caenanalysis

The Body Shop: Jingle Bells (2015)

I'm a Christmassy person anyway (I've been begging my boyfriend to let me put decorations up for weeks now) but I especially love this advert, and I really hope Barrington doesn't notice that I chose this one to analyse last year too. (It's a different analysis, I promise!)

This advert was released last year as part of The Body Shop's advertising campaign promoting their new Christmas range. The stereotypical Christmas advert focuses on the themes of giving gifts and spending time with the family, with supermarkets advertising lavish multi-generational Christmas meals and department stores (à la John Lewis) promote expensive gifts and decorations, giving the impression that their products will make a family's holiday celebration complete. However, this advert subverts all of the usual tropes in lieu of something a little bit different, a little bit comedic and most definitely memorable.

Nice feet. Not sure about the rug though.

The introduction to this video could very easily have been transmitted sexually, using provocative gestures to grab the audience's attention. Instead, we are presented with the perfect innocent view of several people's underwear around their ankles, and even though it is initially unclear why they are undressing, short clips of baths and showers being switched on quickly enlightens the audience. From snapshots of feet and underwear alone, we are introduced to a variety of faceless characters with visibly different skin colours and presumably different genders. (Who knows, some men might like lacy pants?)

*sings* product plaaaaaacement!

If we weren't sure whose advert we were watching (even with the not-so-subtle grey logo hiding in the bottom right corner) there's no doubting it now. Aside from providing a novel backdrop for the title of the video, using traditional red and green to connote the festivities of Christmas, this shot also showcases some of the new products the company have brought out in time for the season, with bright colours and neat packaging to make the products look as appealing as possible to persuade the public to buy them.

You missed a bit on your shoulder, love.

The advert uses a non-diegetic soundtrack, an instrumental version of the traditional song Jingle Bells, and overlays diegetic merry singing along from many different people in the bath or shower, including this hairy bloke who's very concerned with not getting his hair wet for one reason or another. The diversity of actors in the advert covers a wide range of ethnicities, genders, ages and body types, appealing to a wider market (including men, who aren't the usual demographic for cosmetics adverts).

Bath products are expensive, man, nobody needs that much soap.

HOW are you two not FREEZING?

The symmetry here appeals to my OCD - yay!

The added incentive of aiding charity by buying Christmas gifts - 'for every gift set sold, we'll give one day of safe water to a family in Ethiopia' - is a clever promotion trick; although the company are genuinely supporting WaterAid in their campaign, their profits will also increase as a result as the advert appeals to the audience's charitable side - both wanting to give to someone in need, and feeling good about themselves as a result.

Have I mentioned at all that I love this advert?

And finally, another product placement shot, this time including a woman dressed only in a towel (or nothing at all, for all we know) that could so easily have become sexually alluring with a smirk or tossing of the hair, but instead the woman is smiling and applying perfume as though she is happy. making herself feel good - and of course, appreciating the Body Shop.

In light of the recent tragedy, occuring less than a mile from my parents' house, I thought it fitting to report on the Croydon tram crash. Leaving more than 50 people injured, and killing seven people (including Dane Chinnery, who many of my friends knew and loved as a brother) this has shaken me to the core, especially as if the accident had happened an hour later I could very well have been on the tram as it derailed.

This article from the Telegraph features both factual information about the crash, and pays tribute with a respectful mention to the seven victims. Originally, all articles regarding the incident focused around the tragedy of those injured or killed, though now that the grief and shock of the public seems to have subsided slightly the news have now fixed themselves around stories detailing why and how the crash happened. By using figures and statistics in this article (such as the fact that the tram was travelling 43.5mph over a curve with a maximum speed of 12.5mph) it allows the public to both create a more detailed picture in their heads of how the accident came to be, and speculate about the possible causes of the incident. At present, this article reports that the driver, Alfred Dorris, was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter and has now been bailed until May.

Usually articles regarding events such as this one use emotive language, as demonstrated in this article from the Daily Mail - as early into the article as the introduction, shocking phrases such as 'covered in blood' and describing the scene as 'something out of a movie' both draw readers in and attempt to evoke an emotion (in this case, a reaction of sympathy and shock). In contrast, the article from the Telegraph focuses solely on the facts behind the event, which draws in a smaller pool of readers (the Mail article appeals to everyone around the Croydon area due to a tragic accident having taken place, while fewer people are interested in the statistics and details behind the event).

Rather than changing my ideas from last year, I have decided to stick with my premise, and this Prezi sums it up pretty well without me rambling on here.

I'm writing this after the results of the 2016 election have already been released (and let me tell you, I never believed in a million years that the American general public could be so racist, misogynistic, homophobic and plain stupid enough to elect a Wotsit in a blonde wig for President, but there you go). Regardless of how I feel about Trump, there's no denying his debating skills leave a lot to be desired. But we're not talking about Trump. We're talking about his wife, Melania Trump, and her lack of originality that has yet again been noticed by the media.

Earlier this year, Melania was slated by the public after she appeared to steal a line from a speech made by Michelle Obama. Recently, she's yet again been accused of plagiarism. In a speech, referring to her upbringing in Slovenia, she used the line 'if you could dream it, you could become it'. Unfortunately, a very similar quote came from Marla Maples, Trump's ex-wife.

This article, from the Daily Mail, is a reasonably factual account of the news - it lists the reality of the situation, the accusation of plagiarism (pointed out by Twitter user Yoni Brander) and the details of Maple's original speech - which, as Brander points out, uses an adapted quote from the author William Arthur Ward.

However strongly I feel about the Trump family, I believe Melania is being unfairly represented in this article - plenty of speechwriters and authors borrow quotes from other people in order to put their point across, with or without a source. Although Melania's previous use of Michelle Obama's words indicates her lack of skill in speech writing, this more recent similarity between speeches could simply be a coincidence that the media have latched onto as a scandal. The article does, however, use the words 'appeared' and 'seemingly' to give a more balanced account of events rather than taking a Twitter user's observations as fact. Credit to the Mail for their efforts to reduce bias (never thought I'd ever type that sentence out).

Taking a break from all of the digital analysis, fancy Prezis and walls of text with some good-old-fashioned handwritten notes. Felt tips are underrated.

1) Linear and Non-linear narratives (Todorov's Theory of Equilibrium)

2) Propp's Character Tropes

The Huffington Post UK is a news source I browse regularly: the articles are often balanced, fair and informative, which is all I could ask for from the news. Recently, I discovered a strand of their website called Huffpost Style, and as I am (shock horror) a WOMAN who occasionally does Buzzfeed quizzes out of boredom, I thought I would take a look through. Most of the articles are much of a muchness, with tips on beauty products and fashion do's and don'ts, but this particular article caught my eye and made me put my head in my hands and let out a whimper of frustration.

On the 3rd November, the Duchess of Cambridge (otherwise known as Kate Middleton) attended the film premiere of the film 'A Street Cat Named Bob' - which, if it's anything like the book I read as a child, will be well worth watching. 

Sorry, nostalgia brought me off topic. Back to the news.

Middleton wore a lovely ivory dress, which she looked demure and fashionable as ever in. But this article has no problem with her outfit; rather the fact that a week earlier Paris Hilton turned up to an event in Los Angeles wearing the same dress. Fancy that, two celebrities shopping from the same designer!

If I turned up to college wearing a jumper from New Look that someone else was wearing, nothing would be said other than 'hey, we're matching!', and it certainly wouldn't make the news. Huffpost Style have, however, decided that this accidental twinning deserves an article all to itself. Personally, I think it's ridiculous that two celebrities owning the same dress is deemed news-worthy at all, but apparently readers drink this bullshit up? What surprised me was the fact that many other articles from HS focused on body-positive and woman-empowering articles, such as this one about a girl who was once bullied for her appearance finding stardom in the modelling industry and giving a big middle finger to anyone who criticised her. There seems to be a critical divide in the media, crossing the boundaries between shaming women for their appearance and celebrating their diversity. I don't get it, not at all - this double standard is just more proof of why the feminism movement is still relevant in today's society