The Prince of Peace?

Many of my readers are current or past English teachers, English majors in college, and generally well-read individuals. For that reason, I feel pretty comfortable that you are familiar with Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 and the genre of dystopian novels in general.  Knowledge of these novels may equip us well for the Trumpocalypse that awaits us.

I was particularly struck by the Christmas message released by soon-to-be-White House Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus and his RNC Co-Chair Sharon Day.  (By the way, what ever happened to "i" before “e” except after “c” or when sounded as “a” as in neighbor or weigh?) The first paragraph reads:

“Merry Christmas to all! Over two millennia ago, a new hope was born into the world, a Savior who would offer the promise of salvation to all mankind. Just as the three wise men did on that night, this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King. We hope Americans celebrating Christmas today will enjoy a day of festivities and a renewed closeness with family and friends.”

I think it’s very hard to misinterpret who they mean by “a new King.”  The twitterverse lit up with disbelief over this tweet, and I, myself, said several times out loud, “No, they didn’t say that. What were they thinking?”  I didn’t have to wonder for long, because soon-to-be-White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, rode up on his camel to clarify the message for those of us foolish enough to be picturing a crown on the orange man, saying: the reference didn’t have anything to do with Trump and “Christ is the King in the Christian faith.” Spicer later said that it was “sad and disappointing you are politicizing such a holy day.” (www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/26/rnc) Who actually did the politicizing?

Words matter, and most of us, for good or for ill, interpret words in the conventional sense, not as part of some Orwellian doublespeak.  For my part, I suspect that Reince has secretly printed new business cards, “Prince Priebus,” because, you know, alliteration. I’m sure Mr. Spicer stands ready to interpret this for us.

Michael Andor Brodeur had a new interpretation in today’s “Thing Tank” column in the Boston Globe:  He thought that possibly “‘good news of a new King’ could have just been voice recognition screwing up “good news of a nuking.” No question but what Mr. Spicer will be busy in the New Year creating new meanings for tweets we thought we understood.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

A glamorous woman dressed in what appears to be a down filled strapless dress is lying on her back, arms akimbo, knit scarf carefully thrown around her shoulders and across her neck on a bed of snow-covered leaves.  Her left leg seems to be in full stride and her back leg or boot is thrust backward.  In the orientation of the photo as it appeared in a half-page ad in today’s Boston Globe, her head is down, giving the impression that she is upside down on the page.

What is Moncler Boston at Copley Place advertising here? My first guess would be lipstick, as her bright red lips are the first thing to catch my eye.  Moncler, however, doesn’t make cosmetics. Is she wearing a dress or a jumpsuit?  Is it down-filled?  A search of the Moncler web site (www.moncler.com) doesn’t produce a garment that looks remotely like what she is wearing, though the company, which first produced sleeping bags for climbers, still makes down-filled outer garments, in prices hovering around $1000.00 up to $3000.00.  By process of elimination, then, they must be advertising the scarf, though I can’t find a white one like this on the web site either.

Aside from whatever the product may be, what is also being conveyed in this picture? In the post-truth, post-factual, post-feminist era of president-elect Trump, where women have been demeaned and objectified and sexual harassment has been portrayed as “boys being boys,” this picture returns us to the world of the 1970s or earlier in its depiction of women in advertising.

We see here a woman who looks as if she has just become the victim of an assault. Her right arm is up in a defensive posture and her lower body is twisted in such a way as to suggest she is, or was, trying to run away from her assailant who is looking down at her.  She is in an extremely vulnerable pose, and is lying helpless on the ground in a wooded landscape, far from help.  Her scarf, which might have kept her warm, is now available to strangle her.

For those who think my imagination has run away from me, what other story can be told by this photo? Who in her right mind would be voluntarily lying down in an expensive strapless dress on snow-covered woods? I’ve tried a number of scenarios, but I’m sorry to say, I can’t come up with any plausible plot line other than the one I have suggested above.

In case you missed it, which apparently the advertising execs at Moncler Boston at Copley Place did, and the Advertising Editor at the Boston Globe did, Jean Kilbourne in a remarkable talk turned documentary film “Killing Us Softly,” revealed the violence, objectification, and demeaning of women ROUTINELY employed by advertisers in the media.  The first documentary came out in 1979 and it has been revised four times since then, and sadly, not much has changed, as witness this morning’s ad. 

As the cliche goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. The story this one tells is, in one word, horrifying.