-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Hallmark Channel At Center Of Storm Over Ad Featuring Lesbian Brides Kissing
- Thread starter mvcg66b3r
- Start date
Funny how something once famously described as "the opiate of the masses" can get so many people so wound up.
While we're on the subject there is something I have been noticing over the past few years.
More and more commercials, TV shows and feature films have been showing gays being gays which have nothing to do with the stories being told. For instance, in both the serial version of Downton Abbey and the more recent movie there was a very brief thread about the footman/butler "James" being gay. It had nothing to do with the story in either case except to show, if you were paying attention and knew your history, that being gay in the UK was illegal in the 1920's. Totally outside the story being told however. In many more commercials especially we see mixed race "families". Again, what does this have to do with selling cars etc.? My conclusion is that "Hollywood" is on a campaign to present both situations as normal or rather, to get the viewing public to get used to the idea - and they are beating us over the head with it.
Now before someone calls me a racist or anti-gay I am neither. I am merely pointing out the use of commercial avenues to do a bit of social engineering.
I don't like it. Actually, I don't like most commercials generally as most are incomplete, inaccurate or outright lies. Every once in awhile something comes along (like Derek and the little girl making beads) that says a ton without actually doing so. If someone wants to sell something to me they had better do it with logic, fact and class. I've got no time for subliminal messages.
More and more commercials, TV shows and feature films have been showing gays being gays which have nothing to do with the stories being told. For instance, in both the serial version of Downton Abbey and the more recent movie there was a very brief thread about the footman/butler "James" being gay. It had nothing to do with the story in either case except to show, if you were paying attention and knew your history, that being gay in the UK was illegal in the 1920's. Totally outside the story being told however. In many more commercials especially we see mixed race "families". Again, what does this have to do with selling cars etc.? My conclusion is that "Hollywood" is on a campaign to present both situations as normal or rather, to get the viewing public to get used to the idea - and they are beating us over the head with it.
Now before someone calls me a racist or anti-gay I am neither. I am merely pointing out the use of commercial avenues to do a bit of social engineering.
I don't like it. Actually, I don't like most commercials generally as most are incomplete, inaccurate or outright lies. Every once in awhile something comes along (like Derek and the little girl making beads) that says a ton without actually doing so. If someone wants to sell something to me they had better do it with logic, fact and class. I've got no time for subliminal messages.
Maybe...that's what people said about all the Norman Lear comedies in the 60s and 70s. As I said, no one forces people to watch. It's not like there aren't alternatives.
Actually there aren't. Or there soon won't be. Whatever channel viewers who don't like this decide to go to next will become the next target of pressure and boycotts. It seems a dynamic in which everyone can have channels they feel comfortable with given their worldview just doesn't exist anymore.
That's why they shouldn't respond to pressure & boycotts. That puts the power in the hands of the vocal minority. Never a good idea.
So first the channel drops the ad, then they bring it back, and the result is more negative publicity.
Yup. They've managed to equally tick-off both sides here, which really takes some doing.
What I took away from "All in the Family" (I didn't watch the others) was that he was making fun of certain illogical beliefs and not that he was trying to change social behavior. For instance, one of the funniest scenes of AITF was when Lionel (who is Black) gives Archie (a White bigot) a big kiss. I doubt that anyone at that time thought Lear was suggesting a new behavior or trying to push a common action. He was clearly pointing out Archie's racism and did it with a huge humor gag. I don't see that same intent in recent commercials.
I think you have that story wrong. Sammy Davis Jr. was the one who kissed Archie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=q3gHj5LHB6s&feature=emb_title
Did seeing that make you want to turn gay? It's not about race.
You're right. Too many years have passed. Same effect however.
As I said, it was about racism, not homosexuality. So no, it didn't.
Yes, you're correct. Sammy Davis Jr. was in the iconic episode where he visited the Bunker home. He poses for a photograph and kisses Archie on the cheek.
The Hallmark fiasco is a self inflicted wound. They quickly reversed course probably because other advertisers threatened to pull their ads in "protest". I wonder if these "Christians" are offended by the deluge of pharmaceutical ads (one talks about guys curved schlongs..!) The side effects of some of these drugs are truly "offensive"...
Two men kissing is about racism? Depends on how you see it. It's all about interpretation.
But OK, did it make you want to kiss black people?
You see this as some kind of subversive plot, Hollywood trying to corrupt our morals. It's just entertainment. Get over it.
In the episode, it WAS about racism, 100 percent. Sammy was getting the last laugh on Archie, who had been falling all over himself trying to keep his ingrained racism in check in front of his famous guest. What would gross out a bigot more than a kiss from someone of another race? Sammy was playing himself, and he wasn't gay. Surely Archie knew that, too. The humor in the scene was Archie's stunned take after Sammy, a black man, planted one on his cheek -- as a photo was being taken, no less. The kiss wasn't sexual in the least.
Yes, the episode was about the absurdity of racism. Archie spends the episode telling Davis about his views on race relations. Davis sees Archie for what he is and gets the last laugh...
Perhaps I should have used the word bigotry instead. The effect was to show the true Archie. I really doubt back then it had any gay intent.
No, it made me laugh. It was intended as a joke and that's the way I took it. BTW, I've kissed Black people before. You don't have to worry.....it doesn't come off.
When something is put in a movie or commercial (or book or song or etc) that doesn't pertain to the subject it makes me wonder what agenda the author has. My example of Downton Abbey was a perfect example - twice - of something that had nothing to do with the subject and was an agenda item. Why? I don't know. I know nothing about the writer or production people. All I can say is that someone along the line has a gay agenda and found a completely inappropriate time to show it. It does not compare with the AITF episode which had a completely different subject.
The fact that it was a man doing the kissing just added to the hilarity of the situation. Archie's house guest could have been Ella Fitzgerald and the scene would have still been funny. Of course, Davis was a unique character -- black, Jewish, one glass eye -- so there was a lot more comic potential in having him in the episode.
Matter of opinion. There were TV stations in some parts of the country who objected to some of the Lear shows. There were protests and demonstrations.
When something happens that has nothing to do with the subject, that's called a "plot twist." In the movie Psycho, finding out that the son was actually dressing up as his mother was a plot twist. It shocked a lot of people. Some might have objected to seeing a man dressing in women's clothes. But that's dramatic license.
AITF got a TON of objection and some demonstrations. Bigots did not like to see their kind publicized on nationwide and very popular TV shows. The fact that AITF coexisted with a national backdrop of the civil rights movement probably kicked many viewers blood pressure into very high gear. "The Kiss" figured perfectly into that environment.
The current controversy does not fit that situation at all. There is no other reason to include lesbians in a commercial whose topic is not about gender sexuality than agenda.
Hitchcock was well known for his shock value in his movies. The son dressed in his dead mother's clothes is a good example of how he created his movies but it also had everything to do with the eerie goings on at the motel. It was not out of context.
My point is if gays want a normal relationship with straights they will not slap them across the face with facts polite people don't talk about. My bedroom is not your, or anyone else's business. Neither should theirs be. Expect me to become irritated if you bash me with it. In my opinion Hollywood is bashing and this is a good example.
Huh? The sponsor was a wedding service. Lesbians get married. It's directly related. Having a mixed race couple would be equally relevant.
We live at a time when some bakers won't make wedding cakes for gay couples. This sponsor wants to let those who are interested know that their services are for all couples. They're not doing this to convert straight people. That's not at all their intent.
Having said that, if Hallmark had standards that this commercial didn't meet, the sponsor should have been told in advance.
Last edited:
- Status