If you have not yet seen the advertisement shown below on TV, you will. It is a catchy sort of montage; it has an almost "We Are The World" quality to it, or even a touch of "Farm Aid."
Tell me, now that you've viewed it, what do you think? To what human quality or characteristic is the director appealing? What is it designed to do, not in terms of its end, but its means? What is it trying to do to you?
I note that this is a montage featuring some of the earth's wealthiest people. Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who played Elaine Benis on "Seinfeld," is a fabulously rich person, and this even without her acting career: her father, Gerard Louis-Dreyfus, was a billionaire. Of course, I am not faulting her. I am grateful that people can know and experience vast wealth in their personal lives. But why would rich people come together for a video campaign highlighting a particular social need in Africa (primarily)? Why couldn't it be a video campaign featuring poor people? Why not middle class folks? Why not Africans themselves?
Some of these celebrities make $10 per second (and far more) -- while they sleep. Indeed, a pill used to treat HIV may only cost 20 cents, but 20 cents is 20% of every dollar a person earns: two pills are nearly half of every dollar earned. In other words, for some people, 40 cents is a lot of money... for some people. Is this the appeal, that I should feel bad for having "extra"?
But again, I return to this one thing: To what sentiment, quality, virtue or even vice is the director of this ad appealing? What effect does he seek to have -- on you?
Lastly, if I am not mistaken, the backers of this video advertisement are part of the (Product)Red project. This, then, is not an appeal to you to give your money to charity. It is an appeal to you to go purchase products, generally fairly high-end products, that are made by manufacturers participating in the (Product)RED project.
By the way, that's one expensive lunch bag (they cost about $.025 apiece). Pop!
By the way, that's one expensive lunch bag (they cost about $.025 apiece). Pop!
©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
3 comments:
Well, of course they're appealing to our guilt, which guilt they manufacture in the add. The subtext is "how dare you have a nice life where forty cents is nothing, when other people are dying?" Of course, to assuage this manufactured guilt, we do penance in the form of writing checks.
As you point out, with the exception of Bono, who has been at the forefront of African assistance for many years, the others' contributions to the betterment of their fellow man is unknown.
I think it was P.J. O'Rourke who observed after the first Live Aid, with its vacuous "We Are The World" theme that that celebrities only gave up their names and time, which cost them nothing, in exchange for the accolades of the world. As O'Rourke put it, "'Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Much less everyone who sings sha-la-la-la-la."
Cheers.
Why only Africans-why not unemployed Americans living in shelters because they cannot afford to pay rent, or Americans needing livesaving medical treatments who do not have insurance, or Americans who cannot afford three hot meals a day, for example? the social safetynets for folks like these is pretty well frayed through these days. I don't like to sound like Ms. Parochial, but I'd like to see the Famous and Well-off address the needs of the Unknown and Desititute who live closer to home for a change.
Danni, the problem, you see, is that helping those across the street requires you to get your hands dirty and actually associate with all the unwashed. When your concern is directed toward another continent, you can be a hero merely by writing a check. I mean which would you prefer? Making somebody's $500 rent payment for a month or "saving someone's life for a year" for less than $150.00?
Cheers.
Post a Comment