Days later however, controversy is popping up, slowly but surely.
It's as though there needed to be a review, a slow-motion replay before issues with this year's Super Bowl became evident to the masses.
First, the half time show. You have the Prince phallic form that's been receiving attention.
REUTERS/Shaun Best (UNITED STATES)
(Screen shot)
I have two questions about that.
1. What took so long for people to notice and make an issue out of it? I'm surprised it wasn't more immediate.
2. Was it an intentional move by Prince? I don't know. I would say there's a strong possibility. The producers of the half time show had to recognize the image during rehearsals, unless Prince made the move unexpectedly. I doubt that.
Anyway, I did notice the suggestive silhouette on Sunday. My reaction now is the same as it was then: Who cares?
It was a brief image, something to giggle about during half time. No big deal.
The second controversy is causing more of a ruckus -- The Snickers commercial.
Watch it.
I didn't see that ad during the game.
Most likely, I was preparing food or serving food or cleaning up from the food. I'm sorry I missed it. I wish I had seen it as it aired live. That way, my reaction wouldn't be colored by the ensuing controversy and the reactions of others. I don't really know how I would have responded to the ad.
HACKETTSTOWN, N.J. -- A commercial for Snickers candy bars launched in the Super Bowl broadcast was benched after its maker got complaints that it was homophobic.
The ad showed two auto mechanics accidentally kissing while eating the same candy bar and then ripping out some chest hair to do something "manly." One of the alternate endings on the Snickers Web site showed the men attacking each other.
The Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation complained to the maker of Snickers, Hackettstown-based Masterfoods USA, a division of Mars Inc., which also makes M&M's and other candies.
The Web site also featured video of players from the Super Bowl teams reacting to the kiss.
"This type of jeering from professional sports figures at the sight of two men kissing fuels the kind of anti-gay bullying that haunts countless gay and lesbian school children on playgrounds all across the country," Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement.
GLAAD spokesman Marc McCarthy said Tuesday the group believed "this kind of prejudice was inexcusable."
The company has agreed to pull the ad from TV and its website, even though it received positive feedback from its target consumers.
Masterfoods spokeswoman Alice Nathanson said, "[M]any media and website commentators of this year's Super Bowl commercial line-up ranked the commercial among this year's top ten best. USA Today ranked it 9 of its top ten picks."
USA Today liked it. Does that make USA Today homophobic? I suppose so.
Will USA Today and other media outlets that lauded the commercial be targeted as bigoted?
Will the jeering sports figures be punished by GLAAD? Will they be forced to apologize or sent to gay rehab like Isaiah Washington of Grey's Anatomy?
Nathanson said that the company didn't intend to be offensive. The ad was meant to be humorous. Some obviously didn't see the humor.
So, the ad is history.
I didn't even know about the Snickers ad until there was this uproar about it. By complaining and drawing attention to it, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation actually ending up giving Snickers additional advertising, more bang for their buck.
Personally, I think it was a little too edgy for a candy bar commercial; but it did get noticed, which is the point of advertising.
So many candy commercials target children. That's evil, right? This one clearly was meant to appeal to an older demographic. I guess Snickers can't win.
The bottom line is the ad offended some people. They complained. The company responded by removing it. That's nothing all that unusual. A decision was made to discontinue showing the ad.
I think the more interesting question is whether the ad was funny, clever, and fair or an inexcusable, hateful display.
I understand how some people would take the men's reaction to their unexpected kiss as offensive. They believe it presents a homosexual kiss as repulsive and shameful.
However, I don't think that the ad does that. I don't think it degrades homosexual behavior as much as it mocks the completely over the top reaction of the men.
The men ripping out their chest hair and screaming look like fools. They may be trying to be "manly," but they are buffoons.
They are the idiots in the ad for behaving so ridiculously.
How is that anti-gay?
Perhaps the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation should back off their knee jerk reaction and examine the ad's message.
There's humor in the ad, and it's at the expense of homophobes.
"I just want your extra time and your Kiss"
No comments:
Post a Comment