Mercedes Benz Advertisement:

BMW Advertisement:

Porsche Advertisement:

Sex sells. We all see it, we all know it, it is unquestionable, and it is incredibly successful. However, when do we get to the point where it is too much of the same thing? That is what the media attempts to avoid and they look for every manner possible to do that.

We all know the scene, scantily clad woman walking out from the water onto a beach, or the same woman laying on a bed in a seductive position; How do marketers make this scene interesting to the human eye in order to sell their product? They get it from new angles, and they use different portions of the female body to attract the viewers to the commercial. Whether it be a shot of her midriff or a clear view of her cleavage, or even a shot of her legs, the female body becomes a vessel to draw in viewer’s attention, and consequently divert it to the product they are attempting to sell. Many a times this message is lost however, and the exploitation of the sexuality of the female body becomes the focal point of a feature. This in turn sends a message to all women that they must fulfill the role set by the advertisement in order to be a successful woman; this pressure, is unbelievable, however, unavoidable; since as long as there are horny men on this earth, sex will continue to sell.

The motion picture “Precious” is based on the story of a young black girl who is abused by her mother constantly, was sexually abused by her father and bore a child due to it, who is also pregnant with a second child. Thinking about a situation like that one cannot help but think, WOW. If we thought we were having a bad day, we really have no idea. However, upon further review we begin to see past the actual situation and we begin to see what it represents, and we begin to wonder, is this situation a racial stereotype? Stuart Hall believes so, he writes that the movie has “a reliance on the villainization of Black matriarch—rather than a mention of systemic race issues—to make the larger message of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” more palatable.” So are we supposed to believe that all parents in 1980s Harlem abused their daughter and treated them like dirt? No, not at all, however, in the portrayal of the movie the stereotype portrayed would have us believe that the answer is indeed, yes.

In a different light, we show Precious as an unlikely hero, she faces the extreme odds, and is able to overcome them all to be successful. Wait a second, how is that a stereotype? Well, it’s not! What was stereotyped was the situation she was in, not her ability to overcome it, because if it were so easy to do so, why would they make a film out of it? We are led to believe in the negative representation of black adult males, and sadly that is successful. Aymar Jean Christian puts it best when he says that this film is “by far the scariest movie for anyone invested in having only ‘good’ representations of black people”. My reservation however, is how many films do we see about abusive white fathers? and when we watch them, do we really take into consideration their financial position, or even the fact that they are indeed, white?

Maybe its just me, but I thought that racial equality had been achieved and we’d moved on, hence the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. When I read these articles I do not understand the need to highlight the fact that she was black. If we’ve really moved on from treating black people inferiorly to white people, why do we have to highlight the fact that they are black in reference to their struggles, and their abusive parents? Why not talk simply about the struggles and abuses. Maybe we’ll finally be able to enjoy the movie without looking for a hidden agenda in it.

Throughout my viewing of A Clockwork Orange, I could not help but notice similarities between the treatment of Alex on his victims and the authority figures on Alex. Daniel’s article provided the missing link between film and mind. They were the same.

In the film Alex’s treatment of his victims are brutal, unforgiving, immoral and inhumane. We can say the same about the police, his parents, his head master, the Minister and his team and Mr. Alexander. While many can claim that Alex brought this upon himself, one cannot help but question if our world is like that; an eye for an eye. Rather, isn’t the idea of authority figures to show how one should treat others? If Alex, was looking for a manner of learning in terms of behaviour, if he sees so many figures he’s supposed to look up to acting in the same way he was, what is he to learn? How will he improve?

The question can be countered however in asking whether Alex’s behaviour brought about brutality in his authority figures, in seeing his acts, they may have believed that no mercy was all that was worthy of Alex. Yet, we find one character who seems to take the opposite approach, the Chaplain in the prison. He seemed to be genuinely interested in the well being of Alex, and cared for him. In the scene where they test out Alex’s new behaviourisms, he is the only one to speak out on the brutality and immorality of the actions. We also see how Alex became fond of the chaplain, and even took to reading the bible in prison.

Upon hearing both sides of the argument, one can notice the moral question of how we should treat persons who murder. Should we treat them with respect? or should we treat them as dirt? That question the turns into how do we treat our fellow human beings? At the end of the day, as Alex learned through his reading of the bible the golden is “do onto others as you would have them do onto you” Therefore, the treatment of Alex may be simply that, the Authority stamping itself on Alex, just as Alex stamped himself on the tramp, the gang, Mr. Alexander and his wife, and the cat lady.

Daniels, Don. “Sight and Sound.” Winter 1972: 44-46. Online.

Back

Front

A shortage of snow has seen trucks transporting the white stuff from Manning Park to the snowboarding and freestyle skiing venue.

As Morris claims, the caption describes this picture and makes it understandable to the viewer. The image may not be altered in any way, shape or form, however, had the title said “Snow being driven away from Washington, DC to clear roads” many readers of the Mirror would not have known any better. To put this image in context, it was taken only a few, short, days ago, when in preparation for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games, snow had to be driven in to make sure there was enough for the competitions on Cypress Mountain. This was required since it has been the warmest winter in 74 years. This image was published in a British newspaper in order to explain to viewers how Vancouver was preparing itself for the Olympics, even when faced with these issues.

I believe that this picture is fine, it is not photoshopped, and the caption makes sense. However, as said earlier, had the caption read differently, who would have known differently? Especially in England. This picture could potentially be a stock photograph they have in their studio to which they added their caption. We do not know, but we take the caption as a definition of the picture.

Defending the Barricade; Oded Balilty, 2007

Photographic Composition:

This picture immediately drew me in as I noticed the rule of thirds. I noticed how one third of the picture was the one lady, and the rest of the picture were the police officers. It showed a contrast of strength, however, the struggle seemed even; almost as if she were holding her own. The image itself is quite interesting as we see smoke appearing at the top of the picture, giving a sense of something being wrong. When one see’s smoke, one immediately feels trouble, and I feel as though Oded Balilty took advantage of this. Also, the number of people standing and watching the confrontation gives an almost leading line as the crowd stands and views.

Historical Context

The picture itself is set in an area which had been disputed between Israel and Palestine. The Israeli government had recently decided that those houses had been build upon Palestinian land and needed to be returned to them. However, there were nine houses on the land which needed to be demolished. The families took the case to the supreme court however the court sided with the government and they were told to move. Since they would not do it peacefully, they had to do it by force. And even though those present were powerless to have any effect on the outcome, it was a struggle as the families fought for their homes, Nili, the girl in the picture, even throwing herself at the barricade to keep the Israeli troops away. After the picture was taken, we were told that she was clubbed by the onslaught of troops and police.

As we can see BMW attacked Audi, who in turn attacked BMW, who were both in turn attacked by Subaru. However, as with all scraps, the big dog always comes in to stop the bickering and shut everyone up.

Enter Bentley.

I think its self explanatory.

Audi and BMW are some very prestigious names when it comes to the auto industry. They both target the same market and directly compete with each other; therefore it would only be natural for them to attack each other in public.

Audi’s Attack:

In case you cannot read what it says it reads: “Your move, BMW” Therefore it is a direct address to BMW to compete. Before I go on a rant about the business aspects of this ad, I force myself to remember the assignment and look at the visual aspects of this ad.

Aside from the caption and the image of the car not much is happening in this ad. This ad, is trying to make us believe that Audi has taken the step forward and become the leader in their competition with BMW, they’re trying to make us believe that their car is the best in the market segment and BMW has to play catch up.

Of the seven principles, I believe that the ad’s message is conveyed through both form and content.This is so because as I said before, the visual aspects are not as strong as the actual words written on the billboard. The viewer has to interpret what is being said to realize the meaning of the ad.

This ad relies a lot on the background knowledge of the viewer, it relies on the idea that the viewer knows that they directly compete with BMW and the idea that Audi’s cars are better than BMW’s.

Looking back to Audi’s other ads, one notices that there are plenty of examples of other ad wars; some with Mercedes, and plenty more with BMW. However, this ad was is the first one they lost as badly as they did.

I believe this ad was unsuccessful, mainly however, because of the response from BMW.

BMW’s Response:

Audi’s attack on BMW was not left unanswered by BMW, the ad itself was once again extremely plain since the ad contained nought but a ward and the image of the direct competitor to Audi’s A4. This ad on its own manages to stand on its own, but only if the viewer recognizes that it has competitors and that the ad is trying to convey the message that this is it and it has conquered all.

Of the seven principles, as I said with Audi’s ad I believe that the ad’s message is conveyed through both form and content.This is so because as I said before, the visual aspects are not as strong as the actual words written on the billboard. The viewer has to interpret what is being said to realize the meaning of the ad.

The ad relies on a massive amount of background knowledge from the viewer in terms of knowledge of BMW’s competition and of chess.

As I mentioned in the Audi ad, BMW’s ads are full of attacks on other auto makers such as Jaguar (as seen here where the hood ornament is facing opposite the challenging car)

This ad war with Audi, however, seems to have been the most successful so far

I believe this advertisement is targeting all the consumers in the market segment in which the A4 and 3 series compete. This ad was for them and those looking at any Audi or BMW to show how although Audi has a good product, BMW’s 3 series, trumps all. and their response, just as the ad suggests, was “Checkmate”.