Commercial critique: Guitar Hero World Tour
I was initially pretty pleased at the Guitar Hero World Tour commercials. I liked that the first one, at least, showed a group of guys hanging out in comfy, even kinda sexy, clothing, rocking out like dorks. Typically representations of masculinity perform "boundary maintenance" (see "Fraternal Bonding," which interestingly enough specifically talks about athletes), which is about displaying masculinity through sexism and homophobia; so often in commercials, the "cool guys" are the womanizing-objectifying type (not that the first GH didn't have at least one of those in there), not the male bonding through semi-sexy fun type. So the initial commercial, at least, thwarted my expectation by not giving into the the sexist-homophobic construction of masculinity typically seen. The first one featured several male athletes (Phelps, A-Rod, Tony Hawk, Kobe Bryant) rocking it out in someone's living room à la Risky Business, and several more have followed including American Idol stars David Archuleta and David Cook, High School Musical singer/actor Corbin Blue, and most recently model Heidi Klum. Except they're not really à la Risky Business.
In Risky Business, Cruise dances around the living room in a long-sleeved button-down t-shirt, barely long enough to cover his ass, and nothing else is visible until the end when you see he has skimpy tighty whities on. In the GH commercials, the guys are dancing around in replica dress shirts and long, white boxers. Not 100% authentic, but I didn't think anything of it because it's a daytime commercial, and I figured they probably didn't want it too seductive. That logic only held until I saw the Klum ad, where she wears (big surprise!) only the barely long enough dress shirt--no white shorts.
Why the discrepancy? Does this go back to the idea that sexualizing women's bodies is acceptable for general consumption, but men's bodies are (generally) off limits? What's especially interesting to me here is that the original context of the parody was the sexual one -- it's not like they changed the commercial to make the one with the woman more sexual; rather they specifically desexualized the men's commercials, and in doing so, deviated from its original context. It doesn't bother me that they deviated; it's that they deviated from, and desexualized, only the ones with the men.
But wait--it gets better. Because they actually did make the women's one more sexual. The version of Klum's commercial aired during Monday Night Football featured Klum with the button-down shirt unbuttoned, displaying black lingerie underneath. During her GH "performance", she strips her shirt off, gyrating around, shakes her boobs while leaning back -- all very stripper-like moves; again, this version is way off from the original they are supposed to be parodying. Celebrity Smack has this characterization of the commercial:
Close-ups of her ass and her boobs come next, followed by Heidi jumping down on the couch and holding the guitar between her legs as though it were a 2-foot long sex toy.
It is indeed a very sexualized commercial. Klum is turned into a quasi-porn star and the guitar seems more like a phallus than a fake guitar. This still is particularly telling:
Before anyone points out that "it's not that bad," the point is that for a series of commercials that are supposed to be citing a famous film scene, the ad makers go out of their way to increase the sexualization of the one commercial featuring a woman, and decrease the sexualization of the many commercials featuring a man or men. The only ad they made that is an accurate representation of the film is the "family-friendly" Klum ad. And until now, I haven't even pointed out the 3:1 male:female ratio of the ads, nor the vocations of the genders represented (athletes and musicians: supermodel, how original!).
Let me point out, that there have been more "successful" replications of the Risky Business scene. Exhibit A: one of my favorite shows, Scrubs, had a JD fantasy sequence with the guys imitating Cruise. Now they don't go through and dance--the fantasy is cut short--and the scene is much more goofy than sexy, but there we had 4 guys on non-cable TV early prime-time (and syndicated now during the day) with the same shirt and some much Cruise-like skimpier undies. No reason GH couldn't follow suit.
But maybe our only women's-bodies-should-be-objectified/men-looking-at-men's-bodies-makes-you-gay society can't handle the swooning that would ensue if we were able to see as much of A-Rod, Phelps, and Kobe's athletic physiques as we see of JD, Turk, Dr. Cox, and The Todd. For a game that appeals quite equally to female as well as male players, GH sure didn't aim to give men and women equal ad time and representation.
(For other posts in this series, click here.)
(Cross-posted to Smart Like Me.)
Labels: advertising, gender, sexism, sexuality, sports, video games
7 Comments:
Christ - your tripe is a total waste of time! It's pure comedy without intending to be humorous.
By Anonymous, at 6:35 PM
Must be nice to be privileged enough for sexism to amuse you.
By lindabeth, at 7:29 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By lindabeth, at 7:29 PM
Clearly someone who drools while watching advertising.
By Michael J.W. Stickings, at 9:33 AM
That's why I avoid advertising - at least since I bought a DVR. I hate to drool (or vomit) all over my new couch.
I wonder if anyone really pays attention to the stereotypes the admen build little Leggo Block castles from. Frankly I'm fed up with the parade of store window dummies I'm supposed to find attractive or to want to emulate: almost as fed up as I am with this insect who keeps posting his dissatisfaction. It's probably best to delete him, but I'd rather watch a dweeb like that make a fool of himself than watch a bunch of twits like Tom Cruise dancing in their underwear!
By Capt. Fogg, at 10:59 AM
Here, here! I too am sick and tired of the inequality between male and female representation in the media. For those who leave comments along the lines of, "who cares, it's just an ad," let's look at the bigger picture. Female nudity/sexualisation in the media is much more accepted than male nudity/sexualisation. The media (fictional shows, video clips, news broadcasts, game shows etc) mostly only have "attractive and young" women but seemingly no such standards for the men. I personaly think people should be chosen based on their merit (good actor, presenter etc) rather than their looks and gender. This sexist attitude is not isolated to the GH ads and it disgusts me that people leaving comments are so flippent about it.
By Anonymous, at 3:10 AM
Ahahaha wow to anyone who actually believes the filth that they have so quickly typed on their computer screen. How is this Guitar Hero commercial sexist at all? First of all, until Klum, you could make an argument that GH was directing their ads in a sexist way towards women and gay men... Finally after 4 or so ads with men wearing barely anything (white underwear and a dress shirt), we get Klum to come out in a dress shirt (no underwear that can be SEEN! which makes no difference since we saw as much of Phelps, Bryant, Hawk and A-Rod as we did of Klum, no more, no less).
Possibly everyone that always jumps to sexist can step back for a minute and rethink the subject. Maybe its not the intention to be sexist, but rather embrace and show the beauty of a woman's figure. Men simply dont have the beauty and shape of a womans body and curves, thats not sexist, thats a compliment.
Its ok to the woman that dont look anything like Klum, the media and GH isnt stressing women to get to the figure of Klum and to go dancing with a guitar only wearing a dress shirt. My god, maybe write about something more meaningful then the sexist commercials that simply and blatantly arent sexist at all. Theres a war going on, economic struggle, poverty and death all across this world. Sure, sexism is a issue to tackle, so maybe tackle it when it comes around, GH commercials are blatantly not the time.
By Anonymous, at 11:52 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home