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

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

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

Marilyn Monroe Is Not An Inspirational Figure (Originally posted June 2013)

You can't do anything on Facebook or Tumblr or Instagram without seeing an inspritational Marilyn quote: body positivity, relationships, beauty, career advice and basically anything that comes under 'being a person': all of which sound excellent as sound-bites, but why does the pop cultural figure of Marilyn Monroe still appeal to us in this thoroughly modern day ?

I had so many pictures of her framed in pink on my black-and-white walls all through high-school, she was part of my aesthetic. Which is weird when you think about the fact she was once a real person, with blood and flesh and breath. Then one day, I stumbled on an article about all the sacrifices she made to become who she was at the end of her life, the plastic surgery she underwent to go from Norma Jean BAKER (eyup #reletives) to international sex symbol- THE body- a reputation that has spun on for decades. 

©DisFriends

When signed at 20^th century fox, Marilyn was allegedly told by talent agent Johnny Hyde to get a nose job, a chin implant, to change her name, to change her body, to dye and cut her hair, to have cosmetic dental work- all for one reason: to be made into the ‘perfect woman’, an absolutely flawless caricature- a purely sexual object. Even down to the way she walked, talked and laughed- asked to try to change her smile so her gums would not be visible. One of the reasons she is so quotable in this modern day is because of her determination and consciousness- every syllable, pause and word was crafted perfectly to work toward the image she aimed to portray. 

Physical femininity is a wonderful thing, but when does the portrayal of sensuality become all-consuming? We see the same thing repeated in the cases of a number of current celebrities- Kim Kardashian is an astonishingly similar example (but with debatable surgery). Nicki Minaj is another example of note- her success in pop culture has been almost wholly dependent on an array of surgeries with the sole aim of making her idealistic. A Similar name change, changed from Miraj to Minaj so it connotes ‘menage a trois’ –like a threesome (wat); buttock and breast augmentation (debated) and another change of image- from ‘Hoodstar’ to ‘Harajuku Barbie’ within a year. 

©Disfriends

So now when I return from university, I look at the pictures of Marilyn in my cupboard and see desperation, and ambition. I see a woman who knew exactly what she wanted, and achieved it- but I also see someone who sacrificed herself in the process. 
Marilyn once said

'I want to grow old without face lifts... I want to have the courage to be loyal to the face I've made. Sometimes I think it would be easier to avoid old age, to die young, but then you'd never complete your life, would you? You'd never wholly know you. '

Marilyn asserts it would be easier to die than to age, implying that her worth as an acting professional, singer, model and person is dependent on her youth and beauty. This is not an inspirational ideology for women, and does not have a place in the modern day. Marilyn never completed her life, she didn't know herself anymore, under the illusion of the industry-created being that she had become by the middle of her 30^th film. 

Sacrificing your image and actions to achieve a life goal makes for an unquestionably fascinating person, but an inspirational woman? I don't think so. 

tweet me @bakebakebaker 

BAKER 

xoxoxo