Dakota Fanning ad banned in UK for being ‘too provocative’
Dimitrios Kambouris for Marc Jacobs
Dakota Fanning attends the Marc Jacobs Spring/Summer 2012 After Party at The Gallery at Dream Downtown on Sept.15, 2011 in New York City.LONDON — Britain’s advertising standards watchdog on Wednesday banned a Marc Jacobs perfume ad starring actress Dakota Fanning, saying it seemed to sexualize a child and could cause serious offence.
Four readers complained about the magazine ad for Jacobs’ recently launched “Oh, Lola!” perfume, the Advertising Standards Authority said. The ad showed the 17-year-old star in a pale short dress, sitting with an oversized perfume bottle — which is shaped like a vase holding a giant red flower — between her legs.
The watchdog said that Fanning looked under 16 years old in the ad, and the styling in the image drew attention to her sexuality.
“Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualize a child,” it said.
Perfume maker Coty UK said it had not received any complaints. It said that the ad was targeted at readers over 25 years old, and that while the image was provocative, it wasn’t indecent. Most magazine readers would be used to “edgy images” in fashion magazines and are not likely to find the ad offensive, it added.
Fanning is best known as a child actress in movies including I am Sam and Steven Spielberg’s TV series Taken.
watching TV and apparently people are going nuts over how "sexualized" Dakota Fanning looks in this Oh Lola! ad
Am I the only one who doesn’t see an issue with the ad? Honestly when I first saw it in Vogue I thought she looked lovely.
Yes the bottle is sitting on her lap, kinda between her legs, but REALLY? I don’t think it’s that bad. She’s fully dressed and isn’t “oversexed” in any way. It’s a very classy, feminine ad, and less sexual than most perfume ads that I’ve seen. Plus she’s 17, not 10, it’s fine.
This clearly exploitative and perverted image has just been banned in the UK.
Let’s analyze this, shall we?
We have the blonde girl, seventeen but possibly younger, her pale form clothed in a demure and delicate dress - dotted, scalloped edges. The perfume bottle’s placed between her legs in a way that’s suggestive without being particularly racy, and I’m sure I’m not the only person for whom the petaled lid evoked thoughts of Georgia O’Keeffe.
In many ways it’s a restrained and delicate, even lovely image - and while that makes it a good thing in my book, it’s exactly that quality which so offended people.
Honestly, so many advertisements aimed at children and teenagers are far more sexual (in a cheap, not honest, way) than this is. This is a tastefully provocative image, and I feel as if Marc Jacobs was using the fragrance - a product - as a vehicle for capturing a tone and exploring an idea.
The first time I saw the picture, I liked it and was struck by its prettiness and its quiet, almost wry seductiveness. But the recent flurry of controversy inspired me to actually think through why. To try and explain my take on the image, I have to first discuss Nabokov’s novel, whose story and its feelings are very much a part of our collective cultural consciousness and very evidently inspired the tone of this picture.
There is the Lolita of H.H.’s fantasy - lithe, dreamy, viewed and longed for from a distance, an object of desire in the ultimate sense of both terms. In the earlier sections of the novel, Humbert heaves and sweats and guiltily desires in fascinating and poetic diction, but he also feels an intense duty to preserve her purity. He lives for the moments in which he can casually touch her arm or waist, somehow appeasing his arousal without arousing suspicion; he dreams of realizing his fantasies - but without her consciousness. (It’s sick, but it’s also weirdly tender. It’s a hell of a complex novel.) Her perceived purity and obliviousness to his thoughts and intentions is part of what makes her so fascinating for him.
Lolita is, in his mind, the ultimate personification of his personal fetish - or ideal, as he’d probably be quick to clarify. And that’s all she is. But Dolores Haze herself is a very human girl who’s capable of recognizing H.H.’s interest in her and, ultimately, of making the decision to abandon him. And that’s the Lolita that this image brings to my mind. I think the reason that I find it hard to be as offended by this image’s seductive innocence is the look in Dakota’s eyes and the knowing curve of her lips. You’re looking at her, but she’s gazing right back, and she’s quite aware that she’s powerful.
The question isn’t whether the image is sexualizing. The whole point of the photograph is to play with the dynamic between innocence and seduction. Light of my life, fire of my loins - it’s pretty easy to get. And while it’s an image that struck me with its beauty the first time I saw it, it’s also not an entirely comfortable one, and that’s completely intentional.
The question is whether the image’s sexual nature is a bad thing because it’s exploiting a young girl, presenting a child as provocative in order to sell a fragrance… or because it’s daring to suggest that the young girl is a sexual being and that’s something that everyone can recognize. It’s very possible that I’m utterly misreading both Marc Jacobs’ photograph and the reactions and motivations of those who’ve opposed and censored it. But to me, banning it as perverse seems more to affirm the latter possibility.
Young girls have sexuality, and it’s a really important part of their flowering identities. The problem is, how to affirm and celebrate this when the media, advertising in particular, is steeped in imagery that cheaply exploits the female body to cater to the male gaze and thus make a profit?
It’s all very complex and frustratingly ambiguous, and there aren’t any clear answers, but I really can’t believe that banning this picture is a step in the right direction.
Let’s analyze this, shall we?
We have the blonde girl, seventeen but possibly younger, her pale form clothed in a demure and delicate dress - dotted, scalloped edges. The perfume bottle’s placed between her legs in a way that’s suggestive without being particularly racy, and I’m sure I’m not the only person for whom the petaled lid evoked thoughts of Georgia O’Keeffe.
In many ways it’s a restrained and delicate, even lovely image - and while that makes it a good thing in my book, it’s exactly that quality which so offended people.
Honestly, so many advertisements aimed at children and teenagers are far more sexual (in a cheap, not honest, way) than this is. This is a tastefully provocative image, and I feel as if Marc Jacobs was using the fragrance - a product - as a vehicle for capturing a tone and exploring an idea.
The first time I saw the picture, I liked it and was struck by its prettiness and its quiet, almost wry seductiveness. But the recent flurry of controversy inspired me to actually think through why. To try and explain my take on the image, I have to first discuss Nabokov’s novel, whose story and its feelings are very much a part of our collective cultural consciousness and very evidently inspired the tone of this picture.
There is the Lolita of H.H.’s fantasy - lithe, dreamy, viewed and longed for from a distance, an object of desire in the ultimate sense of both terms. In the earlier sections of the novel, Humbert heaves and sweats and guiltily desires in fascinating and poetic diction, but he also feels an intense duty to preserve her purity. He lives for the moments in which he can casually touch her arm or waist, somehow appeasing his arousal without arousing suspicion; he dreams of realizing his fantasies - but without her consciousness. (It’s sick, but it’s also weirdly tender. It’s a hell of a complex novel.) Her perceived purity and obliviousness to his thoughts and intentions is part of what makes her so fascinating for him.
Lolita is, in his mind, the ultimate personification of his personal fetish - or ideal, as he’d probably be quick to clarify. And that’s all she is. But Dolores Haze herself is a very human girl who’s capable of recognizing H.H.’s interest in her and, ultimately, of making the decision to abandon him. And that’s the Lolita that this image brings to my mind. I think the reason that I find it hard to be as offended by this image’s seductive innocence is the look in Dakota’s eyes and the knowing curve of her lips. You’re looking at her, but she’s gazing right back, and she’s quite aware that she’s powerful.
The question isn’t whether the image is sexualizing. The whole point of the photograph is to play with the dynamic between innocence and seduction. Light of my life, fire of my loins - it’s pretty easy to get. And while it’s an image that struck me with its beauty the first time I saw it, it’s also not an entirely comfortable one, and that’s completely intentional.
The question is whether the image’s sexual nature is a bad thing because it’s exploiting a young girl, presenting a child as provocative in order to sell a fragrance… or because it’s daring to suggest that the young girl is a sexual being and that’s something that everyone can recognize. It’s very possible that I’m utterly misreading both Marc Jacobs’ photograph and the reactions and motivations of those who’ve opposed and censored it. But to me, banning it as perverse seems more to affirm the latter possibility.
Young girls have sexuality, and it’s a really important part of their flowering identities. The problem is, how to affirm and celebrate this when the media, advertising in particular, is steeped in imagery that cheaply exploits the female body to cater to the male gaze and thus make a profit?
It’s all very complex and frustratingly ambiguous, and there aren’t any clear answers, but I really can’t believe that banning this picture is a step in the right direction.
It was announced a while back that Dakota Fanning was the face for Marc Jacobs’ latest fragrance, “Oh Lola!” Since Dakota is still very young, the company went with an innocent look. Unfortunately, for the Advertising Standards Authority in Great Britain, the adverts for the fragrance were deened too “sexually provocative” and have been banned.
Marc Jacobs has a received a bit of a blow to his latest campaign for the fragrance Oh Lola! featuring Dakota Fanning. The ASA and American audiences have spoken, deciding the Lolita style imagery cuts a little too close to the bone and sexualises the 17 year old actress, ultimately leading to a full ban on the advertising. However, this isn’t the first time that an advert has been deemed too racy for public consumption; Eva Mendez’s seemingly innocent Calvin Klein fragrance ads featuring the actress in a bed sheet were perceived as too intimate and were consigned to the fashion bin. Similarly in 2000 the artistic, dramatic YSL Opium campaign (below) featuring the then fuller figured Sophie Dahl was pulled after complaints it was too graphic in it’s nature.
Whether this kind of advertising should be seen as the artistic interpretation of a scent or just blatant use of the old adage “sex sells” really lies with the consumer. Does seeing Sophie Dahl naked apart from a pair of gold shoes make you want to run out and buy Opium? Does Eva Mendez in a sheet send a subliminal message that Calvin Klein is a genius perfumer? Perhaps seeing a young girl look longingly into a camera lens with an oversized Marc Jacobs bottle between her legs is the key to great sales, who knows.
So they banned this ad in Britain, cause Dakota Fanning is 17, but in this photo she looks like a provocative “younger” teenager. I just hope she makes the transition to her adult career without naked pics and reality shows.
THE COUNTER-OPINION
Marc Jacobs // Oh Lola featuring Dakota Fanning.
The UK sees this to be too offensive as it ‘sexualises’ a child because Dakota looks like she is only 15. Firstly Dakota Fanning is 17 and two this is pretty classy advertisement that’s even made me pay attention, I might even go and buy my girlfriend this fragrance for Christmas just because I think the campaign for it was original and quite rad. As for the people who think this advertisement ‘sexualises’ a child get your minds of the gutter because obviously you were the perverted douches who thought this and cannot have a sense of self control and moral about how you think about women/children. It’s like that old saying where a rapist gets off the charges because his victim was a prostitute or just dressed differently. Catch up to the 21st century. Keep it up MJ.
Marc Jacobs's campaigns are nothing if not provocative. But too hot to handle? Apparently, so. The designer's Oh Lola! fragrance ad, starring Dakota Fanning, has caused a bit of an uproar across the pond.
The image—which features the 17-year-old Twilight actress sitting in a short dress with a bottle of perfume between her legs—was banned by the British Advertising Standards Authority amidst complaints that it sexualized the teen, the Huffington Post reports.
In a statement, the ASA said:
"We noted that the model was holding up the perfume bottle which rested in her lap between her legs and we considered that its position was sexually provocative. We understood the model was 17 years old but we considered she looked under the age of 16. We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child."
Coty, the fragrance company behind Oh Lola!, didn't have issues with the image, mainly because, as the Guardian reports, the ads were running in magazines with an older audience, and were "similar to many other edgy images in those magazines." And as the images didn't show any "private body parts or sexual activity," they weren't indecent.
So, do you find this ad offensive? Or is it just another edgy fashion campaign?
In related news, the new Twilight fragrance has officially launched.
The UK sees this to be too offensive as it ‘sexualises’ a child because Dakota looks like she is only 15. Firstly Dakota Fanning is 17 and two this is pretty classy advertisement that’s even made me pay attention, I might even go and buy my girlfriend this fragrance for Christmas just because I think the campaign for it was original and quite rad. As for the people who think this advertisement ‘sexualises’ a child get your minds of the gutter because obviously you were the perverted douches who thought this and cannot have a sense of self control and moral about how you think about women/children. It’s like that old saying where a rapist gets off the charges because his victim was a prostitute or just dressed differently. Catch up to the 21st century. Keep it up MJ.
Dakota Fanning’s Oh Lola! Ad Banned in England
By Amina Akhtar 11/09/11 at 01:00 PM
This Dakota Fanning Oh Lola! fragrance ad has been banned in England.
The image—which features the 17-year-old Twilight actress sitting in a short dress with a bottle of perfume between her legs—was banned by the British Advertising Standards Authority amidst complaints that it sexualized the teen, the Huffington Post reports.
In a statement, the ASA said:
"We noted that the model was holding up the perfume bottle which rested in her lap between her legs and we considered that its position was sexually provocative. We understood the model was 17 years old but we considered she looked under the age of 16. We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child."
Coty, the fragrance company behind Oh Lola!, didn't have issues with the image, mainly because, as the Guardian reports, the ads were running in magazines with an older audience, and were "similar to many other edgy images in those magazines." And as the images didn't show any "private body parts or sexual activity," they weren't indecent.
So, do you find this ad offensive? Or is it just another edgy fashion campaign?
In related news, the new Twilight fragrance has officially launched.
| DAILY QUOTE | |
 | “I don’t think much about Kim Kardashian.” —Oscar de la Renta to the NY Daily News |
| DAILY QUOTE | |
| “I don’t think much about Kim Kardashian.” —Oscar de la Renta to the NY Daily News |
No comments:
Post a Comment