I'm a bit perplexed as to which direction to take today's "Fried Fridays" story. The more I sit and ponder it, the more I begin to question things like:
a) is this really a ploy by the jewelry company to create a cheap publicity stunt...
and/or
b) did the actress/model develop her 'awareness' over the years, or was she naturally born an idiot?
Aspects to this story are so, well, unbelievable that it leaves you wondering just where the truth lies...or if the truth is a lie...or if the lie is - oh never mind. Let's back up the bus and pore over particulars.
Dateline: New York City
News subject: a $5 million lawsuit (go figure)
(filed Monday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court)
Plaintiff: model "Jane Doe" (here we go...)
Defendant: Szul Jewelry (guilty as charged?)
News subject: a $5 million lawsuit (go figure)
(filed Monday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court)
Plaintiff: model "Jane Doe" (here we go...)
Defendant: Szul Jewelry (guilty as charged?)
I realize this is happening in New York City, but to help get an image of where Ms. "Doe" is coming from, just picture some small wholesome town like Pleasantville...with modest houses and white picket fences...picture a young woman, happily married, and finishing her graduate work in elementary education. Admirably, she aspires to become a teacher, and understands the value of protecting her reputation...kinda like Marian The Librarian from "The Music Man".
And so in November she won the contract for a series of ads for the aforementioned jewelry company. According to "Jane", the basic thrust of the ad campaign was for an average guy to put a necklace on her and have her get all excited about it. It may have even had a comedic twist to it. Fair enough. The ad campaign involved several ads, anyway.
During the filming November 9, lawsuit papers say the director told the plaintiff "to sit and feign excitement for a few seconds while the young man put the necklace on her." For a subsequent scene, she was asked to fake excitement while lying on her back, but without smiling. Afterall, don't YOU refrain from smiling when you're excited? The rat begins to smelleth...
"[The Director] asked her to keep repeating the action until he thought he got the most authentic looking film piece." It's authentic, alright, I'll give 'em that. Do you remember that classic scene from "When Harry Met Sally" and there in front of fellow diners Meg Ryan did her fake orgasm routine? The picture should be getting clearer for you...and in case it's not, click on the photo below to watch a video of that riotous scene:
"WHEN HARRY MET SALLY" (1989)Jane Doe decries in her lawsuit she "has worked hard to project a wholesome image and [have] been extremely careful to avoid doing any work in the industry that would cheapen or tarnish [my] reputation." The young-looking 37 year-old went on to further say she didn't "consent to or authorize the use of her likeness, picture, image or name to simulate a female having an orgasm or otherwise experiencing sexual pleasure." The lawsuit said the under-running music added to the 'feel' of the ad...in this case, you might as well be adding a cup of water to Lake Superior.
So, to recap, actress takes modeling job that turns unabashedly sensual. She did not 'consent' to or was even aware that the finished ad would make it look like she was having the big "O" (I'm still trying to figure out what she thought she was simulating when the production company rolled cameras). And according to "Jane Doe" it's worth $5,000,000 for her suffering and now-smeared reputation.
Clearly some things are not adding up. Some suggest it's part of a stunt set-up by the Jewelry company to get exposure (if they did, it worked). In the acting/modeling world, there are plenty of less-than-honest people that could have mislead her...the part I can't swallow is her position that the velvety ad was not supposed to be suggestive, and she was, uh...acting excitedly without smiling. And then there is the bottom line of our courts being tied up by wasteful lawsuits...
I think the jury's gonna be out a while on this one...
The ad in question
Enjoy your (warming) weekend, y'all!
2 comments:
Oh Bob, I’m laughing too hard to write! Not at the movie clip (though a hilarious classic scene, I agree!) or the ad (good lord, I can’t have that on my screen at work!), but I’m laughing at the “denseness” of that dim woman, her attorney, the ad agency, the jewelers, and the absurdity of the whole situation itself. Truly “fried”!
From a professional standpoint (because I’m IN the biz), the agency that produced and promoted that kind of ad (for JEWELRY, who are they kidding?!) should be FIRED, and some heads should roll at Szul Jewelry as well! Lack of ethics don’t get you anything but notoriety, and notoriety is not the same thing as publicity!
But seriously, from a philosophical standpoint --- and because of how I live my own life --- the late Austrian psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, Viktor Frankl said it best: “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”
Life is about choices, and our choices determine our direction (read: growth and freedom).
As we both know, the vast majority of humanity are automatons who can’t or won’t think and reason for themselves, or are the “sandpaper” people who just love to cause friction (a lawsuit in this example) with as many as they can affect and bring down to their own negative level, or are the toxic element that feeds and prospers on both.
So your “a” and “b” above? How about “c. Both”! NONE of ‘em have a clue, do they?!
Suzy :)
Thanks, "Dr." Suzy! Words very well-spoken. The only wild card is that the media report may have left out critical information - sadly, the quality of reporting in general is not only poor, but intentionally misleading, so it can 'sell' a story. This one was sold lock, stock, and barrel, eh?! Great Frankl quote - may well be the subject of a future blog...
Bob
Post a Comment