My heart broke a little last night as I watched one of my favourite actors, Kevin Spacey, join the leagues of Samuel L Jackson and Iggy Pop and sell his soul in an ad. This time it was American Airways. Spacey flies business class apparently.
i thought i did something wrong there.
How could you forget Jackie Chan?
Yeah, now he won't be able to act anymore, because an easy days work is the start of the slippery slope! - At least he's not a scientologist.
if it doesnt effect his acting then why thell should it bother you? not like its effecting his other work is it?
What's in the box?! :lol:
i never liked his smug potato head. maybe he's just selling time though. it's a common misconception.
He needs a new agent! First Lex Luthor in that terrible Superman movie.... now this! Though the ad is more enjoyable
So, let me get this straight...
An actor takes a paycheck for acting in a commercial to sell a product.
This is apparently morally bereft.
As opposed to:
An actor takes a paycheck for acting in a commercial movie to generate income for a studio, which is owned by a multinational conglomerate, which in all likelihood owns the product in the first example.
It's all the same, geniuses.
It's not really the same. It's putting your name to a product not a film (which is an art form). It shows that you are buyable. Turning you too into a product.
Watch Bill Hicks.
I loved the bit in Bill Bailey... ASDA I AIN'T GONNA BE YOUR BITCH!
Could be worse. I thought you were gona say he had become a member of the glorious church of scientology.
Actor paid to act - hmmm, surely that is his job?
Writers do the same - Hunter S Thompson always seemed to mention the brands of alcohol, guns and cigarettes he happened to be using while writing..
Also what if he actually likes flying business class with American Airlines? I am sure if any decent brands of booze, cigarettes or coffee that I was partial to wished to take out advertising space on my Capri I would be happy to do so...
(guess it is too late to take acting classes so I too can join the freebie bandwagon)
[quote:b3eded3611="isis"]Watch Bill Hicks.
Sigh, it was only a matter of time before someone invoked Hick's 'Off The Artistic Roll-Call' speech. For what it's worth, I'd have been at the Hicks gig in Belfast in 1992, if I thought for a second my Ma would have let me. How old-school does that make me (note - I was 14 and Belfast was a big bus-ride away).
I'm a huge Hicks fan. Doesn't mean I agree with everything the man said, unlike a few simple-minded sheep who chose to ignore his plea to THINK FOR YOURSELF, and just decided to think like him.
Oh, and despite what the directors, actors and whoever else tell you otherwise - a film is most definitely a product. Film itself, the medium, is an art-form. As soon as they start asking for money to experience it though it becomes a product. To imagine otherwise is naive.
Same applies to music too by the way. And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Just because something is a product doesn't make it inherently 'wrong'.
Maybe, just maybe, for an actor, selling your soul would be getting paid for something you DON'T want to do? That's certainly how I'd look at it, if I believed in the notion that 'credibility' is some sort of virtuous state of being that makes you better than people who don't have as many choices as you...
[quote:19f9a86519="Dazfloor"]He needs a new agent! First Lex Luthor in that terrible Superman movie.... now this! Though the ad is more enjoyable[/quote:19f9a86519]
Did he get paid the agreed fee for his work in Superman Returns? Was he re-teaming with the director who arguably put him on the map? Is it an agent's job to make decisions for his clients?
Yes (I presume), Yes and No are your answers.
Sorry thon ronster, So I am a simple minded sheep and naive, for being disappointed that everyone seems to be getting into the world of advertising...
Well, you don't seem to be able to offer a sensible reason why working actors shouldn't ply their trade in advertising.
Seems a wee bit... silly, no?
Should every musician who's music has ever been used in an advert just give up? Are they no longer credible?
Vodafone! Vorsprung durch technik
it's not that they are not creditible. But I have to be honest, my oppinion of them changes. Not regarding their ability to act but just my own oppinion of them. I do not hang on every word that bill hicks says but I can't help but feel disappointed when I see someone i respect selling products. Do you think hitchcock would have directed ads? Its the world we live in today that makes us not question it. That we so easily stick our face and name to a product for the right amount of money, I know spacey does not need the money so it disappoints me. I apologise for this as obviously it has offended you!
I would explain myself further I'm in work.... and I've had a bit of a crap day. I posted this as a light hearted comment. didn't know it would get your back up so much mate.
Moral of the story, expect as little as possible from anyone ever. That way, you'll just be less disappointed in the end.
One word Ron - Duffy. *shudder*
[quote:62d6b1ed52="tenrabbits"]One word Ron - Duffy. *shudder*[/quote:62d6b1ed52]
I don't know much about Duffy, but if you didn't like her before surely her being in an ad makes no difference?
Isis, I'm not offended, I just like getting a debate going on things that I find interesting.
Ridley Scott has made ads, as has Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Jonathan Glazer, Wes Anderson, David Fincher, Terry Gilliam, Michael Mann, Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze, among others.
Are you going to seriously tell me that if directors of that calibre are comfortable of directing ads that Hitchcock wouldn't? I bet he would have - he was a master of advertising his own movies, no doubt someone would have offered him a boat load of cash to turn his talents to pimping their wares.
Advertising isn't evil. Whether or not it's effective is another matter - I don't watch television, have an a-blocker in my web-browser, so the only ads I see are the ones on billboards, and none of them are ever advertising me anything I'm interested in.
This bloody site advertises stuff!
But if it wasn't for advertising we would not have Mad Men..
If the zippo lighter and DVD set was avaialble on blu-ray I would probably be tempted (even though I could just download it or record on BBC HD )....
Not quite sure if Hitchcock would have turned down commercials (maybe he did?), but his TV series was hardly great for quality control, though it does have a great theme
Having said that, I long ago gave up on watching TV live, so i could avoid the adverts, and Neil Young's anti-advertising tirade "this notes for you" is a classic.
ok, point taken on the directors and their flings with ads. Maybe its just a personal oppinion of mine.
I can't see any plus side of iggy pop selling insurance...or is it time?
Obviously you have stronger, or more developed views on this topic, where as I have sweeping underdeveloped ones. But I still think I'm right... :-D
Hows that for a slice of maturity?
sorry, I understand that ads are an integral part of our society now. I just have quite a romantic view on these things, but I like my romantic view. I'm not saying how the world should be, just how I would like it to be! Celeb endorsements get my goat....
Speaking of advertisments in films. Is it just me that thinks americans ought to catch on to the fact that the police usually hide behind billboards on old dusty roads.
People always speed past them. God, if only they applied some brakes and slowed down to a sensible speed, the officer would have not bat an eyelid.
Hunter Thompson, James bond and Smokey's Bandit would have not had to endure the highway patrolman had they followed my simple guidelines.
Advertising is entirely morally, spiritually and artistically bankrupt. It may be ubiquitous and unavoidable but so is wiping your hole - when a chef does it they wash their hands (i hope).
If art is mean anything it should be an honest representation of ideas, concepts and emotions that cannot be represented any other way.
If someone creates something which has the power to move your emotions then putting that to use to sell washing powder or mobile phones is sickening, offensive.
The realities of trying to make a living as any sort of artist mean that compromises MUST be made, however I don't think there is an artist in the world who doesn't know in their own mind where the line is where you've "sold out" for want of a better term.
Show me the artist who doesn't know that they operate on a gradient between good art and pure commercial crap and I'll show you a bullshit merchant. :-)
That said Ron's right about the obvious parallel between advertising and mainstream commercial cinema, so Spacey hasn't really moved that much, but I'd also say it's still a slip a little further down that gradient, and I can't say I didn't find it rather disappointing.
I didn't find it disappointing simply because I don't give a shit what any actor does. It's their job to pretend for money.
As for advertising being morally, spiritually and artistically bankrupt - well, maybe, but I reject the very notion of spirituality, have little time for self-determined morals and I've never understood why people who consider themselves 'artistic' are considered more virtuous than those who think of their jobs as, well, work.
That's what makes me an X-TREME socialist. :lol:
It's interesting that no-one has mentioned that the director is Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Gondry has a long history in TV ads:
not to mention directing a hell of lot of music videos:
But this could digress from the topic, which is about Spacey. Ergo, in my opinion, I couldn't care less if an actor appears in one or numerous ads, their legacy will ultimately be remembered for their studio work.
[quote:bd4f179e7b]why people who consider themselves 'artistic' are considered more virtuous than those who think of their jobs as, well, work.[/quote:bd4f179e7b]
Well, if one of the things about creating art is that it contains part of "you" in it, rather than say punching buttons into a calculator, then when you direct or star in an ad, that part of "you" is just being used to hawk a product.
In the end, doing an advert is simply about making some easy money and I mostly agree with what Anto said.
(Interestingly, I found out Tom Waits did an advert voiceover once...for dog food)
But then he also created the greatest musical comment ever on commerciality
This is true...
[quote:6652eb3545="The Ronster"]have little time for self-determined morals[/quote:6652eb3545]
I thought they were the only kind of morals you had time for!
Make your mind up, Ron.
Its all just a question of how deep you run isn't it. I'm not a fan of main stream cinema at all, I prefer a bit of cinema paradiso over a bit of tranformers (the movie, the cartoon series is still awesome) but i still hold spacey in high esteem simply because of Usual Suspects. He's a great actor when he want to be, Its like when yer ma says, I'm not angry, just disappointed. I'm just disappointed with him.
It's like the difference between a radiohead song and something produced by simon cowel. Irrelevant of your musical taste you've gotta see the difference between the two.
depth and no depth...
does that make sense?
I thought I had replied to this but it appeared to disappear into the internet ether...
[quote:e74e65b8ea]If art is mean anything it should be an honest representation of ideas, concepts and emotions that cannot be represented any other way. [/quote:e74e65b8ea]
[quote:e74e65b8ea]Advertising is entirely morally, spiritually and artistically bankrupt. It may be ubiquitous and unavoidable but so is wiping your hole - when a chef does it they wash their hands (i hope).[/quote:e74e65b8ea]
What is inherently wrong with advertising? I honestly would like to know what the problem with advertising is? Do TPO not advertise their gigs?
Advertising is an interesting cross between science (psychology) and art (design) and it can be highly creative.
Art is a "broad church" from nice pictures of the mournes churned out for tourists to thought provoking conceptual art and everything in between. I would be certain that virtually every artist has used their talents to "pay the bills" as well as for the work they consider to be "their art", or use their commercial work to subsidise the work they wanted to do (as Orson Welles did for Othello ).
Besides without advertising companies those art students might have to get real jobs :lol:
I think that ads have a bad wrap becuase sometime they mislead the viewer, they are not just selling a product they are selling a way of life, an idea of what you have to aspire to be, wear linx and get the girl, buy chanel and be sophisticated.
But that just can't be blamed on ads, its the entire media.
It's like the car ads that use natural imagery to sell their product when the most ironic thing is that it harms nature.
We are also so bombarded with advertising that we are constantly comsuming, buying a load of crap that we don't need. I remember being an angst teenager and writing a quote on my english book
"advertising is legalised lying"
Just think of those ridiculous hair product ads with boswellox! I mean come on...I don't even know if boswellox is good or bad, it sounds like a villan from mighty mouse...
[quote:93147b784e]What is inherently wrong with advertising? I honestly would like to know what the problem with advertising is? Do TPO not advertise their gigs?
Advertising is an interesting cross between science (psychology) and art (design) and it can be highly creative.[/quote:93147b784e]
Making people aware of a fact ie there's a gig (not that we are particularly dilligent about this ourselves!) is different from the systematic process of reductive cause and effect on a psychological level that constitutes the modern advertising agenda. It is manipulation, its methods are devious and hidden, its outcome purely materialist, its motivation selfish and its product meaningless beyond its agenda of increasing a percentage on a matrix of sales data.
I think genuine art has been employed as advertising, but in doing so it has become fraudulent. The fact that the products of advertising can still be considered as art by some only reinforces the insidious nature of the enterprise. It is a farce of art.
People struggle to form a coherent definition of art. There is one which I consider an absolute: Art is not advertising.
If you subtract any creative enterprise of which any aspect can be remotely considered advertising, then the rest is actual art. What has been removed is nonsense and lies.
[quote:da5153ba4b]"advertising is legalised lying"
True [ apart from adverts for all our events , of course ]
[quote:da5153ba4b]Making people aware of a fact ie there's a gig (not that we are particularly dilligent about this ourselves!) is different from the systematic process of reductive cause and effect on a psychological level that constitutes the modern advertising agenda.[/quote:da5153ba4b]
Think you are being too modest about your own advertising capabilities - your excellent myth building activities mean that TPO is now an exceptionally well known "brand" ;-) (though you are right about your gig listings - when did you last update the gig list on your web site? )
[quote:2a0894458c="Rock Danger"]Yeah, now he won't be able to act anymore, because an easy days work is the start of the slippery slope! - At least he's not a scientologist.[/quote:2a0894458c]
Well anything is better than being a scientologist, unless you're talking the likes of Jehova's Witnesses, freaks!But, there are some very talented musicians who are scientologists, like Billy Sheehan for example and, having met the guy, he is extremly down to earth
and clearly very gullible...
The whole religion angle of Scientology is a smokescreen to divert attention from what it really is: a mutually beneficial club whereby you can buy your way to the top and influence the industry you work in.
Simple as that.
[quote:c35397b60a="The Ronster"]The whole religion angle of Scientology is a smokescreen to divert attention from what it really is: a mutually beneficial club whereby you can buy your way to the top and influence the industry you work in.
Simple as that.[/quote:c35397b60a]
I paid the Scientology office in Belfast a visit and discovered simply just that , I knew something wasnt right when they told me their membership dues but, in fairness I am all in favour of self improvment and virture. I found the criac to be the same with masonry but, I'd rather be a mason.
[i:e1609a2d1f]oooohhhh I'd Rather Be A Mason....[/i:e1609a2d1f]
There's a Lionel Bart style knees up song in that. Bum bum bum bum, bum bum bum bum....
I found the criac to be the same with masonry but, I'd rather be a mason.[/quote:484e706dde]
and the Mason's do have a decent John Luke in their lodge on Rosemary Street
Not sure how scientology scores in the significant works of art stakes, but really there must be better societies than these to aim for... surely?
It's no Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes.
I paid the Scientology office in Belfast a visit and discovered simply just that , I knew something wasnt right when they told me their membership dues but, in fairness I am all in favour of self improvment and virture.[/quote:cba5b93181]
Outta sheer morbid curiosity Prog, what actually happened when you called in, what was the format?
The idea that art can be divorced from commerce is silly. A recent trip to the Louvre showed me that the vast majority of painting before 1800 was either of Jesu, Angels or royalty. Why? Because of patrons.
All advertising is is te promotion of something, be it another piece of art or a consumer product. You can easily express yourself within those contraints. Plenty of ads are more interesting, inventive and thouht provoking than the majority of short films which are usually non-commercial.
Every piece of art is limitted by various factors: What you can afford, what you are allowed to do, what your patrons want from it. I've found you have to fight as much as you can to create the best product you can and make your peace with whatever compromises you had to make.
Every TV show is a commercial for the ad breaks. Sopranos and the Wire are adverts for a HBO subscription, but they are also medium re-defining works of art.
Are ads for pieces of art OK? If not, what about interviews. Every tme you mention your band/film/poetry collection, you're advertising. Every piece of information out there about your work, from magazine articles, to reviews to your website, is part of your brand.
It pains me to say this as a socialist, but here's the thing, commerce is good. Society works best when the majority of the population have a role to work at and produce something. There's a reason there's a link between mass unemployment and civil unrest and it's not just a matter of having no money.
Wow, sorry about the rant. I get a bit tetchy when people seperate art and commerce into good and bad.
No not commerce in art, it would be stupid to think in a capitalist society that art could be divorced from that society.
the use of the emotional content of art to manipulate for profit. That's the issue.
[quote:1f00481fab="fastfude"]It's no Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes.[/quote:1f00481fab]
Ditto. Are you a member? What is the criteria?
[quote:529fa9c811="The Grace Jones"][quote:529fa9c811="loveisthelaw"]
I paid the Scientology office in Belfast a visit and discovered simply just that , I knew something wasnt right when they told me their membership dues but, in fairness I am all in favour of self improvment and virture.[/quote:529fa9c811]
Outta sheer morbid curiosity Prog, what actually happened when you called in, what was the format?[/quote:529fa9c811]
Basically, showed me a load of books and DVD's on self help by L Ron Hubbard and told me about a selection of courses they offer at a silly rate of 200 odd ton for 6 weeks. They also preached the alleged dangers of perscription dangers and how all shrinks are evil
[quote:a8519ef694="loveisthelaw"][quote:a8519ef694="fastfude"]It's no Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes.[/quote:a8519ef694]
Ditto. Are you a member? What is the criteria?[/quote:a8519ef694]
[coke-splutter]Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha![/coke-splutter]
what does that mean ?
We've just missed you, InProg.
Welcome back :D
thanks, was trying to lay low. I hope Rog keeps me
I hope your name represents a change from the Crowley ballix you were spouting a couple of years ago. :D
[quote:f12a50d2bd="tinpot anto"]No not commerce in art, it would be stupid to think in a capitalist society that art could be divorced from that society.
the use of the emotional content of art to manipulate for profit. That's the issue.[/quote:f12a50d2bd]
Guess you will not be tuning into this car crash TV-
[quote:f12a50d2bd]Having succeeded in discovering fresh new singers, dancers and actors, reality TV is now turning its attention to the visual art world — with a new BBC series that will enlist the help of influential art collector Charles Saatchi to spot new British talent.
Former advertising mogul Saatchi will serve as a mentor to and judge of the young artist competitors in the new BBC series Saatchi's Best of British, the broadcaster has announced.
From the people behind such gems as
"The Christine Hamilton Show"
"A Wife for William" [ as in Prince William...]
"Sick Day" [ 'An innovative and shocking comedy/reality game show where contestants try and catch as many diseases as possible.' - must be a joke surely...? ]
"lily Allen and Friends"
and "the Friday Night Poject"
There's a joyous irony in your last statement Marty, but I have honestly no idea whether it was intentional or not. :D
Ha, I saw the obvious irony, but I think you may have in mind some meta-irony. Go on, gis it
[quote:affcdf742e]Having succeeded in discovering fresh new singers, dancers and actors, reality TV is now turning its attention to the visual art world — with a new BBC series that will enlist the help of influential art collector Charles Saatchi to spot new British talent.
Former advertising mogul Saatchi will serve as a mentor to and judge of the young artist competitors in the new BBC series Saatchi's Best of British, the broadcaster has announced. [/quote:affcdf742e]
Ha no, but what is funny is my sister just turned down a part in this!!
Marty, no, on closer investigation I have no meta-irony, I'm just confused. As you were.
<<the use of the emotional content of art to manipulate for profit. That's the issue.>>
Why is that a bad thing? Every good piece of art manipulates the audience. Why is charging for a piece of art OK, but using a piece of art to advertise something else bad?
Is it OK to give away art for free and have an "In association with Blank Corporation" message at the start? You're stil being manipulated to having more positive asociations with a company, but that's OK.
I'm not sure what the route of your assumptions is. Is all advertising fundamentally wrong? Is commerce wrong? I don't mean to go on, I'm just curious. You're obviously intelligent, but I don't understand how you reached your conclusions.
Have you ever sat in on an advertising and marketing meeting?
sorry, thats a shit answer. Its just ideals, i know they are unrealistic, thats why they're ideals. We're all allowed them.
[quote:781b294485="isis"]Have you ever sat in on an advertising and marketing meeting?[/quote:781b294485]
Yes, and if the item / event / product / service is fine I do not see what the inherent problem with advertising it is.
[quote:781b294485="hombert"]I'm not sure what the route of your assumptions is. Is all advertising fundamentally wrong? Is commerce wrong? I don't mean to go on, I'm just curious. You're obviously intelligent, but I don't understand how you reached your conclusions.
Basically, if I was standing for election I would want:
Scrap tuition fees
Grant to cover actual cost of living for duration of study
All new homes to have double glazing and solar panels (wind turbines would also be great but space / price probably make this impractical)
Bus lanes can also be used by shared passenger cars (to encourage car sharing pools at work).
Investment in clean energy - lots of money poured into Nuclear Fusion
Better tax incentives for business start ups (including artists / musicians ) at start of career - e.g.: 1 year cost of living grant to develop artistic career / creative business.
Tax incentives for people buying art , donating to arts/ voluntary / not for profit / charity organisations.
However to do all this would require more Government spending - meaning the Government needs income - meaning this needs income from private sector - meaing the general public must buy stuff
Buying stuff can therefore produce good results - and advertisements encouraging people to buy stuff can therefore lead to good stuff.
(Naturally this argument only works with a left leaning Government who will spend their money on education, environment and the arts - any of our local candidates?)
Kevin Spacey's creepy
You standing Church? I'd vote for ya! Although the car pool lanes I've seen before, and they'd need policing somehow cos it's well annoying sitting in traffic watching some solo git happily rolling along in the pool lane.
Never mind Spacey, here's [url=http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article.aspx?art_id=2650]Winkler[/url].
Yes, I have been to an advertising and marketing meeting. I've also been to meetings where shit amateur art was being made. And meetings where shit professional "art" was being made.
I've a business degree, but I work making crap TV and spend my spare time making slightly less crap amateur movies. I like to think I've seen the spectrum.
It may be coming from a background of moviemaking. Even in a compeltely pure, self funded moviemaking project, it's a collaborative medium. The auteur theory is bullshit and films are just made better by everyone throwing in ideas.
Bad art gets made for the right reasons. Good art gets made for the wrong reasons. As long as the end result is good, I'm happy enough. I'd prefer to judge a work on its merits, rather than some artificial purity scale.
[quote:d2bb8f543f]sorry, thats a shit answer. Its just ideals, i know they are unrealistic, thats why they're ideals. We're all allowed them.[/quote:d2bb8f543f]
This is the code I live by. and we're not "allowed" them. They are the truths that we all live by. :-)
Eoin, art is simply a communication and all communication lives and dies on whether it is honest.
Someone can tell you what you want to hear and at the time it sounds good and you like it, but as events transpire things happen that you will not like. You'd wish the guy that was telling the truth had rammed it down your throat.
You all like to fuck dead animals and then eat them
[quote:5e4f9cf40a="The enfant terrible"]You all like to fuck dead animals and then eat them[/quote:5e4f9cf40a]
only on the weekends...
I know there are arguements for and against, i know art and consumerism are hand in hand, I know we couldn't run businesses with out ads, I know some are there for a good reason,
but consumerism is something that I wish we didn't have thrown at us, but then you're looking at what kind of society we are and the debate runs far to deep for 5pm on a sunny6 day like this.
I feel like I'm well annoying people. didn't mean to!
I'm gonna have a beer.....
[quote:5b4a730c56]I feel like I'm well annoying people. didn't mean to![/quote:5b4a730c56]
Sure, that is one of the best things about fastfude - it isn't just the normal "Big Echo" of the internet, where you only visit websites where people share your own opinions.
and in other advert related news - the "shake 'n' vac" lady was in last week's version of Cabaret at the Grand Opera House
Shake 'n' vac: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8CTscW3dpI[/url]
I disagree that art lives or dies on honesty. Art can be hugely entertaining without necessarily being what the person truly believes. Lots of great songs, movies etc have been made by people who didn't make them as personal as they could. A lot of action movies don't contain any deep truth, but they're still great.
And sometimes commerce allows the art to be more truthful. In a movie for example the most truthful version may involve a location that they can only afford if the character drives a specific car. Should they abandon the scene or the car?