Ok, can you explain to me what is "lame" about it? I like it precisely because it makes sense. I don't see anything lame about it unless you are saying making sense is lame? I really am trying to understand, not being sarcastic.
I can't speak for durberville, but I can tell you what
I personally find questionable about the video:
If I was giving a presentation about the gratuitous sexualization and objectification of women in music videos, this would definitely be an example I'd use.
What's the big deal with objectification, you might ask.
According to objectification theory, when women are frequently objectified, or treated as collections of body parts, other women internalize that view in a "self fulfilling prophecy" sort of way. Objectification in media like music vids is partially responsible for a huge range of issues that women face - body image issues, trivialization of women’s accomplishments, violence towards women, and the notion that women are readily available for sex.
Source: Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward an understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Next, you might be wondering how, exactly, this is measured in music videos.
People who research this stuff ask the following questions: To what extent are body parts shown? Is there a focus of a gendered gaze? Are characters of a certain gender used as decorative objects? Do the characters fit into face/body standard ideals? How much provocative dancing and attire is there?
Source: Aubrey, J. S., & Frisby, C. (2011). Sexual objectification in music videos: A content analysis comparing gender and genre.The new Chic video checks off almost all of the above criteria for objectification - all except using Karlie's character as a decorative object. There are numerous close-ups of her legs, stomach, butt, and underwear - definitely shots to hold the male gaze. She's showing much more body than necessary to convey "girl having fun casually listening to Chic records". She could have easily worn sweats or PJs and the message of the video would be much clearer. Karlie MOST DEFINITELY fits both face and body ideals. Her dancing/body movements weren't exactly Nicki Minaj in "Anaconda", yet they still read as provocative to many people - probably due to the way she's dressed and the way she was filmed.
I'm not a prude who thinks that all sexualization should be removed from videos - I happen to think that in this particular case, it was wholly unnecessary, gratuitous, and out of place in the context of the song. My opinion.
I did write a research paper on objectification in music vids about a year and a half ago, so I had those sources lying around on my computer