9:07 pm - 02/13/2013
Children are being banned from seeing Keira Knightley in the role of sultry temptress in a TV perfume commercial. The British actress has ridiculed her lack of curves, however it seems her bare shoulders are enough to confuse and upset some youngsters. As a result, advertising watchdogs have banned showings of the commercial for Chanel’s Coco Mademoiselle around children’s programmes and films. The idea that children’s eyes need to be shielded from the British actress’s performance will surprise viewers. Chanel defended the commercial, insisting it was playful and sensual rather than overtly sexual.
However, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) disagreed at a time when many parents, including the Prime Minister, are becoming increasingly concerned about the sexualisation of children.
The commercial opened with Keira in tight leathers astride a motorbike racing through city streets, before cutting to a modelling scene where she is being photographed on a bed. The relationship with the photographer becomes increasingly flirtatious and sexual as the man is seen unzipping her leather boots and attempting a kiss. At one stage the actress’s bare shoulders are seen, while she is assumed to be naked beneath some sheets. (oh, just like i am ASSUMED to be naked underneath my clothes? OK.)
Just as the relationship seems certain to become even more intimate, she disappears out of the window and rides off leaving her would-be lover disappointed.
The commercial was aired during a screening of the cartoon Ice Age 2, which has been a hit with families.
A woman viewer complained that it was not suitable to be shown during a children’s film because it was overtly sexual. Chanel rejected the claim and said its founder, Coco Chanel, was known for being a strong, independent woman and the character in the ad was intended to reflect her spirit.
The perfume giant pointed out that there was no nudity in the ad and that the character only briefly revealed her shoulders as part of a photo shoot. They said the photographer helped the actress remove her boots, rather than her clothes, as part of a wardrobe change during the photo shoot.
However, the ASA sided with the complainant arguing the scenes involved ‘sexually suggestive content’. The watchdog said: ‘We noted that the photographer was directly involved in unzipping the actress’s garments and that there was a suggestion that she was naked aside from a bed sheet. ‘We also noted that there was clear sexual tension between the pair and that they appeared about to kiss on the bed. ‘We considered the ad was suitable for older children, but that the sexually suggestive material was unsuitable for young children.’
it is weird they would have a perfume ad during Ice Age 2, but this is a little ridiculous
this is the longer version, you can watch the shorter advert they showed on TV at the source
-source
Keira's TV ad is now strictly for grownups: Chanel advert banned for being too sexually suggestive
Children are being banned from seeing Keira Knightley in the role of sultry temptress in a TV perfume commercial. The British actress has ridiculed her lack of curves, however it seems her bare shoulders are enough to confuse and upset some youngsters. As a result, advertising watchdogs have banned showings of the commercial for Chanel’s Coco Mademoiselle around children’s programmes and films. The idea that children’s eyes need to be shielded from the British actress’s performance will surprise viewers. Chanel defended the commercial, insisting it was playful and sensual rather than overtly sexual.
However, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) disagreed at a time when many parents, including the Prime Minister, are becoming increasingly concerned about the sexualisation of children.
The commercial opened with Keira in tight leathers astride a motorbike racing through city streets, before cutting to a modelling scene where she is being photographed on a bed. The relationship with the photographer becomes increasingly flirtatious and sexual as the man is seen unzipping her leather boots and attempting a kiss. At one stage the actress’s bare shoulders are seen, while she is assumed to be naked beneath some sheets. (oh, just like i am ASSUMED to be naked underneath my clothes? OK.)
Just as the relationship seems certain to become even more intimate, she disappears out of the window and rides off leaving her would-be lover disappointed.
The commercial was aired during a screening of the cartoon Ice Age 2, which has been a hit with families.
A woman viewer complained that it was not suitable to be shown during a children’s film because it was overtly sexual. Chanel rejected the claim and said its founder, Coco Chanel, was known for being a strong, independent woman and the character in the ad was intended to reflect her spirit.
The perfume giant pointed out that there was no nudity in the ad and that the character only briefly revealed her shoulders as part of a photo shoot. They said the photographer helped the actress remove her boots, rather than her clothes, as part of a wardrobe change during the photo shoot.
However, the ASA sided with the complainant arguing the scenes involved ‘sexually suggestive content’. The watchdog said: ‘We noted that the photographer was directly involved in unzipping the actress’s garments and that there was a suggestion that she was naked aside from a bed sheet. ‘We also noted that there was clear sexual tension between the pair and that they appeared about to kiss on the bed. ‘We considered the ad was suitable for older children, but that the sexually suggestive material was unsuitable for young children.’
it is weird they would have a perfume ad during Ice Age 2, but this is a little ridiculous
this is the longer version, you can watch the shorter advert they showed on TV at the source
-source
no way gurl. She needs a vibrator and some self esteem
It's an anthropomorphised puppet... You're not meant to see it as a 'real' pig, but identify with it as sort of human:
Skip to about 1:43...
Not to mention that Parkinson seems to be actually WILLING, which would make it worse!
Edited at 2013-02-14 03:54 pm (UTC)