ADVERTISERS love to combine retro imagery that suggests stability and traditional sex roles with images of the Sexual Revolution, equating with no subtlety whatsoever the latter with the relative normality of former times. They really do beat you over the head with it. See Tylenol’s ludicrous comparison of one extremely Messed-Up “Family” with Norman Rockwell.

Here is another example analyzed by Kidist Paulos Asrat at Reclaiming Beauty. An American Airlines ad juxtaposes Gregory Peck with Neil Patrick Harris. While Peck gazes off into the distance with Randian confidence, the homosexual actor looks directly at the camera with a smirk, as if to say, “I am here. I am enough.” (Wow, he’s wearing a tie! How cool is that?)

What we see here is hero and anti-hero side by side.

Remember, it’s in the interest of the corporate world to promote the Sexual Revolution. Traditional family life is not so good for full-throttle consumerism.

— Comments —

Melanie writes:

Gregory Peck was a handsome man. He exuded quiet confidence, which I always find to be intensely attractive in a man. Something very masculine about it. He even wears a suit better than Harris.

Neil Patrick Harris looks arrogant and smug. He’s pretending to be a gentleman. That smirk, probably meant to be endearing, is annoying and boyish. He doesn’t wear the suit, it wears him.

Man vs boy. That’s what I see.

Alex writes:

Friends, not to rain on this parade as I completely agree with the sentiment expressed here but many Hollywood tough guys actually were liberals or became liberals over time. Peck, Bogart, etc. They looked great but were Red deep inside, as was our government during most of the 40s and 50s. What I see when I look at this photo of Harris is him saying: “Who am I and where am I going?” Happy New Year.

Laura writes:

Happy New Year.

I didn’t say Peck was a paragon of virtue. And as I’ve said before, the 50s were not all they are cracked up to be. Here’s a good piece about how Hollywood prepared the way for the 60s. Advertisers like to use images of actors from the 40s and 50s because they suggest stability and traditional sex roles.

 Tyro writes:

I’m a man about the age of the men pictured in that ad, and I can say that you have the fashion understanding all wrong. American men’s suits from the era on the left (1953) were far inferior to the ones made today: the jackets were formless and the trousers too baggy (they called it a “sack suit” for a reason). Suits didn’t improve until the 1960s, for the reason that, like today, since it’s not a requirement to wear a suit, clothesmakers had to give a reason for people to put on a suit.

On the right, Neil Patrick Harris has a very well-tailored suit, which you can see from the waist suppression in the jacket, giving it shape, and it has minimal shoulder padding, so he doesn’t look like a “boy in a suit.” For a man in his 40s, Harris is also in very good physical shape. His tie is extremely conservative, giving the ad an “aspirational” feel: that is the tie people who, if they were important business executives, envision themselves wearing: it also accounts for the self-assured smirk– people wish they were flying because they had something important to do and were happy about it, whereas most business flyers are forced to do so by their supervisors and heading off to a relatively uninteresting city in an old airport, leaving them with an experience where they’re tired and cramped. You couldn’t use something like the Gregory Peck photo as the “modern” ad because the guy would remind readers of their boss.

Laura writes:

You seem to be refuting points I did not make.

I didn’t comment on the cut of the suits or say Harris looked like a boy in a suit. I did not suggest Gregory Peck or a man dressed like Gregory Peck should be used in an ad. I was pointing out the use of Hollywood actors of that era by advertisers. Here, Peck conjures a better era of air travel and bygone elegance, even with his looser-fitting suit. (Although I wouldn’t say it is an example of poor tailoring.) On screen, Peck projected elegance even in jeans. The idea is that Harris matches that elegance. 

It would be strange if the smirk on Harris’s face was ironically meant to acknowledge the stress of flying, which is not suggested by the picture overall. The text, which can be read here, indicates that is not at all the intended message of the ad.

Please follow and like us: