Emma Watson's new Prada perfume is so tone-deaf

[aspiringwriter3456]

Emma Watson is the face of a new perfume from luxury fashion house Prada, which is not known for being sustainable, ethical or accessible

During an upcoming recession, cost-of-living crisis and high inflationary times, why is self-proclaimed feminist and eco-activist Emma Watson promoting Prada's perfume?

Where is her energy for helping women in the UK survive this recession, helping the environment, promoting activists who do this etc.?

Is Emma Watson Hollywood's greatest hypocrite? She did get caught in the Panama Papers for avoiding tax, which while legal is not ethical
And during the pandemic, she claimed she stayed at home to protect the NHS but was seen holidaying abroad numerous times and getting out of a helicopter to her Chelsea home with the disgraced Phillip Green's son

they're public figures who make a living off how the public perceive them
why can't we critique their PR images?
their pr images aren't even their real selves most of the time

Your newsfeed? I never get anything about the Kardashians, Bieber or Emma Watson on mine. Must be your algorithms. Stop googling them.

Do you think because someone cares about something, they should never work for money again?

Is Prada a notorious environmental polluter? She's not exactly advertising for an oil company.

As for expense, you can buy a bottle of Prada perfume for £40 that can last for six months to a year. It's not a necessity, but it's also not an obscene luxury. She's not advertising an £800 hamburger. She's advertising something you can buy in Boots.

"Actress Fronts Perfume Campaign" is not really the killer blow you think it is.

Prada perfume isn't luxury shit though

But why shouldn't she? You are being completely ridiculous.

Why should she dedicate her life to charity? Does Daniel Radcliffe?

She's a celeb not a saint. The campaign is just work to her. She can work and try to do volunteer and move forward causes she cares about. They aren't mutually exclusive. I hate this attitude of someone most be pure as driven snow or they can't promote a cause. We throw them word hypocrite at anyone and everyone (not just celebs!) who don't present a perfect face of activism. Fuck that. I'd rather people did care to the extent they do and do try to fix social issues. Trying to silence people who aren't perfect is shit.

the online Daily Mail side bar of shame
celebs unfortunately make the news of mainstream media papers I read like Times or Guardian, you can't skip that without seeing them mentioned

perhaps i should just stick to my Economist and FT

nobody is trying to silence her
we are just pointing out how hypocritical she is benefitting from being seen as someone who care about feminism, the environment when in reality her actions show the opposite
she absolutely does benefit from her faux saint image-- she only got the BatB role bc of her image, according to one of the movie producers and she gets brand ambassadorships based on her ecoactivism too

No, but he doesn't claim to be saving the world, an activist or humanitarian either

it's not? Prada is a luxury brand. Perfume is not a necessity like clothing is, so it's a luxury

but no other actress is claiming to be saving the world or telling the press every time they donate/spend time with charity are they?
Emma for sure makes money off of her PR image like all other celebs but unlike other celebs, she pretends to care more than most
at least Kim K doesn't pretend to give a shit

What about Clooney advertising coffee?

Something not being a necessity doesn't make it a luxury item

clooney isn't making money off his humanitarian image

luxury: an inessential, desirable item which is expensive or difficult to obtain.
£40 is a lot of money to most people who aren't millionaires/billionaires

He certainly is.

how so?
people give him roles bc he is good looking for his age and can act well
unlike Emma W who is a wooden one-note actress and being surpassed in the looks department by younger actresses like Zendaya

Hasn't he addressed the UN? Promoted himself as a humanitarian?
Men always get a pass on these things.
Anyway, I'm going to stop helping you out with your article now.

🙄

See now I can't take you seriously at all when you're so focused on a woman's looks. It's not ok. Emma Watson may be a wooden actor, she's not on her own there either, but she is already at a disadvantage being a woman and rated on her looks, she doesn't need other women to do that.

When will we stop doing that, do you think? If you're an aspiring writer then point yourself in that direction perhaps? Not this vapid nonsense.

As an aside, Prada perfume is, in my opinion, for people who suffer some sort of anosmia. Creed or Maison Cravelli is much nicer...

Emma and other actors use their looks to get ahead in the acting industry
men do it-- leo dicaprio was considered a hearthrob in his youth
there's plenty of women actors who can act well but aren't necessarily pretty like Olivia Coleman

plenty of writers write about vapid topics as well as serious ones
just take a look at Katie Price's ghostwriters

She should be giving thanks every day that she was picked to be in HP.
Let’s be honest she can’t act so she had a massive stroke of luck and has amassed great fortune in the back of it.
I don’t understand why she doesn’t just shut up and enjoy her money and quietly donate to causes she is interested in.

exactly
plenty of people donate to charity but they don't run to the press about it like Emma or Meghan