Yep, sure enough, saying that chugging poisonous chemicals is better than kissing another dude sure mutes the anti-gay sentiment. Spot on. In fact, I think Snickers is reaching out to the gay community, because quite clearly according to the commercial, Snickers makes you a full-on boner-having fag: Snickers is the candy-bars for queers cuz the "manly" men just can't handle its faggy goodness. Brilliant!

...as the culture swirls down the bowl.

It isn't, even if the two characters may be. (They likely are, but we must also allow for other scenarios to explain the pair's disgust: Maybe they're lovers who suspect each other of oral herpes and thus don't want to kiss; maybe they're brothers who aren't feeling incestuous that day.) No, the ad's not homophobic; it merely says, "Our candy bar is so good, two guys who don't want to kiss each other will eat it at the same time even if their lips end up touching." Two guys who, if they are indeed homophobic, aren't portrayed with any respect by the makers of the spot: The pair is stupid enough to chug toxic substances, after all. Get a grip, Video Dog editor. --And, by the way, Snickers bars aren't that good.

...except about Snickers.

Not only are they packed with peanuts, but they really satisfy!

(I am not employed by Snickers in any capacity. I have merely loved them since childhood.)

Letterman, despite his acerbic attitude toward Hollywood showboats, has always been a bit of a whore. He bows to the powerful star. And here we come to "Oprah," the most powerful of stars:

I take exception to Salon's recent article on Winfrey's school for African girls. None of the media-wide criticism of the school is, as a recent Salon article suggests, racist. Simply put, "Oprah" should have spent less money on furnishings and more money on educating a larger number of African children (girls and boys). But her materialist indulgences aren't surprising: She has consistently offered money and gifts ("Free cars for today's audience!") in lieu of insight into her country's, or any other country's, pervasive economic deficiencies. Salon should state this fact outright, rather that tiptoeing around it.

Louis XIV's last mistress started an academy for impoverished, gifted, noble girls. The rest of the country's youth weren't worth the trouble. The girls at Winfrey's school aren't noble, but the conceit behind the place is similar.

Even Winfrey's show about the New York Times' excellent series on class in America was tainted with shallow questions. "Do you believe in the American Dream?" she asked a guest. Before he could answer, she added, "Because I do." Soon after, she said that her success had nothing to do with luck, and that she had attained her success only because she had been prepared, over a long period of time, for an opportunity to appear. No doubt that tack helped. But luck, according to her, was irrelevant to her success. She seemingly can't imagine that it's possible for an American to be prepared for an opportunity that never appears--the scenario that plays out for the overwhelming majority of would-be "Oprahs."

She can only imagine events as they apply to her own circumstances. (Which makes her, to some degree, narcissistic.)

Such reasoning suggests she's a weak, shallow thinker.

People talk about that car wash ad in relation to homphobia, etc. I just saw it as a mock on the Paris Hilton/Jessica Simpson/whatever "girl" car washing stuff from the female perspective: it's stupid. I think the message here is that while guys apparently love seeing wet girls gone wild, the car full of women just groans and says "tell me when it's over."

The Snickers ad isn't homophobic.

-- Dustin Smith

------

Yes it is, and you're reaching. Not only is it homophobic, it's also misandrist. Not sure which is more obnoxious. The ad's meaning is that homosexuality is not only frightening, it's also disgusting. "Quick, do something manly...". So this is supposed to be funny? It isn't funny, it's just tiresome and stupid and insulting, to men and to homosexuals. If you want to see very funny ads that have either gay characters or a subtext of gay sex, the Europeans and even the Latins are light years ahead of the United States. Light years. Americans who just simply are stupid about homosexuality, never made a decent, honest, realistic movie about homosexuality until "Brokeback Mountain." And that written by a woman. They can't make ads about it either. U.S. culture is just simply too backwards and unsophisticated to capture the right nuances about it. And yes, I'm an American.

So you're the Creative Director on the Snickers account? Or a VP at Mars? Which is it?

You're also wrong about Snickers. It's a good candy. One I won't be buying again. As a long distance hiker, (the candy of choice for hikers) that sucks.

Really, the title of this post and my previous entry on the subject suffice to demonstrate that. But, to go into nuances:

Yes, American culture is unsophisticated when it comes to sexuality and a number of other things--or, more exactly, a large chunk of Americans are that way, Americans generally (but not always) located away from metropolitan areas.

No, I don't represent Snickers: Those bars are bad for the health.

No, the ad isn't insulting to men, no more than it's insulting to homosexuals: There is no reason to look at these two characters and assume that they are representatives for all men. They are portrayed as very specific characters, with specific behaviors, in a specific setting. Their homophobia isn't used to say that all men are homophobic, but rather as a tool to demonstrate how supposedly delicious a candy bar is.

I'm gay. I mention that because it suggests that I've probably spent a lot of time thinking about what is and isn't homophobic.

And, to put a point I made in my earlier email in more direct terms: The ad isn't insulting to homosexuals because the two characters in the spot are not portrayed as role models, and are even portrayed as idiots; therefore, their homophobia is not held up as a standard.

What the commercial does do is encourage us to laugh at homophobia, to take it lightly. This is an unsettling and morally ambiguous stance in a world where homophobia exists in vicious force. This stance does not, however, cross the line into homophobia.

Finally, regarding the previous poster's comment about the unsophisticated nature of American culture: The political dialogue in America is largely debased as well. I suspect that many "enlightened Europeans" (along with their American counterparts) would see the spot as I've described it, and not as you have. Ciao and au revoir!