Drafts:
Composition:
Left, from top:
Elena Dementieva, Kim Clijsters, Victoria Azarenka, and Jelena Jankovic
Right, from top:
Serena Williams, Vera Zvonareva, and Samantha Stosur
Usage:
I (Liz) hope you guys don't mind too much if I depart a little from our normal post content to discuss
this New York Times Video Gallery, released last week in preparation for the US Open, which begins today. I've told you before that I am
a big tennis fan and
an athlete, so I find myself both excited by the premise of this video gallery and disappointed by its execution. I'll share my reaction to the videos, but I'm most curious to hear what the rest of you think.
First, a few thoughts on what I liked about the video gallery. I really appreciate what I understand as the premise: to show female professional tennis players in slow motion in order to help us recognize the "beauty" of their bodily movements. I know "beauty" is a loaded and sometimes dangerous word, but as
a student of aesthetic theory, I do think appreciating "beauty" in itself is a worthwhile pursuit. The title suggests that a woman's physical strength and power can be beautiful, which I think is a step in the right direction. A few of them are even sweating noticeably! I was fascinated by watching the women move in slow motion. I've seen Kim Clijsters perform that split hundreds of times, but this was the first time I noticed that she placed her left hand on the ground to push herself back up. I was intrigued by where their eyes were focused as they struck the ball. The movement of their muscles in slow motion is, I think, quite beautiful. The music does an interesting job of encouraging us to make a connection between these athletic movements and the bodily movements of dancers, particularly ballet dancers, which are more traditionally recognized as "beautiful."
But I think that's where my appreciation for the piece ends. As I continued to think about it, all I could find were more points of frustration. I'm bothered by the decision to put the women in designer costumes and, in 5 of the 7 videos, to leave their hair down so it could float around. I think these editorial decisions reinforce the suggestion that women need to fancy themselves up in order for their appearance to read as "beautiful." If the intent was really to have highlighted the beauty in their movement or their power, I can't understand why they weren't dressed in either their regular court clothes or even a more neutral ensemble. If each of them were wearing the same black tank and shorts, for example, I think our focus would have been directed more toward their bodily movements. Instead, I was thinking "Is JJ playing tennis in Herve Leger? How is that possible?"
At first, I was delighted to see Samantha Stosur included in the gallery. Of all the ladies included, she cultivates an appearance that is the least traditionally "feminine." On court, she wears a dress with athletic-inspired styling accents, hats and visors, and wraparound sunglasses. She pulls her hair into a tight ponytail and doesn't wear noticeable makeup. Aside from Serena Williams, Stosur is easily the most muscular woman in the top 20. It's the combination of these factors, I think, which results in rumors that she is a lesbian (as if that matters) and a steroid user (though she must consent to regular random drug screenings and has never tested positive). Since I know these things about her, I was both glad to see her in a montage dedicated to "beauty" and surprised that she's been styled in a bandeau top with a bare midriff. It seems completely inconsistent with her persona, whereas everyone else seems to at least be dressed in something she might have picked up off the stylist's rack.
Stosur's one of the ladies whose hair is pulled back, but you might not notice it, because her face is completely outside the fame within 5 seconds of the 23 second clip. What gives,
New York Times? In four of the videos, the player's face is prominently featured for the entire clip. The videos of Jankovic and Azarenka only show their faces for about half the time, but the camera pans up toward their faces rather than panning away from them immediately, as is the case in the Stosur clip. Stosur's body is prominently featured, and had they focused only on her face, I probably would have complained that they seemed uncomfortable with her physical strength. But the decision to figuratively cut off her head in a video that purports to celebrate the beauty of her power doesn't sit well with me, either.
My frustration about the refusal to feature Stosur's face was only heightened when I got to the final video. The clip of Vera Zvonarava is focused almost entirely on her vibrant blue eyes and her floating hair. Her arm only comes into the picture to strike the ball near the end of the clip. The darkness of the scene behind her also serves to emphasize her hair and eyes, which I think we can agree fit the traditional Western standards of beauty.
So while I think this video gallery had great potential to ask its viewers to reconsider how they define "beauty" or "power," I think it ultimately fails to do so. Maybe I wouldn't have expected so much from it if they'd titled it "Nice looking girls in nice looking clothes in slow motion." But the title drew me in before, ultimately, the content let me down.
Prompts:
- What's your take on the video gallery? Which elements of the players' movements or the video production stood out the most to you? Am I being too critical or not critical enough?