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.

@lazylinguist

Where does it indicate that the child is trans? All I see is a boy being gender non conforming. He’s still a boy.

Indeed he is, because clothes don't make you change sex, however you 'identify'. However, it would be hilariously naïve to think that John Lewis made this advert with a boy in a dress and make-up with no intention of a nod to trans issues.

I agree - the blue and pink smears on his cheeks alone are a "look how woke we are.

I don't give a fuck how the child is dressed, he's deliberately damaging things and has a bad attitude. John Lewis will be getting even more backlash when children do what they so often do and start copying.

Good tune though.

I kind of feel that the child actor playing the main part is being exploited by the adults involved in creating this advert. He cannot possibly understand it all at the same level and in the same way as they do.

I also think it’s massively irritating. I can’t see past it to be bothered to work out what it’s supposed to be selling either.

I can’t imagine me sat by raising an indulgent quizzical eyebrow whilst that’s going on. It’s not endearing. It reminds me of those cake smashes or a food fight. Or maybe the nightmare guest that came for tea

I think they were trying to be funny, trying to be clever and trying to be woke - and they have failed massively at every level.

It shows, as PPs have pointed out, damage that the bloody insurance wouldn't cover anyway so as well as being a stupid irritating advert, it is mis-selling its product.

I hated it. I loved the Tiny Dancer ad.

Twitter is full of people saying if you hate it you're a bigot. It's not bigoted to be concerned by a child being sexualised. The boy is pouting, I can't see how people would look at it and not notice that aspect of it, it's explicit in wanting us to view him as a young drag act in the making. I have no issues with him wearing a dress or playing with glitter if it was just a kid playing in a more age-appropriate way and it wouldn't really bother me seeing a child trash the house in an advert if it had been done in a different way too, just because ads feature all sorts to get their message across. It does massively bother me seeing a mum and daughter sitting there muted while he ruins things though - it is so sexist and so depressing.

What were they thinking?

Would you all prefer a couple of criminal looking thugs hitting an old person and robbing a house?

Think you are all taking it far to seriously, because in reality, claiming on house insurance is normally done when something has gone seriously wrong.

I’m glad they are keeping it light hearted to be honest.

Too

The trashing of the house doesn't come across as a kid having so much fun they don't notice the mess they're making...it just comes across as really brattish.

It’s dreadful woke shite. Badly behaved child, no parenting and being as JL made a friend of mine jump through hoops before they paid out on her valid home insurance claim, it’s fucking annoying that this adverts makes it look as though they’d pay out on deliberate damage with no questions asked.
How desperate are some parents to get their kids on TV that they’d let them appear in an advert that is so terrible on so many levels?
And no, I won’t be buying from John Lewis, not all publicity is good.

Sexist as fuck - boy can wreck house and it's fine because the insurance will pay (which I most seriously *doubt&).

The paint he smears on his face, and the nail varnish he trails down the bannister, is teal and pink. They are the two brand colours of a well known lobby group. The ad makers could have picked red, green, yellow, orange, anything. But these were the two colours they chose and gave prominence to.

Adverts are expensive. Decisions are made, approved, signed off. Nothing in this advert is there by chance.

Sexist, misogynistic and sexualised. Perhaps they could do a pups play next!

I actually find it really upsetting when he tips over the sisters paints

It’s so derogatory to children!! I have a dc a similar age to the boy in the ad. There is NO way she, or her older brother would have dreamt of behaving so disrespectfully at that age. In fact, I know a lot of children and NONE of them, not even the really ‘artistic’ ones would dream of behaving this way. I hate that we have such low expectations of children. By the age of the child in the JL ad children are sentient beings who are capable of deep thinking and making appropriate choices. No, they don’t always get it right, yes, accidents do sometimes happen but this absolute carnage?? No way!

@OutwiththeOutCrowd

I kind of feel that the child actor playing the main part is being exploited by the adults involved in creating this advert. He cannot possibly understand it all at the same level and in the same way as they do.

That's what my DH said - he said that he felt he was being exploited, too.

Dreadful advert. Of course the insurance wouldn't pay. So many cliches with the boy. Gawd knows who they think it is appealing to. Who gets paid to produce this nonsense?

@Comedycook

I actually find it really upsetting when he tips over the sisters paints

Me too. Worst bit by far. Rude, disrespectful, arrogant, flouncy and worst of all, unchallenged.

I really hope they get a had enough backlash to have to pull the ad. It's vile.... It's almost like a parody of what a middle-class establishment brand would do if they had to make something as woke as possible.

I also think JL missed a trick. It would have been so easy to have depicted a puppy destroying a house! With the rise in dog owners over lock down, I suspect it’s something a lot of customers would have empathised with….perhaps JL insurance only covers children's vandalism and not act of dog… Anyway makes no difference to me since they closed my local JL store I’ve been making a conscious effort to shop with retailers who have kept their bricks and mortar shops open.

Gawd knows who they think it is appealing to.

Oh, I think I can have a pretty good guess. And if Twitter is anything to go by, I’m right.

Why is he tipping over his sister's paints on the carpet? Psycho!!

I have a JL insurance policy. I think I’ll be cancelling now and finding a new insurer.

@Campervan69

The boy can wear what he want that's not the issue. The problem is how awful he is to the house and disrespectful to his sister and his mum who seem to sit there silently as though they have no agency. Hate the advert.

We need to see him dressed as a washerwoman next scrubbing the floor and cleaning up all the damage that he has done. Only then will I forgive John Lewis.

Good idea, JL could highlight all their cleaning appliances, cloths, brushes, cleaning products.......... and for a surprise ending the sister is brought home triumphant from her sports activity clutching a trophy and a player of the match medal - maybe they are going to surprise us all with a follow up ad.

(Visions of JL advertising budget asking for an emergency top up to counter the backlash from advert 1 ) . What was it advertising btw, didn’t notice much evidence of JL placement there.

I agree. It's bloody awful. Very 'boys will be boys'.
If it were a much, much younger child, it might make sense but any child that age knows the difference between being exuberant and deliberately destroying stuff.

No matter what the John Lewis statement says about the intention behind the ad, it's not lighthearted, is it?

Throughout the ad, the boy looks directly at the camera, breaking the fourth wall. It's a deliberate choice by the director to unsettle and challenge the audience. It's not a sympathetic view of the child. JL's statement suggests that it's not willful destruction, but I'd argue that the kicks are just too well-placed, and the warpaint too deliberately and defiantly applied. Instead, our sympathy is directed towards the sister, quietly painting. Her expression, after he throws the umbrella, indicates she's seen it all before. The mum's given up.

The story is one of privilege. Someone else will sort out the mess - be it JL Insurance, or an unfortunate cleaner.