posted May 03, 2007 05:03 PM              

quote:

---

I wrote today about the latest controvesy surrounding the Television Bureau of Canada (TVB), a self-regulatory agency that must approve all commercials that air on Canada's private broadcasters.

Chanel decided not to advertise on television this spring after the TVB asked it to pixelize (blur) a woman's body parts in a lipstick commercial and/or air the commercial after 9 p.m.

It's a bit of a he said/she said story. Chanel says it was initially told to pixelize about one-third of the spot and air the commercial after 9 p.m. But TVB president Jim Patterson says the agency was willing to approve the ad without pixelation after 9 p.m.

Either way, Chanel has made the decision to leave television advertising out of its spring campaign.

Chanel created two versions of the ad. The standard European version and a tamer version for North American audiences, which was submitted to TVB. The North American version, which you can view here, reveals a little less of the nude body of Swiss actress Julie Ordon.

---

Here's the racier Euro version:
you can view it on: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070419.WBthehardsell20070419114726/WBStory/WBthehardsell/

So how do all of you feel about this commercial?

I personally think its great, its really not bad at all, Chanel has a select audience they market their product to, it's not for everyone.

------------------
Virgo Rising 8'57, Sagittarius Sun/4thH 3'26, Pisces Moon/6thH 8'22

"Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." - C.S. Lewis

posted May 03, 2007 07:11 PM            

Well I am sure more people would not obviously wanna look beyond what is presented there but the defining portion errotisism is action rather than showing skin and well... this commercial kinda crossed both lines Lol!

There was a similar controversy regarding a game called "Castlevania: Curse of Darkness" in which one of the supporting characters gets stabbed by the antagonist of the game. The little scene was a bit too... ranchy for some Lol! (even though the game was rated M)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Z2oLXJThY

I was more upset at the fact that the damned antagonist just stabbed my fav. character Lol!

Now the conventional argument goes that it wasn't a display of homosexuality since it was nothing but an innocent peck. However, the peck isn't what defined the errotisism in that moment. Think of it this way; Take any goal and understand the passion and drive you put into it. Now... if there was another person viewing your passionate drive towards that goal, she (or in somecases, he) would find it totally alluring. Why? Because its a display of passion; Just in a different guise .