Chanel lipstick commercial banned from Canadian tv
Fri, 2007-04-20 07:28
#1
Chanel lipstick commercial banned from Canadian tv
Fri, 2007-04-20 07:28
#2
The Television Bureau of Canada is withholding approval for a Chanel ad featuring a woman rolling around in nothing but a bedsheet, asking a clothed man standing over her if he likes her lips.
quote:
...the controversy is over an ad for Chanel lipstick in which Swiss model and actress Julie Ordon — clad only in a sheet — rolls seductively in bed and asks her clothed male companion if he loves her lips."There's absolute nudity in the spot. And nudity is not allowed," said Jim Patterson, president of the Television Bureau of Canada (TVB), which must approve any ad airing on Canada's private broadcasters.
snip
quote:
The Chanel commercial was inspired by the 1963 Jean-Luc Godard film Le Mйpris (Contempt). In one scene in that film, a young Brigitte Bardot asks her husband if he loves her various body parts.
The main issue seems to be with the nudity involved in the ad, a problem that's viewed as fixable through pixelation. Because Chanel refuses to pixelate select parts of the model's body, the broadcasting agency will not let the ad let air. My problem is not with the nudity per se but rather with the power dynamic expressed with the clothed/unclothed man and woman, and the objectification of the woman's body parts in the camera shots used.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070419.wrchanel19/B... story including original commercial[/url]
Fri, 2007-04-20 07:53
#3
Okay, I know that the whole objectification thing needs unpacking, but I just have to say that this made me laugh out loud:
quote:
featuring a woman rolling around in nothing but a bedsheet, asking a clothed man standing over her if he likes her lips.
Risque! The pun, I mean.
Fri, 2007-04-20 08:09
#4
You know, I didn't even catch that! If it's part of the play on the original source where the woman is asking her husband about her various body parts, well I'm not sure if that's what the movie had in mind...
Fri, 2007-04-20 08:10
#5
Actually, as soon as I read the first sentence, I assumed that pun was the reason they weren't going to allow the commercial - too sexually-explicit a pun.
Fri, 2007-04-20 08:15
#6
It doesn't sound like that's what had the TBC concerned but I'm now certainly more disturbed!
Fri, 2007-04-20 09:50
#7
quote:
Actually, as soon as I read the first sentence, I assumed that pun was the reason they weren't going to allow the commercial - too sexually-explicit a pun.
Well, I'm sure glad someone else caught this right from the start--who is a woman and a moderator as well!
And for a second, I just thought it was my sultry over-active imagination! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
I would wonder how long it would take that guy friend of hers to dress down and jump in the sack with here after a comment like that. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]
Anyway, it no longer surprises me just how far the fashion industry will push the envelope to promote a product.
Just from seeing ads in general on TV, I can't help but wonder if the current youth generation of humanity is supposed to be a bunch of sex-craving hormone-charged heavy -breathers who will buy anything that will help them get laid.
I know that in some ways it was just a bad back in the 70s. But it seems the main idea being pushed out there is that this is the only thing people should live for.
Fri, 2007-04-20 10:06
#8
Makwa
How about how that lipstick tube kept inching up? Not terribly subtle.
Fri, 2007-04-20 13:39
#9
Bobolink
But the question unasked is "Would this ad encourage Chanel's target market to purchase this lipstick?"
Sat, 2007-04-21 14:09
#10
quote:
Originally posted by M.Gregus:
[b]The Television Bureau of Canada is withholding approval for a Chanel ad featuring a woman rolling around in nothing but a bedsheet, asking a clothed man standing over her if he likes her lips.
[/b]
Has this same ad been shown elsewhere, the US or Europe for example?
Sat, 2007-04-21 14:41
#11
What nudity? I suppose there is the suggestion of it under the sheet but that's all I made out.
Sun, 2007-04-22 09:12
#12
Agreed ! It is sexually explicit, but I didn't really see anything worth banning.
I would think though that if she where dressed, the add would still make sense- but then again sex and advertising is the easiest, (least creative and most used) most effective formula you can use.
[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
Sun, 2007-04-22 18:29
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
[b]What nudity? I suppose there is the suggestion of it under the sheet but that's all I made out.[/b]
And I watched it 37 times to be sure! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2007-04-23 07:45
#14
quote:
Originally posted by FraserValleyMan:
[b]Has this same ad been shown elsewhere, the US or Europe for example?[/b]
It sounds like Europe has their own, [i]more explicit[/i] version of the same ad. The article doesn't address the ad's status in the U.S.
quote:
“I guess it all comes down to what is deemed risquй, what is so-called offensive. And as I've said, sensibilities in Europe are quite different from sensibilities in North America,” Ms. Kazanjian said.Because of those different sensibilities, Chanel typically makes a tamer version of its racier spots for North American audiences. It was this tamer version that was submitted to the TVB.
The more I think about it, the more it strikes me as ridiculous that this ad was pulled, ostensibly on the charge of suggested nudity. First of all, as people have pointed out there is no flagrant nudity going on in the ad. There are at best fleeting flashes of the woman from the side. There are also long lingering shots of her legs, although this part is not what appears to be at issue.
Secondly, there are many worse ads IMO, currently running. Axe Body spray, I'm looking at you. I'm thinking of one Axe commercial in particular that involving an ice-cream wagon guy with "extra-sexual perception" rushing to apply sunscreen to a woman in a commercial where the camera zooms between her legs and ends at her buttocks. If that (incredibly creepy!) ad is allowed to air (assuming it's on Canadian televsion), I don't get at all what makes the Chanel ad comparatively so scandalous.
Mon, 2007-04-23 10:44
#15
Maysie
quote:
Originally posted by M.Gregus:
[b]The more I think about it, the more it strikes me as ridiculous that this ad was pulled, ostensibly on the charge of suggested nudity. [/b]
Right on Michelle G!
It's amazing how "nudity" that is, female nudity is so often associated with being "obscene" when ads with fully-clothed women and men can be horrifically sexist and offensive. It's this kinda thing that gets us in NA labelled prudes by the groovy Europeans. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
And the Canadian screeners of TV ads really don't have a problem with sexism in advertising at all, evidently.
It's fucked up!
P.S. Where are you all watching the ad from? The link just has a still photo from what I can see.
Mon, 2007-04-23 13:44
#16
quote:
Where are you all watching the ad from? The link just has a still photo from what I can see.
Just below that still shot, under the grey header that reads "Internet Links," there is a blue hyper-link that reads "Video: Watch Chanel's banned Ad."
quote:
It's amazing how "nudity" that is, female nudity is so often associated with being "obscene”
Well, I sure don't consider female nudity obscene! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
And the Canadian screeners of TV ads really don't have a problem with sexism in advertising at all, evidently.
Obviously not. But in fairness, I agree with MG that I just don't see what the big deal about this ad is--especially after watching some of those jeans ads with people slithering and groping all over one another, pushing the lurid to the max.
Interestingly, my daughter saw the video ad last night and said it seems the firm is trying to play up to a sense of personal power, and even privilege, among many women--as in here is an obviously attractive young women naked under a bed sheet, enticing her boyfriend/husband/whatever. Yet she is going to deny him what he obviously desires because she's more interested in the lipstick.
That makes me wonder. Seeing the ad again just now, it looks like she’s quite a bit more turned on by applying the lipstick than in anything the guy might have to offer.
What do folks here think? Does this play up to a sense of personal power among younger women? Is that what helps make these types of products sell?
Mon, 2007-04-23 14:25
#17
Bobolink
Definitely a sexist commercial. I wonder how many men were lured to purchase Chanel lipstick by it?