What Should I Think? | the Sainsburys Christmas Advert

 ©Sainsburys

I have read article after article in which the advert is rebuked, I have had conversations with people who have said it's disgusting and reductive, it has received 727 complaints to the ASA. Some people love the way it made them feel, and have said that the branding was irrelevant.

It's important to tell you now that I don't have a concrete opinion on the ad, I don't think I have to. I just have ideas:

I was at my Nan's. It was a Saturday and I think X Factor was on. The advert was introduced with a special announcement just to let you know it was a bit longer and more special than other adverts. Everyone went quiet. Then I watched it and I thought:
'Isn't it nice that we are all the same. Isn't it nice that those German guys like football and girls, like English guys do. Isn't it sad that normal, nice people have to fight over land squabbles on behalf of those infinitely more rich and powerful than themselves (and still do)' 
And then it was the end, and I realised it was an advert for Sainsburys.

And your first reaction - as a semi-intelligent university-goer with the most elementary understanding of cold stony capitalism (and a declined job application for said supermarket) - is to CRY AND ADMONISH the reduction of such war-time urban mythology to achieve corporate profit through the harnessing and exploitation of our core values: our assumption under all the information fed to us, that we are all one as a species, that friendship and love and football (and chocolate?) is the same in every language, that we are fundamentally the same mass of atoms and cells and nerves under our uniforms and despite our imaginary borders.

And it did make me feel exploited, logically...

But it's nice to see things that way for a change, it's very unusual for us. We're told by news and society that people are different, that we all have special needs and customs and traditions and to respect them (or fear them) but we are very rarely told of the similarities, and that people are mostly normal with the same core interests, and that we're mostly good. I think that's part of the uproar, because people felt something very real and then it was snatched from them by a corp vying for their turkey-and-cracker money.

Most of all, I was confused

Because it was supposed to be political, not commercial. It was nice that they could share chocolate; but they were going to have to be shooting at each other tomorrow, against their nature and wishes. Isn't it uncomfortable to think there could be a war-time myth about the increasing number of soldiers in Iraq (hundreds more by next month), and that could be used to sell super-Atkins-freeze-dried-future-chocolate in another century? 

The advert was supposed to make me feel warm and fuzzy and spiritually connected to my species in a way that could be utilised and transferred on to the Sainsburys brand - which is a common advertising technique - but it left me a bit sad. It left me feeling like war at Christmas is always going to be an occurrence, that young poor people fighting battles for established rich governmental bodies will always be part of our culture and consciousness.

War should not be viewed through some skewed, soft-focus lense: if it happened one hundred years ago or yesterday. It should not be used as a vessel in advertising to demonstrate how easily we are interconnected, although it is nice and refreshing to feel that way, for a change.

what do you think? tweet me @bakebakebaker

BAKER
oxoxoxo

Baker Info | My Favourite Youtube Channels!

It's time for something a bit more lighthearted. 

After a hard day of uni, I usually roll into bed, cry and watch Youtube. It's fun for everyone because you can tailor it to whatever your interests are, here are some of my favourites:

Fashion/Beauty

I watch styling videos mostly and tend to watch people who seem nice and who have style similar -but loads better - than me; and who I can be 'inspired' by (ugh). I'm subscribed to a few more than these three but the following are channels that I watch most

BeautyCrush

Her style is just ridiculous, and I also follow her vlog channel TheSammiMariaShow because she seems so lovely 

IDressMySelff

I love how edgy but simple her outfits are. I watch every video!

KateThisIsWhatIDo

I didn't know whether to put Kate under style or reality but she's both, I like her humour and how she's not afraid to swear a lot

Facts 

I wind down by ingesting useless facts about everything and anything 

AllTime10s

Some of them are so good. I like the ones about ancient civilisations and corporations best

AllTimeConsipiricies 

Sometimes it's nice to become a paranoid tinfoil-hat wearing mess. I really enjoy being weirded out by this channel

Interesting/Educational

It's nice to have to have all the little questions answered about the stars and earthquakes and how pufferfish puff. I also love any social-y information but usually get this from articles and blogs rather than video content, with the exception of a few

SciShow

So interesting, SciShow answers all those little weird questions like 'why do we have to brush our teeth' and 'why do dogs pant' 

The Brain Scoop 

I love this channel, Emily is based at The Field Museum in Chicago and her enthusiasm and interest in science is so catchy. Everything on here is just so darn interesting

Crash Course 

It's like having a mini lecture by a really cute smart professor while sat in bed (which would be frowned upon IRL) it's run by the VlogBrothers (one is the cute SciShow guy, the other is the guy who wrote The Fault In Our Stars). There are crash courses on Literature, History, Psychology, and loads more 

Laci Green

Laci Green is no doubt the pinnacle of the internet. Her videos are accessible, informational, interesting and funny. She talks about biology, sex, social stigma and feminism on her channel. Sexuality and feminism in pop culture on her new channel MTV Braless, and used to discuss all types of science on Dnews (Discovery News -  still a good channel). ILOVEHER

Reality/Vlog
Because some people are just more interesting than me

Helen Anderson 

I started off watching Helen's normal style channel which is here . I still do, but I watch her Melon World vlog channel more -where she goes about her daily biz or does Q&As. I like her hair, her realness and that her 'vlogmas' is shot in a really cool way because she has a degree in film!

Trisha Paytas

Trisha Paytas is so darn interesting. She got famous by making 'trolling' videos for views on her main channel, then found the ability to captivate viewers by talking non-stop for 43 minutes but not having to edit out single word (a genuine talent). She lets you into her personal life through her vlog channel, she's different to me in every way but you just warm to her <3

What do you like to watch? If you have any suggestions, 

tweet me @bakebakebaker 

BAKER 

xoxoxo

My Problem With | The Revolution Will Be Televised

This seems to be turning into a BBC3-bashing blog, but it really isn't. I think there is a place for a channel like BBC3 that doesn't have to rely on advertising revenue aimed at young people, I even signed the campaign to keep it. I just think the producers need to stop belittling the audience.

©BAFTA

The Revolution Will Be Televised is an incredible concept, Jolyon Rubinstein and Heydon Prowse come across as genuinely funny in sections and the facts are all there. A show that reveals to the young general public - a demographic constantly barraged with opinion by Sun-reading parents and faced in the newsagents with headlines of 'Immigrants on 25k a year' 'Benefit cheats ruining economy' - that gives information about real inequalities in the tax system; about giant well-known corporate entities that do not contribute; and that reveals political lies and deception, is always going to be a winner in my book. 
The huge, gaping, enormous hole of a problem is in the delivery. 

Political and economic matters are covered in a funny, cartoon-like and satirical way  which is interesting to watch. It makes the facts digestible without being heavy - a complication that being too news-centered can have on the mind. You can walk away from the programme and it won't negatively affect your day, but you'll be a little more informed.

The glaringly obvious problem is the attempt to cover widespread criminal acts with the same sweep of lighthearted humour. The segment that was most notable to me watching S3E4 was on female genital mutilation. The factual evidence was presented in typical cartoon-style, which would have been distasteful to some but understandable considering the format, if the cartoon wasn't a figure in quite distinctive middle-eastern clothing. Female Genital Mutilation is then made clear by the following map to be a predominantly African, cultural problem. Which it is. Why, then, does the pictorial evidence suggest otherwise? 

©BBC

If I didn't know, I too would assume that it was a middle-eastern problem, I would assume it was yet another horrible thing going on in that part of the world, I would assume that it was those nasty muslims at it again. And the curly sword? Who at the BBC okay-d that image? WHO?

see the cartoon in full HERE

But the worst bit was to follow. 
After making clear in the cartoon that Ethiopia and the Sudan had banned FGM and that it was illegal; there was a very odd canvassing exercise held in which a woman dressed as a 'nurse' (in non-standard, short scrubs belted around the waist) questioned men on the street if they would like to have  their own genitals cut off. This wasn't just unfunny, it was uncomfortable and cringy-ly so (not in a Peep Show way). Then there was an attempt to distract officials at the embassies of both Ethiopia and Sudan by said nurse, to ask them benign questions about having their own genitals cut off. 
Is the program really attempting to take a complex, long-standing, cultural tradition and crime deep-seated in centuries of gender politics and reveal it under the skirt of a sexy nurse and some propositions about willies? 

The second issue I will cover briefly. It was also in S3E4 and something that I had actually not heard of before. It was about sexual abuse in the holding buildings where asylum seekers stay when awaiting information about their residency. People who have experienced war, torture, the death of their children and loved ones, rape, gang and rebel occupation of their home. And guess how The Revolution Will be Televised covered this issue?

©BBC

An dutch rave-themed mock orgy wearing neon leggings and headbands under the characters 'Double Fist TV'

There is a sentiment that despite these issues being covered in an unconventional way, the program is getting the information out there, and to that I Call Bullshit.
It's not only vaguely insensitive to trivialise and sexualise these events in some insane 'ooo matron' out-dated and failed attempt at British humour, it's damaging. Young people don't need you to do that. It's offensive to everyone involved, and serves to undermine harrowing humanitarian issues in front of hundreds of thousands of viewers, and re-affirm a distance between 'that happening over there to them people' and what should concern us. 

Typing it out makes it sound even more insane than watching it, so feck knows how stuff like that got through all those grueling stages of post-production. I just hope the delivery is cleaned up before a new series, because the concept really does have solid relevance.

WHAT DO YOU THINK, READER? 
tweet me @bakebakebaker

BAKER 
xoxoxo

New Perspective on the *Controversial* Alexander Wang Ads

I stumbled upon these ads after reading Jamie Feldman's article on Huffington Post Style with the title Alexander Wang's New Denim Ads Are More Offensive and Tired than 'Provocative'  
[Find the article here]

I see it a little differently.

Firstly, the two images in the article seem really drastically different to each other. The first of almost fully naked woman (AD 1) is pretty mainstream. I've seen an image of a toned naked blonde woman in dark moody lighting in high fashion ads before - I'm pretty immune by now - and no doubt will be seeing them for a long time yet. This one, I can agree, is pretty tired.

AD 1

BUT

The second is one I can get behind (AD 2).Wheras the first one is a passive lady possibly half asleep lounging on a chair for us all to look at, the second is one of active sexuality. This distinction is key. 

AD 2

In AD 2, the moist thighs and wandering hand are deliberately 'provocative', in a pretty unique way for this type of advertising. It connects us with a feeling most of us have experienced when a piece of clothing just makes you feel really, really, sexy. Or just empowered. It is an image of self-love and self-indulgence, and isn't that just what we want from a luxury fashion brand? 

There is a very valid argument made in the Huffington Post about the problems with commodifying naked women's bodies to sell all and any product, and this fits the first closely. The woman's body is there for our gaze, and the product is almost invalid. The female body and all its connotations are there for us to connect to the Alexander Wang brand. 
The second, however, is very obviously an advert for trousers. The jeans are the central focus, and the model is there as a participant to represent the physicality and connection to the clothing.

The contrast is of old and new ways of playing out female sexuality in advertising space, and the reason they are side by side in one campaign is unusual to me. Maybe it is just safer to retread the old ground and cover all bases. 

Whatever the case, although to some normal people and to some Helen Lovejoys it might be uncomfortable to some to see sex portrayed so overtly, an active female participant is the kind of sexuality I would rather see in public spaces, and the one which will probably sell more jeans. 

tell me what you think in the comments, or 
tweet me @bakebakebaker

BAKER 
xoxoxo

Sexy Children(?!) in Film and Music Videos (originally posted September 2013)

Watching Pop, Sex and Videotape with Annie Lennox has spurred some thoughts, and although I think though the premise of the program was interesting, the Helen Lovejoy 'think of the children!' approach was both typical and damaging, and cut off a huge chunk of the audience and those who should face some accountability-  male consumers.

Sex sells, music artists in particular have always been keen to practice this expression of sexual autonomy in a western culture where it is legal- and a freedom - to express adult sensuality.

'The Purge' teen(?) girl 
© Universal

This is where the term 'adult' is key.

This theme was something I noticed firstly in cinema, in the '2.4 children' Hollywood construct, the teenage girl will always be very good-looking, played by an adult actress, presented as 'secretly' sexually adept and dressed in some kind of altered provocative school uniform. You can bet on it. This 'sexy schoolgirl' paradigm has been carried out for years in a muted way (*cough* st trinians), but the 'sexy' subject in mass western culture does seem to be getting progressively younger.

I would like to focus mostly on music, and while this will not be another blog post about the evils of Robin Thicke, it will be a comment on a summer 2013 'trend' of infantalising (making an adult woman act and look - as much as possible - like a young child) and then fetishising them, shown most overtly Dianne Martel's classics Blurred lines and We can't stop, examples listed here :

*Miley is dressed in a torn up baby-grow-like onesie (traded for shortie dungarees in the VMA performance);

'Blurred Lines'
©Interscope

*Orally-fixated symbolism in We Cant Stop: lollypops, bubblgum, 'tongue-out' expression

*The Blurred Lines females have smoke blown in their faces and their hair played with while remaining vacant and passive

*They are then left mute, nonspeaking unless it's an animalistic 'meow' or 'roar';

'We Can't Stop'
©RCA

*They are also not dressed overtly sexually in a way that would characterise womanly sexuality (like lingere), but infant-like complete nakedness

*The movements of both We can't stop and Blurred lines' focus' are child-like: stomping around, twirling, odd little dances (with the exception of the twerking- ha)

*Both the Blurred Lines females and Miley are surrounded by toys and teddies;

*Over-use of childlike facial expressions in both

*The physicality of both sexualised focus' is extremely young

Something I've often wondered is if the psuado-teenagers were topless, but more similar in figure to say Kim Kardashian or Beyonce- would the video still be seen as 'a bit of fun', or soft porn? My argument is that the video only works when the subject is adolescent or androgynous, with a very young, predominanly white model-like physique. 

This begs the question of how the subject matter can be appropriate or artsy with an adolescent-like female focus, but not for another type of woman, and why this new-found idealism for the very young has made its way so seamlessly into modern society. Children can not be considered in charge of their sexuality: they are physically weak, emotionally vulnerable and most notably, voiceless in society. Reducing women to small children is encouraging peadophilic fetishism in a landscape where Rhianna, Nicki and Britney are able to twerk in a thong covered in glitter - as adult women - with an absence of moral outrage (and IMO, rightly so).

Yummy
©Interscope

It is easy to dismiss this trend in the music industry as the last taboo, that sticking out with a new form of fringe sexuality is a marketing ploy, but the response to the videos was only met with (in Miley's case) slut-shaming, and unmatched salivation from seemingly intelligent and socially-aware adult men (Blurred Lines)- not the warranted questioning or disgust at the weirdly chilldlike women.

This is why pop culture is an adult's issue.

Tweet me @bakebakebaker

BAKER 

xoxoxo

Book Impressions! | Vladimir Nabokov - Lolita

I am well aware that this book is a great and esteemed work, and has been reviewed by great and esteemed people. I made sure not to consider any secondary sources before getting through the book myself, so it remains an account of someone like me reading it recreationally for the first time in 2013.

 Being a Literature student, I had just about lost touch with being interested in books I wasn't obliged to read, so I started taking out three books on a fortnightly basis from the local library after not being able to afford the bus fare to university (#studentlife). I firstly picked up The Flame Alphabet by Ben Marcus, Accaboria by Michela Murgia, and The Misinterpretation of Tara Jupp by Eva Rice. On a second trip, I came across Lolita. I'd been hoping to read the book for a while- I've noticed that I lean towards books written 1920-1960 as I enjoy fiction when it is well-written and rich but also not too heavily reliant on adjectives and over-explanation. However, Lolita does often fall in to this trap; which I assume to be due to the mind-set of the obsessive and somewhat classically educated first person perspective of the main character (the word protagonist, I feel, wouldn't be the term).

In other reviews Nabokov is hailed for enabling us to 'empathise' with the state of mind of a paedophile- but I do not share this view. It is made clear that Humbert views himself as a monster through various comparisons, despite referring to copious amounts of permitted incest and paedophilia in literature or as a past or present cultural norm to us- the reader- the 'jury' throughout. I was drawn to the unusual psychological viewpoint of the narrator when choosing this book, but I would be lying if I said the deluded and heavily eroticised language concerning children didn't make me uncomfortable and I did not achieve that 'couldn't put it down' experience because of this.

By a third of the way through, you begin to treat it as a study, which is apt as it is presented as a kind of testimony or court statement, appealing directly to you, the reader, for sympathy or forgiveness- of which he gets none. In terms of voice, the narrator's almost sociopathic personality is portrayed excellently- the way his character is full of misogyny and contempt for anyone except his love and the manipulation and extortion he uses to 'satisfy' his needs at the expense of his underage companion's happiness. This wouldn't have worked in a perspective other than first-person. I do wonder, however, how neuroscientifically sound the inference throughout that the loss of his childhood partner Annabel was in cultivating his elicit sexual preferences.

This book is rightly a classic, but one that mustn't be left for light reading on the train. It is a masterpiece of character development; there to be studied and admired, but psychologically exhausting for any supposed correctly functioning person. I highly recommend for anyone wanting to be challenged in both a literary and psychological sense.

That was my first impression, what was yours? Let me know in the comments or 

tweet me @bakebakebaker

BAKER 

xoxoxo 

Daisy Buchanan is Not an Inspirational Figure | The Great Gatsby (originally posted June 2013)

I really love the book.

And

I liked the film!

It was all lovely and wonderful and happy- until people had to go and sully the experience with their darn social media. Darn you, social media.

I do study literature full-time - though you probably can't tell from my rushed posts - and I do understand that It's all down to interpretation; but this new fascination with the main female character is grinding my gears. Daisy is not an inspirational figure. It kind-of links to my last post- women being hailed worldwide for being nothing: just a nice-looking object without the burden a sense of self.

© Warner Bros

The line

“I hope she'll be a fool -- that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.”

Is misinterpreted. Widely. On every internet-based outlet. Everywhere.

I do - however- believe that if you interpret the quote to be about women being at their best when they stop caring so much about silly things, and just concentrate on being a happy carefree thing from which beauty will shine- then that's great. Live your life by the quote- it's a good one. But it is not Daisy's quote.

It is also significant at which point this line occurs, after Daisy receives a call from her husband's mistress. There is an interpretation that being a 'fool' would stop her daughter from noticing her future husbands misdemeanors, and this is what is intended by this line. However, this interpretation of the quote does not negate the widespread use of it in a modern context, and the idea of using Daisy as a quotable figure in the first place. 

Daisy is a feckless, pointless, air-headed character. She is the antithesis of the inspirational woman. She is there to look pretty, and have no input: notably agreeing with her odious husband's every opinion, even the dodgy racial supremacy ones. She KILLS someone, and then lets the biggest strongest man take the blame for her (Gatsby). She floats about being confused in a pretty dress; even incapable of feeling love, for anyone or anything- except money.

What was intended by the line was: 'Women will get by- but only if they are beautiful, and thick as pig crap. Being plagued by thought and intellect only muddies your ability to agree with your affluent husband over his stupid, backwards views; and might form connections to people that might get in the way of your womanly desire for financial dependency on said rich man'. This was sort-of acceptable in the 1920's.

The quote is not relevant in the western world anymore. It was written nearly 100 years ago. In fact, let the whole world's views pre-madonna die a final time, and then let's move forward in a land where (most) women have grown quite attached to their brains and their bank accounts and their cone-shaped bras.

plz?

tweet me @bakebakebaker

BAKER 

xoxoxo