Male entitlement in the John Lewis ad

[MardyBra]

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/john-lewis-advert-boy-backlash-b1938929.html

Lots to deconstruct in this.
I have no problem with an exuberant boy in a dress (although I feel JL are trying very hard to show their target market how woke they are).

But the wilful destruction of the home his mum has put a lot of time and effort into offends my feminist (and middle-class!) sensibilities.

JL says it’s a ‘young actor getting carried away with his dramatic performance”, not “wilfully damaging his home”.’ He looks a bit old to be at the crayonning on the wall stage still.

Annoying,.
Trash the house as long as you are “performing darling”.
Perfectly possible for a boy in trousers to express themselves theatrically.

Vile ad! What a little shit he is.

And I'm pissed off they've used that Stevie Nicks song too.

I'm now imagining someone off camera encouraging the boy actor to be more aggressive in his actions and more provocative with the pout and other body language, without the boy having much of an understanding of what he is portraying.

I never get upset by adverts but there's always a first time.

I hate these wanky adverts, but they’re hardly new are they.

This one seems a success given the aim of the ad was to make a link between John Lewis and home insurance. Whether or not people like the Ad is beside the point - the controversy means people now know that JL do home insurance - so they’ll consider them if they offer a competitive price/deal.

Mission accomplished! The OP has done them a favour.

Agh wrong pic, I’ll try again!

@OutwiththeOutCrowd
I kind of feel that the child actor playing the main part is being exploited by the adults involved in creating this advert

Sure, but that’s the case with basically every “grown ups” film featuring a kid ever. And don’t get my started on the YouTube Channels featuring kids playing with stuff on camera 7 days a week/doing silly routines etc while their parents rake in millions.

the controversy means people now know that JL do home insurance - so they’ll consider them if they offer a competitive price/deal.

Or they’ll associate JL with a company that encourages male aggression and men walking all over women and not even consider buying from them.

Or they’ll associate JL with a company that encourages male aggression and men walking all over women and not even consider buying from them.

Yep
Hopefully JL marketing will read the thread

Twitter response that made me laugh in response to JL statement.

JL has flicked the v-sign at women with this advert. Would women really just get pound signs in their eyes if a good deal is offered by JL and not care about company ethos? I hope not!

They’ll do another mawkish christmas ad. The same events but this time he knocks over the christmas tree - but the soundtrack is weirdly echoey and it turns out the kid died and the mum and sister don’t react because he isn’t there, and they’re missing his noise and exuberance and exaggerating it in their minds.

Anyone here from JL ? PM me and I’ll tell you where to send the cheque.

@Cinderss

They did this exact advert a few years ago with a female child To ‘tiny dancer’

No. Please read all the other posts which explain quite clearly how this adverts differs from Tiny Dancer

I would bet if I bought JL home insurance and DS exuberantly trashed the house the adjuster would decline to pay out a single cent.

Perhaps we should put that to the test.

Perhaps we should put that to the test.

I think we should test it in their store first, in the glassware section. They wouldn’t possibly expect me to pay for any damage if my nephew just got carried away with his playfulness, would they?

[quote Simonjt]Isn’t it essentially a version of their advert where a little girl also did it a few years ago?

[/quote] No

Yes! @RunningToHeaven or lighting. In fact in our JL you could blaze an exuberant trail of destruction from mirrors, through China and glassware to lighting in the blink of an eye. Swift right turn past crafts for some paint into carpets and curtains. Bonus points for fancy dress.

My bet is you'd be arrested in the spot and charged up the ying yang rather than see a claim paid by JL insurance.

@TSSDNCOP

Yes! *@RunningToHeaven* or lighting. In fact in our JL you could blaze an exuberant trail of destruction from mirrors, through China and glassware to lighting in the blink of an eye. Swift right turn past crafts for some paint into carpets and curtains. Bonus points for fancy dress.

My bet is you'd be arrested in the spot and charged up the ying yang rather than see a claim paid by JL insurance.

Yeh I bet wreaking the place doesn’t look so charming then.

Only when females have to put up with it

I'm not a fan of any John Lewis advert to be honest - loathe the Christmas adverts and the "hype" surrounding them.

This one is by far the worst. Entitled brat destroys his lovely middle-class home (such a privilege to be so wasteful!), meanwhile his quiet and well-behaved sister sits patiently in a corner (and has her artwork destroyed by him). I really, really hate the woke angle to it as well - of course I have no issue with a boy in a dress and wearing makeup- but I do take issue with children being exploited in this way.

JL missed the mark completely with this one, although will probably be loving how much attention it has received, albeit for the wrong reasons.

I honestly think that people are performing mental gymnastics with this advert and looking for offence. It's an over the top piece of fiction. It's dramatic. It has a good music score. It's well shot. It's designed to entertain and not be a piece of social commentary. Nobody was up in arms over the previous girl dancing in the advert, albeit less destructive. I just think that life is starting to become a bit exhausting when everyone has to dissect something in order to put their viewpoint on twitter. It's an advert. The music is great. The boy is a great dancer. It's effective as an advert because people are talking about it.

In fact in our JL you could blaze an exuberant trail of destruction from mirrors, through China and glassware to lighting in the blink of an eye. Swift right turn past crafts for some paint into carpets and curtains. Bonus points for fancy dress.

I so hope someone does this. 🤣

I wonder if it started off differently, maybe the child dressing up in Mum's clothes, then wobbling down the stairs in a pair of heels and knocking a picture as he tries to regain his balance, maybe then tries to arrange some ornaments and one gets knocked before going to do something in the kitchen which ends up messy.

And then someone got their grubby mitts on it and we now have a drag act destroying the house.

Isn't it interesting that people think an ad featuring a girl who accidently knocks over a few bits of paper whilst dancing is the same as an ad featuring a boy dancing who knowingly destroys the whole house??

shitty attempt at social commentary of how trans"women" actually behave - destroy female spaces, while females watch passively and can hope for... some insurance for damages?

I hardly think that the advert is a depiction of how trans people behave. Neither did I for one minute see the boy as being trans, just because he's wearing his mother's dress over his clearly masculine t shirt. Dressing up at home is very common in young children. It has very little to do with being woke or trans.

Also, I interpreted the advert as showing the whole range of ways that kids can damage homes/belongings rather than taking it literally as one child deliberately going around wrecking every single thing. I didn't take it literally. The greater the range of damage scenarios shown, the more likely that someone will be able to relate to one of them.