WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.000 Welcome back. We have a genuinely fascinating 00:00:03.000 --> 00:00:05.240 mission for today's Deep Dive. We really do. 00:00:05.480 --> 00:00:07.679 And it revolves around a piece of pop culture 00:00:07.679 --> 00:00:09.839 you have likely encountered, you know, tapped 00:00:09.839 --> 00:00:12.619 your foot to, maybe even sang along with. But 00:00:12.619 --> 00:00:15.419 without ever realizing the massive contradictions 00:00:15.419 --> 00:00:17.960 sitting right beneath the surface. Exactly. We 00:00:17.960 --> 00:00:20.960 are looking at a single, seemingly breezy synth 00:00:20.960 --> 00:00:25.169 -pop hit from 1984. The track is... Bananarama's 00:00:25.169 --> 00:00:27.809 Robert De Niro's Waiting. Such a classic track. 00:00:28.030 --> 00:00:30.350 It is incredibly catchy. But as we comb through 00:00:30.350 --> 00:00:32.530 the sources on this, the release history, the 00:00:32.530 --> 00:00:35.649 marketing, the music video, and most importantly, 00:00:35.750 --> 00:00:37.609 the retrospective interviews with the band members 00:00:37.609 --> 00:00:41.200 themselves. a highly contested multifaceted history 00:00:41.200 --> 00:00:43.659 emerges. It really does. So let's set the foundational 00:00:43.659 --> 00:00:46.299 scene for you. The date is February 20, 1984. 00:00:46.679 --> 00:00:49.140 The English girl group Bananarama, which consists 00:00:49.140 --> 00:00:51.780 of Sarah Dallin, Siobhan Fahey, and Karen Woodward, 00:00:51.840 --> 00:00:55.039 releases this track as the second single from 00:00:55.039 --> 00:00:57.659 their eponymous second studio album. And on its 00:00:57.659 --> 00:00:59.740 face, you know, it presents as a fun, name -dropping 00:00:59.740 --> 00:01:01.960 80s pop song. It does present that way, yeah. 00:01:02.439 --> 00:01:05.579 But if we look at the broader landscape of 1984... 00:01:05.900 --> 00:01:08.920 The choice of Robert De Niro as the subject of 00:01:08.920 --> 00:01:11.920 a bubbly pop song is our first hint that something 00:01:11.920 --> 00:01:14.680 deeper is at play here. Right. Because in the 00:01:14.680 --> 00:01:17.980 early 80s, De Niro wasn't the comedic actor we 00:01:17.980 --> 00:01:20.120 might think of today from movies like Meet the 00:01:20.120 --> 00:01:22.519 Parents. Oh, not at all. He was the intense, 00:01:22.560 --> 00:01:25.120 brooding, often terrifying method actor known 00:01:25.120 --> 00:01:28.000 for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. He represented 00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:31.560 a gritty, paranoid, obsessive brand of masculinity. 00:01:31.579 --> 00:01:33.819 Yeah, a very dark figure to put in a pop song. 00:01:34.040 --> 00:01:36.989 Exactly. To juxtapose his name against early 00:01:36.989 --> 00:01:39.969 80s new wave and synth pop is a deliberate aesthetic 00:01:39.969 --> 00:01:43.010 choice. And that sound was masterfully crafted 00:01:43.010 --> 00:01:46.230 by the production duo of Steve Jolly and Tony 00:01:46.230 --> 00:01:48.090 Swain. Jolly and Swain, yeah. They were known 00:01:48.090 --> 00:01:50.569 for this incredibly polished, sophisticated production 00:01:50.569 --> 00:01:53.390 style that completely dominated the UK charts 00:01:53.390 --> 00:01:56.129 at the time. They really shaped that era. But 00:01:56.129 --> 00:01:58.069 did that juxtaposition, that dark actor with 00:01:58.069 --> 00:02:00.590 the polished pop sound, did that actually work 00:02:00.590 --> 00:02:03.150 on a commercial level? Oh, massively. I mean, 00:02:03.150 --> 00:02:05.269 when we look at the cultural footprint of Robert 00:02:05.269 --> 00:02:08.849 De Niro's waiting, it was an undeniable international 00:02:08.849 --> 00:02:12.449 success. Right. It hit the top 10 practically 00:02:12.449 --> 00:02:15.110 everywhere. We're talking number three on the 00:02:15.110 --> 00:02:17.430 UK singles chart, number eight in Ireland, number 00:02:17.430 --> 00:02:20.009 three in Luxembourg. Wow. Number seven in South 00:02:20.009 --> 00:02:22.770 Africa, number eight in Switzerland and number 00:02:22.770 --> 00:02:26.250 seven in West Germany. It was everywhere. It 00:02:26.250 --> 00:02:29.490 was. It even made a brief appearance on the famously 00:02:29.490 --> 00:02:33.370 difficult to crack U .S. Billboard Hot 100, peaking 00:02:33.370 --> 00:02:37.610 at number 95. The global reach was just staggering 00:02:37.610 --> 00:02:41.060 for a track that. funnily, is built on an inside 00:02:41.060 --> 00:02:43.939 joke or very specific cultural reference. Which 00:02:43.939 --> 00:02:45.599 makes perfect sense when you listen to it, though. 00:02:45.680 --> 00:02:47.500 I mean, you hear those synthesizers, the upbeat 00:02:47.500 --> 00:02:49.840 rhythm, the lush vocal harmonies. It's designed 00:02:49.840 --> 00:02:52.240 to be an earworm. It goes down easy. It really 00:02:52.240 --> 00:02:54.520 does. It does, but that accessibility is actually 00:02:54.520 --> 00:02:57.180 a bit of a Trojan horse. Decades later, Billboard 00:02:57.180 --> 00:02:59.780 magazine ranked Robert De Niro's Waiting at number 00:02:59.780 --> 00:03:03.659 74 on their list of the 100 greatest girl group 00:03:03.659 --> 00:03:06.780 songs of all time. A solid rank. Yeah, but the 00:03:06.780 --> 00:03:09.180 ranking isn't the interesting part. it's how 00:03:09.180 --> 00:03:12.000 billboard described the track they explicitly 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:14.939 called it one of the more subversive girl group 00:03:14.939 --> 00:03:18.800 songs of the 1980s subversive right noting that 00:03:18.800 --> 00:03:21.520 it intentionally distracts listeners with a breezy 00:03:21.520 --> 00:03:25.240 of moment synth pop sound okay let's unpack this 00:03:25.240 --> 00:03:28.580 because subversive is a heavy word to throw at 00:03:28.580 --> 00:03:30.900 a track that feels tailor -made for roller rinks 00:03:30.900 --> 00:03:33.960 and teenage bedrooms it really is so before we 00:03:33.960 --> 00:03:36.330 even get to the lyrical subversion that billboard 00:03:36.330 --> 00:03:38.729 is hinting at we need to look the physical world 00:03:38.729 --> 00:03:41.889 of this song the marketing around it was a master 00:03:41.889 --> 00:03:45.289 class in early parasocial fan engagement oh absolutely 00:03:45.289 --> 00:03:47.849 for anyone who remembers buying physical media 00:03:47.849 --> 00:03:49.990 in the 80s you weren't just picking up a piece 00:03:49.990 --> 00:03:52.110 of plastic with audio on it you were buying into 00:03:52.110 --> 00:03:55.270 an entire curated ecosystem it was an era where 00:03:55.270 --> 00:03:57.270 the packaging had to do the heavy lifting of 00:03:57.270 --> 00:04:00.159 building the artist's identity right Today, artists 00:04:00.159 --> 00:04:01.919 have social media to show off their personalities, 00:04:02.340 --> 00:04:05.300 but in 1984, the record label had to find physical 00:04:05.300 --> 00:04:07.020 ways to make you feel connected to the band. 00:04:07.300 --> 00:04:09.939 And they went all out for this release. Let's 00:04:09.939 --> 00:04:12.639 look at the standard 7 -inch single, which featured 00:04:12.639 --> 00:04:16.120 a B -side called Push. Some copies of this 7 00:04:16.120 --> 00:04:18.199 -inch actually came with a cut -out postcard 00:04:18.199 --> 00:04:21.920 of either Siohan Fehe, Karen Woodward, or Sarah 00:04:21.920 --> 00:04:24.149 Dallin. Tucked inside the sleeve. Just a little 00:04:24.149 --> 00:04:26.769 bonus for the fans. Exactly. Then you had three 00:04:26.769 --> 00:04:29.550 separate picture disc releases, each featuring 00:04:29.550 --> 00:04:32.850 a glossy photo of one of the women. But the absolute 00:04:32.850 --> 00:04:35.189 peak of this marketing strategy and a detail 00:04:35.189 --> 00:04:37.209 that really jumped out from our sources was the 00:04:37.209 --> 00:04:40.730 12 -inch vinyl release in the UK. Ah, the color 00:04:40.730 --> 00:04:43.610 -coded variant strategy. Yes. The 12 -inch was 00:04:43.610 --> 00:04:46.430 pressed in three different vinyl colors, specifically 00:04:46.430 --> 00:04:48.430 assigned to each member of the group. Brilliant 00:04:48.430 --> 00:04:50.410 marketing. You could buy the record in pink for 00:04:50.410 --> 00:04:52.990 Karen Woodward. green for Sia Ben -Feihei, or 00:04:52.990 --> 00:04:55.850 blue for Sarah Dallin. And each of these colored 00:04:55.850 --> 00:04:58.629 vinyls featured a large, customized picture label. 00:04:58.829 --> 00:05:01.610 Which is an incredibly sophisticated retail strategy 00:05:01.610 --> 00:05:04.550 for 1984. Right. We see this all the time today, 00:05:04.610 --> 00:05:07.290 with major pop artists releasing 10 different 00:05:07.290 --> 00:05:09.670 colored variants of the same album to boost sales 00:05:09.670 --> 00:05:12.449 and cater to superfans. Banana Raw's management 00:05:12.449 --> 00:05:14.889 was doing this four decades ago. Way ahead of 00:05:14.889 --> 00:05:17.199 their time. They were forcing the consumer to 00:05:17.199 --> 00:05:19.660 make a choice. It wasn't just about liking the 00:05:19.660 --> 00:05:21.579 song. It was about choosing your favorite member, 00:05:21.720 --> 00:05:24.360 collecting the whole set, and aligning your identity 00:05:24.360 --> 00:05:27.769 with Karen, Sibhan, or Sarah. And the 12 -inch 00:05:27.769 --> 00:05:30.129 itself was packed with specific audio content 00:05:30.129 --> 00:05:32.389 designed for the clubs and the hardcore fans. 00:05:32.709 --> 00:05:35.790 It featured an extended 5 -minute and 43 -second 00:05:35.790 --> 00:05:38.550 version of Robert De Niro's Waiting alongside 00:05:38.550 --> 00:05:41.689 the B -side push. A must -have for DJs. Yeah. 00:05:41.769 --> 00:05:44.269 But there was also a really fantastic Easter 00:05:44.269 --> 00:05:48.019 egg included. positioned right before Push on 00:05:48.019 --> 00:05:51.240 the B side of that 12 -inch was an unlisted hidden 00:05:51.240 --> 00:05:53.899 track. I love that detail. It was an alternate 00:05:53.899 --> 00:05:57.000 early version of a brief instrumental piece that 00:05:57.000 --> 00:05:59.259 would later be fully realized as a track called 00:05:59.259 --> 00:06:01.699 Link at the end of Side 1 on their main album. 00:06:01.899 --> 00:06:04.339 It rewards the obsessive listener. The postcards, 00:06:04.399 --> 00:06:07.000 the color -coded vinyl, the hidden tracks, it's 00:06:07.000 --> 00:06:09.839 all designed to foster a deeply personal, inviting 00:06:09.839 --> 00:06:12.420 connection between you and the band. You feel 00:06:12.420 --> 00:06:14.990 like you're part of an exclusive club. Exactly. 00:06:15.149 --> 00:06:17.629 But the visual representation of the song, the 00:06:17.629 --> 00:06:20.810 music video, presents a jarring aesthetic shift 00:06:20.810 --> 00:06:23.310 from all that bright, colorful marketing. It 00:06:23.310 --> 00:06:26.470 is a complete 180 -degree turn. Yeah. The music 00:06:26.470 --> 00:06:28.230 video, which was directed by Duncan Gibbons, 00:06:28.350 --> 00:06:31.970 strips away all the neon, breezy pop star glamour 00:06:31.970 --> 00:06:33.769 you would expect from the green and pink finals. 00:06:34.170 --> 00:06:37.209 Entirely. The entire thing is drenched in a moody, 00:06:37.209 --> 00:06:41.149 urban paranoia. The video opens with Bananarama 00:06:41.149 --> 00:06:44.009 walking around these incredibly dark, shadowy, 00:06:44.009 --> 00:06:46.930 unwelcoming city streets. The lighting is harsh. 00:06:47.209 --> 00:06:49.709 Very noir. And very quickly, it becomes apparent 00:06:49.709 --> 00:06:52.050 they are being followed. The vibe suggests they're 00:06:52.050 --> 00:06:55.069 being tailed by these suspicious, mafia -style 00:06:55.069 --> 00:06:58.050 clothed men. Right. And as the song progresses 00:06:58.050 --> 00:07:00.610 to the bridge, the tension hits a fever pitch. 00:07:01.180 --> 00:07:03.519 You see Sarah Dellen physically running down 00:07:03.519 --> 00:07:05.319 the street, constantly looking over her shoulder. 00:07:05.560 --> 00:07:08.139 She's looking genuinely terrified, as if she 00:07:08.139 --> 00:07:10.660 is actively being hunted in the dark. That imagery 00:07:10.660 --> 00:07:13.199 is a striking juxtaposition against the upbeat, 00:07:13.399 --> 00:07:16.000 synthesized, jolly and swain rhythm track playing 00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:18.279 underneath it. It really is. Gibbons essentially 00:07:18.279 --> 00:07:21.360 built a cinematic, suspenseful thriller sequence 00:07:21.360 --> 00:07:25.459 and pasted it over a dance pop beat. It leans 00:07:25.459 --> 00:07:28.220 heavily into the gritty gangster imagery associated 00:07:28.220 --> 00:07:30.500 with the actor they are singing about. They are 00:07:30.500 --> 00:07:32.579 tapping into the cinematic universe of Robert 00:07:32.579 --> 00:07:35.459 De Niro. But doesn't that dark thriller atmosphere 00:07:35.459 --> 00:07:38.480 just completely clash with the whole fun pop 00:07:38.480 --> 00:07:40.470 song vibe? they were selling in the record stores? 00:07:40.610 --> 00:07:42.990 It does until you reach the climax of the video 00:07:42.990 --> 00:07:45.490 where the tone undergoes a radical deflation. 00:07:45.649 --> 00:07:48.050 The bait and switch. Exactly. The chase sequence 00:07:48.050 --> 00:07:51.009 ends. The band members are back inside their 00:07:51.009 --> 00:07:53.430 apartment, seemingly safe behind locked doors. 00:07:53.750 --> 00:07:57.230 Suddenly the doorbell rings. Karen Woodward slowly 00:07:57.230 --> 00:07:59.410 goes to answer it, and she is confronted by the 00:07:59.410 --> 00:08:01.529 very man who had been stalking them through the 00:08:01.529 --> 00:08:04.730 streets. So tense. And he is holding a classic, 00:08:04.850 --> 00:08:07.930 menacing, mafia -style violin case. The ultimate 00:08:07.930 --> 00:08:10.660 visual shorthand for a Tommy gun. Precisely. 00:08:10.660 --> 00:08:13.120 The visual tension is at its absolute maximum. 00:08:13.279 --> 00:08:15.319 She looks at the case nervously. He pops the 00:08:15.319 --> 00:08:18.040 latches. The case falls open. But instead of 00:08:18.040 --> 00:08:20.560 a weapon, the interior of the case reveals a 00:08:20.560 --> 00:08:23.300 sign that reads pizza delivery sitting right 00:08:23.300 --> 00:08:26.300 next to three actual pizzas. It's a literal bait 00:08:26.300 --> 00:08:29.100 and switch. Yeah. The suspense instantly evaporates. 00:08:29.139 --> 00:08:31.480 The man starts laughing. Karen starts laughing. 00:08:31.620 --> 00:08:34.059 And the video just ends with three members of 00:08:34.059 --> 00:08:37.039 Bananarama hanging out in their apartment, happily 00:08:37.039 --> 00:08:39.240 eating pizza. What's fascinating here is how 00:08:39.240 --> 00:08:41.879 the video manages to have its cake and eat it, 00:08:41.919 --> 00:08:45.059 too. Or rather, have its pizza and eat it. Nice. 00:08:45.220 --> 00:08:48.279 It plays on the Robert De Niro mafia hero worship 00:08:48.279 --> 00:08:51.600 trope, introducing genuine themes of stalking 00:08:51.600 --> 00:08:54.620 and paranoia, but then deliberately deflates 00:08:54.620 --> 00:08:57.320 that tension with a punchline. Race. It's highly 00:08:57.320 --> 00:08:59.500 likely this was a concession to the realities 00:08:59.500 --> 00:09:03.620 of 1984 television. MTV was booming, but network 00:09:03.620 --> 00:09:06.100 programmers still wanted lighthearted, easily 00:09:06.100 --> 00:09:08.519 digestible content. They couldn't go too dark. 00:09:08.639 --> 00:09:11.299 Exactly. The pizza delivery ending tells the 00:09:11.299 --> 00:09:13.320 audience, don't worry, we're just playing around 00:09:13.320 --> 00:09:15.200 with these dark cinematic themes. Ultimately, 00:09:15.240 --> 00:09:17.600 it's just a bit of fun. And for over 30 years, 00:09:17.759 --> 00:09:20.340 that is exactly how the public consumed it. A 00:09:20.340 --> 00:09:23.500 catchy song with a funny, slightly weird music 00:09:23.500 --> 00:09:26.500 video about a celebrity crush. But here's where 00:09:26.500 --> 00:09:30.000 it gets really interesting. And where this deep 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:33.549 dive takes a massive, unexpected turn. To understand 00:09:33.549 --> 00:09:36.309 the billboard quote about the song being subversive, 00:09:36.330 --> 00:09:39.669 we have to jump forward in time. Okay. Let's 00:09:39.669 --> 00:09:44.009 fast forward from 1984 all the way to 2017. Bananarama 00:09:44.009 --> 00:09:46.289 is doing a major reunion interview with The Guardian. 00:09:46.950 --> 00:09:49.509 Original member Siuhan Feihei is reflecting on 00:09:49.509 --> 00:09:51.950 the band's legacy and the depth of their catalog. 00:09:52.330 --> 00:09:55.210 She proudly states, The thing I'm proudest of 00:09:55.210 --> 00:09:57.809 is that we made quirky pop. Which is very true. 00:09:58.090 --> 00:10:00.090 But then she completely shatters the established 00:10:00.090 --> 00:10:02.509 narrative of Robert De Niro's waiting. The revelation 00:10:02.509 --> 00:10:05.009 she makes completely alters the DNA of the track. 00:10:05.190 --> 00:10:06.889 She states on the record that the lyrics were, 00:10:06.970 --> 00:10:09.690 quote, much darker than you'd imagine. And then 00:10:09.690 --> 00:10:12.129 she explicitly reveals that the song is actually 00:10:12.129 --> 00:10:14.690 about date rape. Let that sink in for a moment. 00:10:14.769 --> 00:10:17.629 This is a profound, retroactive reframing of 00:10:17.629 --> 00:10:19.889 a song that millions of people had been casually 00:10:19.889 --> 00:10:22.590 dancing to and playing at parties for over three 00:10:22.590 --> 00:10:25.490 decades. When you reexamine the lyrics in the 00:10:25.490 --> 00:10:28.950 video through that specific lens, the entire 00:10:28.950 --> 00:10:31.950 architecture of the song changes. The paranoia 00:10:31.950 --> 00:10:34.889 in the video, the dark streets, the feeling of 00:10:34.889 --> 00:10:37.509 being followed by menacing men, Sarah Dallin 00:10:37.509 --> 00:10:40.509 running in terror, it suddenly isn't just a playful 00:10:40.509 --> 00:10:43.029 homage to gangster movies. No, I know. It becomes 00:10:43.029 --> 00:10:45.610 a visceral representation of female vulnerability 00:10:45.610 --> 00:10:49.289 and trauma in public spaces. And the chorus itself 00:10:49.289 --> 00:10:53.210 takes on a haunting new meaning. Singing Robert 00:10:53.210 --> 00:10:55.850 De Niro's Waiting, Talking Italian, isn't just 00:10:55.850 --> 00:10:58.049 about thinking a movie star is cute. No. It becomes 00:10:58.049 --> 00:11:01.269 about escapism. It's a coping mechanism. The 00:11:01.269 --> 00:11:03.850 protagonist is recreating into a safe fictional 00:11:03.850 --> 00:11:06.570 fantasy world the protective arms of a movie 00:11:06.570 --> 00:11:09.269 character to disassociate from a deeply traumatic, 00:11:09.629 --> 00:11:12.509 violating real world experience. Exactly. And 00:11:12.509 --> 00:11:15.149 in that same 2017 Guardian interview, the other 00:11:15.149 --> 00:11:17.250 members of the group readily back up Fahey's 00:11:17.250 --> 00:11:19.549 interpretation. Karen Woodward adds a telling 00:11:19.549 --> 00:11:21.570 comment. She says, you'll listen to it with New 00:11:21.570 --> 00:11:24.200 Year's now. She's not wrong. And Sarah Dallin 00:11:24.200 --> 00:11:26.639 also chimes in, offering some musical context 00:11:26.639 --> 00:11:28.860 by saying she initially wanted the track to sound 00:11:28.860 --> 00:11:31.980 like Grace Jones's notoriously edgy, provocative 00:11:31.980 --> 00:11:35.460 song, Pull Up to the Bumper. Though she conceded, 00:11:35.460 --> 00:11:38.120 it didn't quite work out like that, did it? So 00:11:38.120 --> 00:11:40.700 if you were a fan reading that 2017 article, 00:11:40.980 --> 00:11:43.899 your mind is blown. The breezy synth pop was 00:11:43.899 --> 00:11:46.419 a disguise. The pizza video was a distraction. 00:11:46.759 --> 00:11:49.659 The track is actually a harrowing, deeply serious 00:11:49.659 --> 00:11:52.919 narrative cloaked in an upbeat melody. And our 00:11:52.919 --> 00:11:54.580 sources note that this darker interpretation 00:11:54.580 --> 00:11:58.919 wasn't entirely a 2017 invention. Oh. The Guardian 00:11:58.919 --> 00:12:01.000 piece points out that this revelation echoed 00:12:01.000 --> 00:12:03.720 similar, perhaps more coded, statements the band 00:12:03.720 --> 00:12:05.899 had made in interviews back in the 1980s when 00:12:05.899 --> 00:12:08.100 the song was initially released. Really? Yes. 00:12:08.100 --> 00:12:10.259 It was a thematic undercurrent they had discussed 00:12:10.259 --> 00:12:12.539 in the past, but the general public, the radio 00:12:12.539 --> 00:12:14.980 DJs, and the record buyers had largely ignored 00:12:14.980 --> 00:12:17.559 it or smoothed it over in favor of the catchy 00:12:17.559 --> 00:12:20.200 chorus. It makes you look at Bananarama as absolute 00:12:20.200 --> 00:12:23.080 subversive geniuses. It does. But we cannot stop 00:12:23.080 --> 00:12:26.000 the timeline in 2017 because just two years later, 00:12:26.080 --> 00:12:29.779 the story fractures completely. In 2019, the 00:12:29.779 --> 00:12:31.799 group does another interview, this time with 00:12:31.799 --> 00:12:34.879 The Telegraph. And Sarah Dallin, who, remember, 00:12:34.960 --> 00:12:37.360 was sitting right there during the 2017 Guardian 00:12:37.360 --> 00:12:40.240 interview, nodding along to the darker interpretation. 00:12:40.600 --> 00:12:44.159 Yeah. She offers a completely contradictory explanation 00:12:44.159 --> 00:12:46.580 of the song's core meaning. Regarding Robert 00:12:46.580 --> 00:12:49.080 De Niro's waiting, Dallin states point blank. 00:12:49.519 --> 00:12:52.120 it was just about hero worship it wasn't about 00:12:52.120 --> 00:12:54.960 rape i don't know where that came from it's absolute 00:12:54.960 --> 00:12:57.559 rubbish this raises an important question and 00:12:57.559 --> 00:13:00.039 it is the central mystery of this entire deep 00:13:00.039 --> 00:13:03.809 dive how can a single piece of art a three -minute 00:13:03.809 --> 00:13:06.590 pop song, possessed such wildly conflicting, 00:13:06.789 --> 00:13:09.169 mutually exclusive interpretations from the very 00:13:09.169 --> 00:13:11.909 women who created it. It's wild. We are not talking 00:13:11.909 --> 00:13:13.669 about fan theories here. We are talking about 00:13:13.669 --> 00:13:15.549 the primary sources, the authors of the work, 00:13:15.649 --> 00:13:18.110 directly contradicting each other on the record. 00:13:18.269 --> 00:13:20.149 How does that even happen? Do you think someone 00:13:20.149 --> 00:13:22.450 is misremembering, or was the 2017 interview 00:13:22.450 --> 00:13:24.710 just an attempt to make the band's history sound 00:13:24.710 --> 00:13:27.370 edgier than it actually was? To understand the 00:13:27.370 --> 00:13:29.490 disconnect, we have to look at the mechanics 00:13:29.490 --> 00:13:32.659 of pop music creation. We have to remember the 00:13:32.659 --> 00:13:35.259 songwriting credits on this specific track. Okay. 00:13:35.360 --> 00:13:39.080 This song wasn't conceived by a lone genius pouring 00:13:39.080 --> 00:13:42.179 their singular truth into a notebook. It was 00:13:42.179 --> 00:13:44.700 co -written by all three members of the NaNoWriMo, 00:13:44.820 --> 00:13:48.179 Sarah Dallin, Sia Panfeje, and Karen Woodward, 00:13:48.220 --> 00:13:50.940 alongside their two producers, Steve Jolly and 00:13:50.940 --> 00:13:53.259 Tony Swain. That's a lot of cooks in the kitchen. 00:13:53.360 --> 00:13:56.639 Exactly. That is five distinct individuals with 00:13:56.639 --> 00:13:59.320 five different life experiences sitting in a 00:13:59.320 --> 00:14:02.059 room throwing out lines, melodies, and concepts 00:14:02.059 --> 00:14:04.779 to build a commercially viable product. So it's 00:14:04.779 --> 00:14:06.480 almost like a Frankenstein's monster of intentions. 00:14:07.449 --> 00:14:09.809 Precisely. When you have a highly collaborative 00:14:09.809 --> 00:14:12.509 artistic process like that, the true meaning 00:14:12.509 --> 00:14:14.870 of a song isn't a monolith. It becomes fractured. 00:14:14.929 --> 00:14:17.669 Makes sense. From one perspective, as Siobhan 00:14:17.669 --> 00:14:20.990 Fahy recalled and deeply felt, the song operates 00:14:20.990 --> 00:14:24.240 as a Trojan horse. It functions as a vessel for 00:14:24.240 --> 00:14:27.860 a dark, subversive message about trauma, utilizing 00:14:27.860 --> 00:14:30.740 the upbeat Jolly and Swain production as a deliberate, 00:14:30.899 --> 00:14:34.480 ironic disguise. In her memory, the lyrical content 00:14:34.480 --> 00:14:36.960 is a sharp commentary on how society prefers 00:14:36.960 --> 00:14:39.799 to consume dark realities only when they are 00:14:39.799 --> 00:14:42.279 sanitized and packaged as entertainment. Which 00:14:42.279 --> 00:14:44.580 perfectly explains the grim tone of the music 00:14:44.580 --> 00:14:47.019 video's first half. Right. But then, from the 00:14:47.019 --> 00:14:49.100 other perspective, as Sarah Dallin forcefully 00:14:49.100 --> 00:14:51.899 stated in 2019, it's exactly what the pizza delivery 00:14:51.899 --> 00:14:54.720 ending of the video suggests. Innocent hero worship. 00:14:54.940 --> 00:14:57.960 Just a fun song. To Dallin, it is just a fun, 00:14:58.019 --> 00:15:00.200 slightly quirky track about idolizing a famous 00:15:00.200 --> 00:15:02.860 movie star, and any attempt to project a harrowing 00:15:02.860 --> 00:15:05.179 narrative onto it is, in her words, absolute 00:15:05.179 --> 00:15:08.000 rubbish. In a room of five writers, both of those 00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:10.240 realities can exist simultaneously. That's true. 00:15:10.320 --> 00:15:12.100 One writer might be channeling personal trauma 00:15:12.100 --> 00:15:14.500 into a verse while another writer is just trying 00:15:14.500 --> 00:15:16.419 to find a word that rhymes with waiting to finish 00:15:16.419 --> 00:15:20.000 the chorus. And then you add 35 years of touring, 00:15:20.139 --> 00:15:23.600 performing, and living life on top of those memories. 00:15:23.919 --> 00:15:26.299 It's like a decades -long game of telephone with 00:15:26.299 --> 00:15:29.509 your own past. Memory consolidation is a fascinating 00:15:29.509 --> 00:15:32.990 psychological process. Over time, we don't remember 00:15:32.990 --> 00:15:35.429 the actual event. We remember the last time we 00:15:35.429 --> 00:15:37.889 remembered it. Wow. Feje may have latched onto 00:15:37.889 --> 00:15:40.549 the darker thematic seeds they discussed in 1984, 00:15:41.049 --> 00:15:43.190 allowing that to become her definitive truth 00:15:43.190 --> 00:15:45.820 of the song. Dallin may have latched on to the 00:15:45.820 --> 00:15:48.000 joyful experience of performing the hit on top 00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:50.419 of the pops, cementing her view that it was always 00:15:50.419 --> 00:15:53.480 just a fun, upbeat pop anthem. So what does this 00:15:53.480 --> 00:15:56.299 all mean for you as someone navigating the vast 00:15:56.299 --> 00:15:59.220 landscape of pop culture history? We started 00:15:59.220 --> 00:16:00.899 this journey with a song that seemed like the 00:16:00.899 --> 00:16:04.299 ultimate straightforward 1984 time capsule. Right. 00:16:04.379 --> 00:16:06.480 We looked at the mechanics of synth pop, the 00:16:06.480 --> 00:16:09.019 global chart domination, and the highly calculated 00:16:09.019 --> 00:16:11.519 marketing brilliance of selling pink. green and 00:16:11.519 --> 00:16:14.399 blue 12 -inch vinyls to forge parasocial bonds. 00:16:14.580 --> 00:16:16.919 Such a specific era. We broke down a music video 00:16:16.919 --> 00:16:19.440 that played with the cinematic paranoia of Robert 00:16:19.440 --> 00:16:21.799 De Niro, only to bail out at the last second 00:16:21.799 --> 00:16:24.080 with a pizza party. The great bait and switch. 00:16:24.460 --> 00:16:27.399 And ultimately, we hit a stark, unresolvable 00:16:27.399 --> 00:16:30.220 contradiction at the very heart of the song's 00:16:30.220 --> 00:16:33.600 lyrical meaning. One creator swears it's a harrowing 00:16:33.600 --> 00:16:36.320 tale of date rape. Another creator swears that's 00:16:36.320 --> 00:16:38.779 complete rubbish. And it's just about having 00:16:38.779 --> 00:16:40.799 a celebrity crush. If we connect this to the 00:16:40.799 --> 00:16:43.159 bigger picture, the story of Robert De Niro's 00:16:43.159 --> 00:16:45.759 waiting serves as a brilliant exercise in critical 00:16:45.759 --> 00:16:48.039 thinking. Definitely. As consumers of media, 00:16:48.200 --> 00:16:51.259 we have a natural tendency to crave simple, definitive 00:16:51.259 --> 00:16:53.580 answers. We want to read an artist's Wikipedia 00:16:53.580 --> 00:16:56.559 page, find the definitive meaning of a song, 00:16:56.759 --> 00:16:59.820 categorize it neatly in our minds, and move on. 00:16:59.940 --> 00:17:02.600 It's just easier that way. It is. But true critical 00:17:02.600 --> 00:17:05.660 analysis requires us to accept ambiguity. It 00:17:05.660 --> 00:17:07.640 requires us to understand that even the most 00:17:07.640 --> 00:17:10.819 mass -marketed, seemingly superficial pop artifacts 00:17:10.819 --> 00:17:14.180 can hold multiple conflicting truths simultaneously. 00:17:15.019 --> 00:17:17.480 The history of collaborative art is almost never 00:17:17.480 --> 00:17:20.920 a straight line. It is a messy, complicated web 00:17:20.920 --> 00:17:24.799 of differing original intentions, studio compromises, 00:17:24.799 --> 00:17:27.559 evolving personal memories, and the shifting 00:17:27.559 --> 00:17:29.839 cultural context of the decades that follow. 00:17:30.180 --> 00:17:33.079 The truth of this song depends entirely on whose 00:17:33.079 --> 00:17:35.849 memory you choose to validate. It really strips 00:17:35.849 --> 00:17:38.630 away the illusion that pop music is just simple 00:17:38.630 --> 00:17:41.589 background noise. It transforms a catchy three 00:17:41.589 --> 00:17:45.150 -minute radio hit into a living, breathing, contested 00:17:45.150 --> 00:17:47.609 historical document. And that brings me to a 00:17:47.609 --> 00:17:49.170 final thought I want to leave you with today. 00:17:49.630 --> 00:17:51.690 The next time you find yourself driving with 00:17:51.690 --> 00:17:53.630 the windows down or walking through a grocery 00:17:53.630 --> 00:17:55.869 store and you find yourself tapping your foot 00:17:55.869 --> 00:17:58.890 to a nostalgic, breezy pop song from your past, 00:17:59.089 --> 00:18:02.089 I want you to ask yourself, whose version of 00:18:02.089 --> 00:18:04.089 that song's history are you actually hearing? 00:18:04.269 --> 00:18:07.450 And what darker, heavily contested, completely 00:18:07.450 --> 00:18:10.349 hidden narratives might be dancing right beneath 00:18:10.349 --> 00:18:12.569 that catchy beat just waiting for someone to 00:18:12.569 --> 00:18:15.170 unpack them? It's a reminder to never take the 00:18:15.170 --> 00:18:18.359 surface level for granted. Exactly. Thank you 00:18:18.359 --> 00:18:20.700 for joining us on this exploration into the contested 00:18:20.700 --> 00:18:23.359 depths of 1984 pop. Keep questioning the media 00:18:23.359 --> 00:18:25.119 you consume, keep looking for the hidden tracks 00:18:25.119 --> 00:18:27.579 in history, and we will catch you on the next 00:18:27.579 --> 00:18:28.099 Deep Drive.