Rihanna’s New Video is on the Money: “Past Due” can make anyone a B**ch!
Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 75–77
Whether it was loaned in good faith, placed in “a meeting turn,” or you have money managed for you? All tend to fall under a great degree of trust – when that trust is reneged or betrayed, then your bills are mounting, then so does your anger at what you see as unnecessary paucity…
Having been placed in such a squeeze not once but three times by separate folks who should have known better… I cannot find fault with Rihanna‘s Tarantino-like fantasy of hunting down an embezzler, in fact I may drive the getaway car for her!
“Pulp Fiction,” and “From Dusk Till Dawn” which were hailed as dark masterpieces are far more violent and drug-laden than her 7 minute feature which has cameos from no less than regular villain and Julia’s older brother – Eric Roberts and Hannibal himself Mads Mikkelsen, Prince of Denmark!
USA Today‘s assessment is more like a cautious parent trying to appear cool;- “Rihanna plays a woman financially wronged by her male accountant. In order to get her money back, Rihanna kidnaps the accountant’s blonde wife and holds her for ransom. Then, Rihanna and her friends drug the wife, hang her upside down, hit her over the head with a bottle and almost drown her in a pool.
When that doesn’t get the result she wants, Rihanna tracks down the accountant and apparently kills him using a chain saw and sharp knives. The last scene shows a blood-soaked Rihanna sitting on a pile of money.
Whether the clueless wife survives is unclear, but the treatment she got was brutal.
Many, including The Washington Post, have speculated that the ‘BBHMM‘ video is actually about Rihanna’s former real-life accountant Peter Gounis. Rihanna sued Gounis in 2012 for $36 million after alleging that he mismanaged her finances. They settled out of court for $10 million in 2014…”
It reached an out of court settlement, but some would say he still owes her 26 million, in that case – who would not want to grab a rusty chain-saw to recoup their losses? The Daily Mail is like an old virgin auntie, all horrified;-
“Two companies are stopping their adverts appearing before Rihanna’s latest explicit music video online.
The controversial song, which has been viewed more than 18 million times since it was uploaded last Wednesday, has shocked fans by depicting bloody murder, sexualised violence and nudity.”
Only The Guardian realises why the video has significance although not the same derivatives I would have provided… Their writer also recalled a Tarantino classic I overlooked and yet is equally suitable;-
“We know now that the seven-minute video, co-directed by Rihanna herself, is based on an accountant whom she said screwed her over financially. In the video, Rihanna kidnaps and tortures the wife of her accountant, and then when he still doesn’t pay what he owes her, presumably kills him with one of an arsenal of machete-style weapons. In any event, she ends up lying in a chestful of cash, covered in blood and vengefully satisfied.
To be sure, the video is vividly violent – an unabashed revenge fantasy – but here’s what didn’t occur to me: is it anti-feminist? Feminist? Misogynistic? Why would it? Rihanna is a grown woman who makes life and career choices for herself with the expectation and understanding that she is as free to do that as her male peers are. How is that not feminist?
Regarding the misogyny – the violence against women and the sexualisation of that violence – people have drawn parallels with the video and Quentin Tarantino’s film Kill Bill. So what’s the difference? Tarantino, a white, male director with a giant hard-on for cultural appropriation and women having sex with each other, directed that film. Rihanna, a masterly ambitious black woman with a fear of nothing and no one, directed her video.
The obsession over what constitutes feminism in mainstream media and popular culture strikes me as resolutely anti-feminist. As for the misogyny – really? That’s just dumb, shortsighted and so deeply patronising. Because the assumption here is that Rihanna isn’t smart enough to anticipate the various interpretations of her work. She knows. She doesn’t care. I don’t either. What I care about is that Rihanna has the agency to create her music and direct her career on her own terms.”
If Gounis has any sense he should give Ri-Ri the other 26 million quickly, since she may be following the premise of another Uber-Violent Femme Film… Basic Instinct? After all, do you need an alibi for double jeopardy? Doesn’t Ri-Ri have dual citizenship in a land which won’t try anyone on that basis? 😉