Monthly Archives: July 2012

Dads in Briefs – Advert for BGH


Three spots honored: “Dads In Briefs,” “Friends,” “No Signal”
Agency: Del Campo Nazca Saatchi & Saatchi, Buenos Aires
Production Company: Primo, Buenos Aires
Country: Argentina
Lions Won:


This advert is my absolute favourite out of the list. I do not understand how it only received one award and was #10 (I’m assuming they are in order) on the list.

The comic brilliance in these three BGH adverts is amazing, but my favourite is definitely Dads in Briefs out of the three. The idea of making it look like some sort of health epidemic is hilarious, with the use of a black and white filter which is a deliberate contradictory use of seriousness with clear humour.

Despite not living with my father, it’s something I can laugh at and relate to, which shows how successful this advert is. How can you not laugh?!

Tagged , , , , ,

Three Little Pigs – Advert for The Guardian

Agency: BBH, London
Production Company: Rattling Stick, London
Country: United Kingdom
Lions Won:

This advert for the Guardian’s open journalism, screened for the first time on 29 February 2012, imagines how we might cover the story of the three little pigs in print and online. Follow the story from the paper’s front page headline, through a social media discussion and finally to an unexpected conclusion.

Another amazing advert. Genius advert. This is the kind of work I’d love to produce in my future career, one that embodies the social media world we now live in. People complain about the use of computers and people on the internet, but we live in a new world now, where anything is so easily accessible and where you can efficiently express your opinion. Sure, there are major disadvantages to how available data on the internet is these days, but we’re moving forward into a new world of technology, creating new jobs, new products, new health benefits, new hobbies etc. … the list goes on!

Despite my slight hatred towards a lot of aspects of the media, the way it has grown does fascinate me. My own addiction to social networks proves that new generations are evolving to be almost reliable on social networks and the internet in general (whether we like to admit it or not). Now, we can say absolutely anything we want, anywhere on the internet.

The story line using the classic Three Little Pigs is fantastic – adding a dark, deep side to the children’s tale whilst incorporating modern phenomenons. The attention to detail throughout is outstanding, too.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Bear – Advert for Canal+

Agency: BETC, Paris
Production Company: Soixante Quinze, Paris
Country: France
Lions Won:

“The more you watch Canal+, the more you love cinema”
Agency : BETC Paris
Director: Matthijs van Heijningen
Production Company: 75

The awards received for this ad are very well deserved, in my opinion. Usually I don’t find anything animal related (like an animal rug) funny, but this advert is the epitome of hilarity. I think you don’t really expect the ending, and even the beginning was ambiguous, but I think the funniest part is the characteristics given to the bear and how much thought the creatives have put into giving this bear a personality.

The message might not be as clear and straightforward as some adverts, but that’s the beauty of it. In France, I’m sure it has been an advert to remember and one that gets TV viewers giggling. Such a shame it wasn’t for an international company, because I’d love to see this advert in the UK!

Tagged , , , , , ,

Segregation Series

Recently The Gordon Parks Foundation discovered over 70 unpublished photographs by Parks at the bottom of an old storage box wrapped in paper and marked as “Segregation Series.” These never before series of images not only give us a glimpse into the everyday life of African Americans during the 50′s but are also in full color, something that is uncommon for photographs from that era.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Heart vs Mind: What Makes Us Human?

Heart vs Mind: What Makes Us Human?

Just watched this amazing documentary!

The beginning was very interesting where scientists and museum experts explained the role of the heart throughout society, from Egyptians to philosophers and doctors. It’s wonderful how far research has developed.

It’s strange how the majority of speakers in this documentary kept on saying how most people just see the heart as a pump, but I’ve never thought of it like that. I’ve always thought that the heart and the brain work together (the brain being dominant, of course), because I’ve felt a link myself. I’ve felt heart flutters when I see my boyfriend, I’ve felt heart pain when grieving, being upset or ‘heart broken’. I’ve also always believed that one can die of a broken heart.

The beginning of the documentary, however, did make me think more about my heart and how it works. To be honest, I’ve never really thought about it much before, and the importance of its role, but seeing a live one beat and being shown the workings of the heart was extremely interesting. It made me want to take better care of my heart!

The part about the heart also having neurones was fascinating. Seeing as the brain has neurones, which we associate with neurology – information, senses etc, it’s amazing that the heart has neurones too. For me, that’s pretty evidential that the heart has some involvement with how we think.

Anyway, I could carry on, but I don’t want to ruin it! Highly recommend this documentary, even if you do not know much about the body, the heart, psychology…

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Mars’ Heartless Animal Experiments

Not one of Mars’ experiments on animals is required by law. Even so, Mars has paid experimenters to kill untold numbers of animals in tests:


  • Mars recently funded an experiment on rats at the University of California, San Francisco, to determine the effect of chocolate ingredients on the animals’ blood vessels, even though the experimenter admitted that studies have already been done using humans. Experimenters force-fed the rats by shoving plastic tubes down their throats and then cut open the rats’ legs to expose an artery, which was clamped shut to block blood flow. After the experiment, the animals were killed.
  • Mars funded a deadly experiment on mice that was published in a 2007 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience in which mice were fed flavanols (phytochemicals that are found in chocolate) and forced to swim in a pool of water mixed with white paint to hide a submerged platform, which the mice had to find in order to avoid drowning, only to be killed and dissected later on.
  • In one experiment supported by Mars and conducted by the current Mars, Inc., endowed chair in developmental nutrition at the University of California, Davis, rats were fed cocoa and anesthesized with carbon dioxide so that blood could be collected by a needle injected directly into the heart—a procedure criticized by U.S. Department of Agriculture researcher Dr. William T. Golde, who notes: “This is not a simple method. … Missing the heart or passing the needle completely through the heart could lead to undetected internal bleeding or other complications.”
  • Mars supported a cruel experiment to learn how a chocolate ingredient called PQQ affects metabolism by cramming baby mice into 200-milliliter Plexiglas metabolic chambers—around half the size of a 12-ounce soda can—and then submerging the chamber for nearly five hours in a chilled water bath, inducing labored breathing in the distressed mice. Experimenters then shoved tubes down the mice’s throats every day for 10 days to force-feed them the PQQ, after which they were killed and cut up for analysis.
  • Mars funded a test in which experimenters forced rabbits to eat a high-cholesterol diet with varying amounts of cocoa, then cut out and examined tissue from the rabbits’ primary blood vessel to the heart to determine the effect of cocoa on rabbits’ muscle tissue.
  • Mars supported a test in which experimenters attached plastic tubes to arteries in guinea pigs’ necks and injected cocoa ingredients into their jugular veins to examine the effect of cocoa ingredients on their blood pressure.

What the hell… WHY?! What is wrong with this world?

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has not helped the cause of marriage reform by threatening to force the Church’s arm.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has not helped the cause of marriage reform by threatening to force the Church’s arm.

Nick Clegg’s “helpful” intervention in the gay marriage debate, suggesting that the state could force churches to hold gay wedding ceremonies, partially explains why I’m not going on the Pride march in London today. Another reason is that last year, a straight, teenage socialist yelled Labour slogans in my face for much of the day; quite oblivious to the grotesque nature of entering a gay march to shout abuse at (Tory) gay people.

Two sides of the same coin: for the long march of gay liberation has coincided with the professionalisation of that movement’s lobbyists, almost none of whose politics I share. In 1989, Pride was a mass of individuals who refused to put up with rubbish any more; there was an element of ownership about it that its current incarnation – a procession of corporate and trade union banners, announcing how “right on” are their sponsors – lacks.

It leaves me as cold as Mr Clegg’s naked appeal to the gay vote. “We will force churches to marry you” is a particularly stupid contribution, from the perspective of those of us who support marriage reform, but are aware of the sensibilities of the religious.

Coincidentally, I’ve been reading Bring Up The Bodies, Hilary Mantel’s sequel to Wolf Hall, her life of Thomas Cromwell, political fixer for Henry VIII. I think of the books when I read the objections of George Carey and others to marriage reform.

The former archbishop’s warnings of dire peril should the definition of marriage be extended to encompass gay people are ironic: his Church wouldn’t exist had not a single individual demanded that the rules, about who could marry whom, be altered beyond recognition. A coincidence, too, in the title of Mantel’s book. “Bring up the bodies” might serve as the motto for the Church’s campaign against gay weddings. Any newspaper article about homosexuality meets with yards of comments in virtual green ink about sex, usually unmentioned in the column.

But it’s bishops, not gay columnists, who have been “bringing up the bodies”, raising arcane points about “consummation” and adultery, as though such acts can only be conceived of within a heterosexual marriage, as though the sacred union of two humans can be reduced to rude mechanicals.

For the Church to insist, for example, that adultery can occur only through the medium of heterosexual coupling is ridiculous; if the law says otherwise, then change the law. The heart is the organ most involved with, and damaged by, betrayal. The bishop really should have listened to all those actresses.

And what strange bedfellows the religious reductionists have. Almost the only other objections come from the remnants of the old Left, who (correctly) view the extension of marriage as a Tory plot to unwind the nihilism of their 1960s doctrine of Self. Marriage is our most valuable institution because it civilises men, turning oat-sowers into dependable partners. To draw more people into the locus of stability is a worthy Tory objective.

Of course, the main beneficiaries of such stability are children, but the ripples we leave on life’s surface aren’t only genetic, and those of us who won’t reproduce – no matter our sexual state – are not inconsequential. No doubt I’ll be forgotten more quickly than some, but there will be at least one other human whose life will have been marked by the primary purpose of my existence. And no, bishop, that primary purpose wasn’t sex, but love.

Still, the Church must be free to set its own rules for its own marriage ceremonies (ask Henry), which brings us to the most powerful of its objections. Anglicans fear that human rights laws will coerce them into polluting their doctrinal purity, which is why Mr Clegg was so unhelpful.

The lazy response to this is to wonder why such laws have never been used to force the Church to abolish its ban on weddings for divorcees. That’s true, but it must be admitted that Labour’s Human Rights Act has been used for more vexatious litigation than you can shake a stick at, not least that sponsored by a foolish gay lobby.

But Tories who loathed the Act’s premise from its inception might ask: where was the Church, when we were making the case against it? I must have missed its campaign for human rights reform, which presumably was as loud as its campaign against gay marriage.

Words, words, words. Real things, but not as real as those inexpressible human bonds that language can never precisely convey. Henry’s daughter – wiser perhaps than he – declared that she had no desire to make windows into men’s souls. In terms of a working model for the relationship between Church and state, I concur with her. But on topics such as this, I’d give my right arm to throw open the window into my own soul.

Because it’s “in there” that I know why the law deserves reform; why neither my words nor Mr Clegg’s nor Lord Carey’s matter. No word can perfectly describe the state in which people such as I exist: but the best word we have is “married”. And I’m proud of that.


[By  – 8:55PM BST 06 Jul 2012]

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,