Throughout the video, the two seem to have a push-pull relationship. Even when the two are close to each other, Rihanna seems to be the one that’s trying to pull the other woman closer. On the one hand, this depicts Rihanna’s conflict about a potential lesbian relationship; the push-pull contact between their bodies symbolizes the push-pull Rihanna has with herself. However, even though both appearing femme disrupts the stereotypical dichotomy of a lesbian relationship, the two women interacting with each other in this push-pull, taboo manner may contribute to fetishizing lesbian relationships. This may reinforce a taboo view of lesbian relationships as a whole, and may also assist in pleasing the male gaze when two women wish to be intimate with each other.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is positive that the music video doesn't play into butch/femme stereotyping, the femininity and sexual contact of both women seem to be for the male gaze. Obviously Rihanna has fans that are both men and women, but regardless, this seems to be mainly for men. More of a longing is portrayed, rather than hardcore see, which is a positive attribute overall.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this - the video does appear to be created for the male gaze. In addition, I think that the portrayal of longing does not forgive the fetishization of a sexual relationship between two females.
DeleteI'm not sure whether the music video is making a statement about lesbianism and positive female sexuality, or if it is simply used for male pleasure. I want to say that it is mainly for female sexuality and lesbianism as the first 50 seconds are used only to show the female form, and promote self-love and confident self-sexuality. However, I don't believe that society would see this video as empowering, but as a form of male pleasure.
ReplyDelete