Yes, this has a very similar branch of thought to a recent series (still on-going) by the great Charlie Brooker. Subconsciously, I surmise that his way of thinking has somewhat inspired this, in that it opened my eyes to looking at things on the box in a hideously new light which crushed most of what they show under its own weight. I do think that it needs to be said, though. And so, to sum up what'll be covered here today, it involves adverts, promises and smoking. And Lincoln.
Four-score and seven years ago (well, probably a bit more recently), it was decided you had to have rules while advertising taboo substances like alcohol, cigarettes and cars. But not equally dangerous substances such as meth, heroin or women's shoes. Which might be better off in a controlled business environment and with strict advertising campaigns, rules about where you can take it etc. Anyway, the rules state that, far from what used to be good practice where people in adverts, typically men, were incredibly happy puffing away on a cigarette because they were cool, got him laid, a good career and a great car, or were extremely happy behind the wheel of the latest Merc as it got him laid, a good career and access to the exclusive world of looking cool while smoking a cigarette, or extremely happy drinking Jack Daniels as it got him laid, a good career and access to the club of chain-smoking Mercedes drivers who looked cool while wearing the latest Omega watch, which in turn made them very happy as it... well, you get the idea.
Now, you cannot advertise cigarettes. You can advertise alcohol, but not in any way which says "this is a good thing. It will make you happy." Exactly the same for cars. A Mercedes now won't get you laid, or a career, but it will (according to the advert) turn into a panther, or explode into its composite parts and become some sort of weird Rorscach test for horny Transformers. Which is clearly more likely to happen than the crushingly almost-certainty that a Mercedes driver will get laid more than a non-Merc driver, even if they look like a dickhead. "Dickhead", according to my experience at least, is easily missinterpreted by women as "heavenly and impulsively attractive". Particularly if they own a Merc.
Now then, if you please, please track down this lovingly crafted recent anti-smoking campaign ad before you read any further. I, unfortunately, cannot find it online anywhere, but it features a dowdy looking woman meeting a version of herself from the future. This version is happy, and looks bright, and is, we learn, going on a date. All because, she claims, she quit smoking. Naaw.
But, well- hold the phone! Is there not something a little wrong with this?
If you're not allowed to show how your life can be brilliant smoking cigarettes, at what point did it become acceptable to show that by quitting you are guaranteed to have a better life with romance and success etc? People who smoke can, but not necessarily do, feel miserable with or without the cigarettes, and it won't be a huge character change just by dropping or taking up the deathstick.
We must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot. You can't make everyone happy with their life, or drag them out of a rut, if they are in a rut, just by stopping them smoking. To promise as much is insulting, and draws on the idea that smoking makes you a lesser person than someone who is evidently a better person as they're cigarette free. Psht. It's a load of bollocks.
Thoughts, anyone?
(In searching for images for this, I also came across this story. Massive overreaction? Jesus Christ, he's an actor. No one had a go at Jeremy Brett for "getting high" as Holmes, saying he was a role model blah blah.)
No comments:
Post a Comment