To feel vindicated that John Lewis has pulled its awful ad with the boy in the dress trashing the house?

[Clymene]

I wrote to the ASA and complained. I said the ad was misleading (as into insurance will cover wilful damage), sexist (with a boy rampaging through the house and destroying his mother and sister's things, and sexualised.

I also called John Lewis and told them I hated it and why.

They've withdrawn it.

GOOD

@AlfonsoTheUnrepetant

I thought the advert a subtle nod to TRAs: a little boy wearing makeup trashes his sister's belongings while his mother looks on approvingly because someone will pick up the bill for the damage. It's not difficult to see the message in that.

It wasn't just the dress, make up and the actions, it was the staging and the colours too.

He was preening and pouting (that's the sexualised bit) and acting as if on a catwalk.

Note the dress is not black, or red. No, it's one of the colours in the trans flag.

Note also that from his sister's paint tray he somehow, completely at random, manages to choose two colours from the trans flag to smear on his face.......

There are other signs too. Subtle it was not!

I agree, totally! You raise good points.

@Chachachawoo
@SpindleWorl

You can complain to the FCA directly.

JL use of the word actor is inappropriate as there was nothing to suggest that the male character is acting or an actor by trade (no phone no script) while moving through the house.

The child had no creative control and the statement can be misread to imply that the child (not the child's character) was somehow at fault

Note also that from his sister's paint tray he somehow, completely at random, manages to choose two colours from the trans flag to smear on his face.......

I had a look at a screenshot of the paint tray. The green is very much a different tone to the rest of the clear primary colours. It should have been a purer bright colour but it was that pastel green that Stonewall use and is not at all like the other 5 colours.

This was a deliberate colour selection.

@Helleofabore

Note also that from his sister's paint tray he somehow, completely at random, manages to choose two colours from the trans flag to smear on his face.......

I had a look at a screenshot of the paint tray. The green is very much a different tone to the rest of the clear primary colours. It should have been a purer bright colour but it was that pastel green that Stonewall use and is not at all like the other 5 colours.

This was a deliberate colour selection.

It's not just the paint tray. The nail Polish and lipstick he smears along the bannister are also pink and turquoise. It's entirely deliberate

Thanks, @SolasAnla - very interesting stuff about the insurance industry and its rules.

@SpindleWorl

Thanks, *@SolasAnla* - very interesting stuff about the insurance industry and its rules.

I agree! That was a very informative post and much appreciated.

I hated the boy's aggressiveness, I felt it made for really uncomfortable viewing.

Personally I think they would have done much better to rethink the interactions between the boy and his family. The boy could have dramatically crowned his sister with jewellery from his mother's jewellery box, and presented his mother with a bunch of (dripping) flowers that he had whipped from a vase (which then broke), while giving her a theatrical kiss.

It would have fitted much better with their narrative of exuberant joy, and would have completely changed his behaviour from nastiness to loving thoughtlessness.

Idiots.

Yes thank you @SolasAnla. I will do that (I'm on a roll!). He is a child actor doing what he was instructed to do by the adults around him. He is entirely blameless.

Fascinated now to see what the xmas add will be.

It will have been filmed already. If it's some kind of nod to what just got pulled i wonder if they're frantically rethinking?

They must have cared about the sexualised bit as they released a version where he wasn't sliding himself down the cabinets, also less pouting.

@cheeseismydownfall

I hated the boy's aggressiveness, I felt it made for really uncomfortable viewing.

Personally I think they would have done much better to rethink the interactions between the boy and his family. The boy could have dramatically crowned his sister with jewellery from his mother's jewellery box, and presented his mother with a bunch of (dripping) flowers that he had whipped from a vase (which then broke), while giving her a theatrical kiss.

It would have fitted much better with their narrative of exuberant joy, and would have completely changed his behaviour from nastiness to loving thoughtlessness.

Idiots.

Yes that’s exactly what I thought! It was the way the interactions with the females were portrayed. The whole feeling that I got from it-(particularly the paints scene) was that they were dull and boring and he was giving them a big fuck you. It seemed gleeful amd spiteful.

If, for a moment, you ignore the issues around misleading advertising and overtly woke agenda it’s actually a pretty crap advert.
In comparison with the previous advert featuring a girl dancing, it really lacks affection, warmth and humour.
The child is directed in a way to make it clear he is overtly aware of his behaviour - looking at the camera in a pouting, challenging, and aggressive manner - it’s off-putting to the viewer and creates a negative response. It’s no wonder there has been such a bad response to the advert.
For JL to blame the child actor is heinous, it’s all about how the advert was staged and directed. It’s offensive in so many ways - to parents of children with behavioural issues, to trans people, and to women.

If I was the parent or agent of the child actor I would be considering taking action against JL after the publication of that statement.

@iklboogiemaninthecloset

Dread to think what their Christmas advert will be like after this debacle...

Santa in drag nicking the presents instead of leaving them. Leaving on a cow that identifies as a reindeer, which trashes the house.

@OrangeJuiceAndNoodles

I wonder what they've lined up for their Christmas ad

Probably Desmond is Amazing strutting down a catwalk in a festively decorated nightclub, flanked by Rudolfs and Santa's all latexed and gimp-masked to the nines.

Can't wait.

to this too! ^

Yes that’s exactly what I thought! It was the way the interactions with the females were portrayed.
The whole feeling that I got from it-(particularly the paints scene) was that they were dull and boring and he was giving them a big fuck you. It seemed gleeful amd spiteful.

Yes, painting is just such a boring activity for kids to do these days. Girls are so dull. It's all about expressing yourself by trashing the house and ruining other peoples stuff and not giving a fuck, bitches!

I agree that it would have been much nicer if he had accidentally broken some jewellery by giving it to his sister or broken a vase by giving his mum flowers, or even got makeup on the carpet in his excitement to put it on.

Probably Desmond is Amazing strutting down a catwalk in a festively decorated nightclub, flanked by Rudolfs and Santa's all latexed and gimp-masked to the nines.

I did laugh at this but to be honest, nothing would surprise me.

@SilverBirchWithout

If I was the parent or agent of the child actor I would be considering taking action against JL after the publication of that statement.

Good point , that statement blames the child , not the director or who ever it was who cooked it up. Hope his parents take on JL. The boy was in no way to blame.

Good point , that statement blames the child , not the director or who ever it was who cooked it up. Hope his parents take on JL. The boy was in no way to blame.

How is it blaming the actor?? where are you getting that from ? (genuine question)
Also I am not sure why all the references to hidden trans (eg coloured paint) the boy was clearly being portrayed as 'trans ' he was wearing a dress ffs at an age long past the usual age of kids dress up!

I think you're taking a lot on yourself if YOU feel vindicated, OP!

How is it blaming the actor?? where are you getting that from ?

The statement says a young actor getting carried away with his performance

Sounds clear enough to me they are abdicating some of their responsibility to the child actor. Terribly worded statement.

The statement says a young actor getting carried away with his performance

They are telling you what the 'storyboard' of the ad was. The plot was a child was playing the part of an actor (dress and make up) putting on a diva performance. 'Young actor getting carried away ' is referring to the character he was playing, not about the child they cast not following directions.

ah. see. I took this to be his performance doing the dance through thing, whatever he was doing.

not his personal performance.

@TirednWorried

The statement says a young actor getting carried away with his performance

They are telling you what the 'storyboard' of the ad was. The plot was a child was playing the part of an actor (dress and make up) putting on a diva performance. 'Young actor getting carried away ' is referring to the character he was playing, not about the child they cast not following directions.

You have seen the ad what elements of the ad led you to the conclusion that the lead character was a) an actor who was acting in a normal way at home Or b) an actor engaged in a performance of causing damage to the home for the benefit of engaging with his audience?