First of all, let me vent my hatred of wristwatch ads. There's just always SO much gender politics shit going on, for both men and women.
CONTEXT
This ad was found on Google Images, but it (or similar ads with other
models/celebs) can easily be seen in a wealth of magazines – and if
you're real lucky, billboards. The advertisement is for Tag Heuer
watches.
CONTENT
Brad Pitt is looking deeply (and arguably, longingly)
into our eyes. What is he wearing? Some kind of coat/jacket thing. And
under that? Well...hard to say, as we're probably led to believe the
answer is "nothing." Mr. Pitt also appears to us as shaven, bronzed,
slender (as in "non-muscular") and "clean" - four attributes I would
argue to be taken as "feminine." He's grazing his lips (one of the most
sensitive parts of the body) with the back of his hand (one of the most
sensual parts of his body). Someone sure loves himself.
Oh yeah, there's a watch in there, too.
NECESSARY NARRATIVES
The "sexiest man in the world" is white, straight, wearing a $900
dollar watch, and touching himself – all while the ad asks us what we
are "made of." God, I hope it's him.
FORM
The blue of Mr. Pitt's eyes are definitely being manipulated, through
both suggestive uses of color and some Photoshop tweaking. He is being
lit from his "outside," thereby creating a slight suggestion of coy
hiding. He is framed decently close to his face; we cannot see all of
his entire scalp nor anything below his chest.
CONCLUSION
Buy this watch and you will be made up of the same "stuff" as Brad
Pitt. And as Brad Pitt is slightly masturbatory with the whole lip/hand
thing, that means either pleasuring Brad Pitt himself or pleasuring
something Brad Pitt would. Yowza.
Comments
Love the pic! How could you not?!
Posted by: Cassie Setter | October 18, 2007 12:31 AM
im doing my thesis on wristwatch advertising, and how they represent men... didn;'t think anyone else in the world would have noticed these things you tak about, but im glad u have, it's time these ridiculous ad's changed. men are not like this and are being taken advantage of.
Posted by: dominiquemcmullan | October 17, 2008 09:29 AM
Your commentary on most of these ads is built upon so many assumptions and guesses it seriously discredits you.
The ad is for a watch, so you have to see his hand. It's a celebrity, so you have to see his face. In order to make the strongest connection the hand needs to be near the face. You read from that that Brad Pitt would masturbate you/himself?
From your commentary I would assume that you would prefer this ad to feature a minority homosexual wearing a $5 timex. How does that sell watches? As a white-straight-male (the worst kind of person in your circles)I see a good looking man who I would like to look like, wearing a coat and watch that I would like to be wearing. It's simple identity selling
As an Art Director in Advertising I read none of the things you did in that ad. But, then again maybe that's why I'm in the real world making creative media and you're in a classroom bitching about it.
Seriously, take a moment to put the world in perspective.
Posted by: Brett | October 19, 2008 06:51 PM
The above comment is a little harsh, but I agree that you are reading way too much into this! Brad Pitt is already famous, so the ad is not what is making his "straight white male"ness attractive. The sheer fact that a man we are supposed to view as "sexy" is used to sell a product does not make the ad sexist. And of course the watch is expensive - that's why they can afford to hire Brad Pitt to advertise it!
Finally, I can't believe that this post is intended for a class. Do you realize use the word "shit" in your papers? Remind me not to attend U of Minnesota for grad school.
Posted by: Valarie | January 30, 2009 08:15 AM
If you're going to assert that there's "so much gender politics" going on and wristwatch ads, and then give this as an example, I really have to doubt your judgment. What on earth is your point? You skim through a few issues that no one could take seriously. You didn't fake your qualifications to get into grad school, did you?
Posted by: Sarah | February 2, 2009 09:33 PM