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

My Problem With | SNOG MARRY AVOID (originally posted April 2013)

I suppose I have to start this first blog post by confessing the most irritating, confusing and conflicting part of my general self: something that I, Charlotte Clarissa Baker, will now admit live on the internet:

I love reality tv

I LOVE IT

Until death.

Big Brother, The Kardashians (plus any spin off, TOWIE, Rachel Zoe, Made in Chelsea, The Real Housewives of ANYWHERE (In order of favs: Atlanta, Orange County, New York, Beverly Hills, Toronto), anything about New Jersey, and any other random documentary about unusual people or habits (I particularly liked the Channel 4 one about dogging the other week- those weird masks D:)

I’m an addict. One of the many (many, many, many) things I don’t understand about the world is snobbery towards reality TV. While shows like The Walking Dead and Homeland are heralded by everyone who’s holy as inspired, with interesting believable characters and relatable themes- I just don’t understand how fantasy measures up to the real thing. I don’t find Hollywood attractive. I don’t want polished toned women walking about with clean bouncy hair and men with rugged good looks and crafted biceps in the midst of a three year zombie Apocalypse.  I want them to all become malnourished and die horribly of scurvy and body lice. That’s just how I am. 

BUT

©BBC

My latest interest- Snog Marry Avoid- is a confusing one for me. While I appreciate TV that involves observing those who dress and act different to me (TOWIE, Jersey Shore) I understand that is as far as it goes- they are different. That is what is interesting, and I suppose the reason why I sat down to watch SMA (Snog Marry Avoid – I’m going to shorten it to that now because I’m getting bored of typing it out).

I have had problems with BBC three in the past, I think some of the programming has a strange agenda: Don’t just stand there… I’m having your baby! (“I don’t want to watch when the baby comes out of your arse”- classic line) which creates general fear of pregnancy and contempt for young parents. Bluestone 42- because the war in Afghanistan is funny; and Barely Legal Drivers- making both new and old drivers terrified of the newly passed (who-from my experience- are the most careful. They’ve only just got that shit).

I take SMA to be aimed at beauty-conscious girls who like looking at those who take the idea of what is beautiful a little too far. The ‘War on Fakery’ as SMA puts it so eloquently is interesting because it is aimed squarely at common people. The lovely Ellie takes to the streets of (mostly northern) ordinary towns - Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester - satirises the local trends, and then shoves the people into a white box in which their every aesthetic decision is questioned by her putting on a funny voice in the form of POD. 

Mainstream media outlets (TV series, Hollywood films, Magazines) aimed at the beauty conscious public feature a barrage of doctored (fake) images containing celebrities wearing very little clothing, with glorious St Tropez tans and a wedge of MAC pro longwear. So why the double standards?

Snog marry avoid tells us:

A: Celebrities are on a magazine cover for thousands to see. Dressing like that for a night out in Leeds is simply revolting and will make you look like a prostitute- which is why Snog Marry Avoid will turn you from 'slapper' ‘street walker’ or ‘wench’ back into a viable member of society.

B: Celebrities obviously need to attract attention to the magazines through their lack of clothing and sculpted buttocks to make MONEY. Mere mortals wanting attention in the streets is desperate, unsightly- and prostitute-y.

C:They are wearing expensive makeup/clothing. A Dolce black lacy bra and knicker set is massively different to a Primark black lacy bra and knicker set- ew. Cheap makeup that was either not applied by a trained professional or matched by a specialist is wrong. Poor people will be barefaced or wear minimal makeup at all times. 

D: The same goes for fake tan. Body sculpting St Tropez or nothing- peasant. 

E: If you have not DARED to lose that extra protecting and insulating layer of fat around your middle, because you have a life, or the human instinct to eat, you MUST NOT wear said black lacy bra top in public. That is wrong. Or even if you have, you are only allowed to expose yourself after you make over 100k a year.

But it isn't all bad, the general concept of Snog Marry Avoid is one I can get behind. Making women drop insecurities and accept themselves and their looks without spending so much time and money is commendable- I just have a problem with the showboating them around like they’re a godless freak for doing the same as every heralded pop cultural figure of our time. 

I also have a problem with the effect of calling any woman a 'slapper' on national television- but that's a whole other blog post

                                                                     

What do you think?! let me know in the comments  vvv

BAKER 

xoxoxo