The original after dentist video, as far as I'm aware, is David After Dentist. It documents a 7 year old tripping balls on the painkillers used to remove one of his teeth, to widespread youtube acclaim. As the video description, presumably written by the father though written at a 7 year old reading level: "He is very smart and always has something interesting to say about many different issues. His philosophical reaction to the medication didnt really suprise us." Welp, over 100 million viewers—roughly the population of Mexico—has found it rather novel.
It's been remixed and the parents have routinely gotten him fucked up again to try and cash in on easy views. With such popularity, should it be any surprise that there's a horde of imitators? Probably not. The question that concerns us, and them, is how does one stand out in a crowded field of imitators?
The following video suggests the answer is "over the top."
I ask, is this girl really concerned about the moral consequences of her dental surgery while stoned off her gourd? Or is she, in fact, making commentary on the after dentist micro-genre which has, in her view, gone a little extra-gourdal? Before answering, open the video in youtube and gaze at the suggested videos. Having a firm grasp on the edges of this micro-genre is important.
The account has one upload, which suggests inauthenticity. It reminds me of ol' cindymomof6 the fake profile of a professional producer who created a couple controversial videos, the best of which is an elementary school rendition of Scarface. Rather than introduce said video as something creative he participated in, he created a fake account and posed as a mom, which helped the video to trend. People have a notably different reaction to media based on its source. When people saw a "mother" uploading a video of a play they thought real, they loudly reacted. You can still see echos of that identity-declaring behavior in the comments on the Cindymomof6 profile. Even after the rouse has been exposed, people still feel a desire to share: "Great job teaching your kids about cocaine and murder at such a young age." Of course, such a comment is stupid, because the video is not real. But it's justified, insofar as that viewer thought it is real and yet doesn't know any better.
As always, the quest for authenticity is quixotic. We shouldn't care whether a video is real or not. What's really real? In what sense is a Scarface play performed by children for a youtube video less real than if it performed by children in a public school? In both instances actual kids are being taught about cocaine and murder. What difference should it make that one of those situations has the saction of a producer and volunteers, and the other has the saction of teachers and volunteers? I contend this imagined distance between the two instances makes a mountain of difference to the viewer, but a molehill difference of objective substance.
Back to our sad, tooth-murdering girl. How would fake outrage while drugged be any less real than real outrage while drugged? Or another way, how would fake outrage while not drugged vs. real outrage while not drugged? In each of these permutations a video is being served up for viewing, and we probably need to start there before
