List of Objects:

Marlene Dietrich, elegant love seat, a pack of Lucky Strikes, green carpeting, pinkish wall paper, a burning cigarette and cigarette holder, a fancy dress and corresponding accessories

When I look at this advertisement my eye was initially caught by the pack of Lucky Strike cigarettes displayed prominently in the foreground and then traced back up to Marlene's face and then to the text at the top. Interestingly enough the main element, the cigarettes is not in the center of the advertisement; the center is taken up with the white party dress which is of little consequence. The most important parts of the add, in my mind, are the picture of Marlene and the corresponding quote. It seems as though the light in the advertisement is coming from my left because of how the shadows are falling, but I do not feel that light is the primary component here. 

The function that this add served in the fifties was to promote Lucky Strike cigarettes through the use of a commonly recognized sex symbol. The audience was Americans but more importantly the audience was Americans who were discontented with themselves and their lives. Movies and their subsequent "stars" were and are easy forms of escapism and using Marlene for this advertisement told Americans that smoking was one doorway into that world of escapism. Not only that but this advertisement seems to have been made before the public began to question the validity of "science" in advertising-- no source of the "scientific fact" stating Lucky Strikes are the "most smooth" cigarette was provided, only the bald statement. The Pack of Lucky Strikes in the foreground does seem to compete slightly with some of the other elements, but that competition does not appear to take away from the effectiveness of the advertisement. Marlene's picture however, along with her sexy and languorous expression and her red lips framing the burning cigarette in hand lead the eye right to her quote and the claims made by the Lucky Strike Cigarette advertising division. The words used in the advertisement, such as "prove" instead of suggest and to describe the cigarettes themselves, such as "round", "smooth" and "fully packed" suggest to me deliberate thought. Everything in this advertisement was intended to take the reader out of their reality and deposit them into one they like better.

List of objects:

A camel, fedora, tie, trench coat, mostly burned cigarette, sunglasses, table top and text.

My eye is first caught by the word cancer where one would typically expect to see the word camel. Then I was caught in the very familiar image of Joe camel with a refry in his meaty hand. this advertisement was much more simple-- there were less elements and the graphic design element was intentional as opposed to a reflection of the resources of the time period. The illusion of depth was created by the spot of gold in the center of the mahogany background that fades outwards. 

When analyzing these two images the personal, cultural and ethical perspectives seem critical. First of all let me just explain that I quit smoking three months ago after almost seven years of smoking pretty close to a pack a day at the very least. I feel better than I ever thought possible. These advertisements are important to me because the represent both what I loved and now resent in cigarettes. I never really felt like I had  niche as a kid and being a smoker became a part of my personal identity. I didn't know who I was but I sure as hell knew I was a smoker. I don't think this is uncommon. People in the 1950's who didn't have a clear identity or who were discontent as a father and businessman or housewife and mother or cheerleader or greaser may have wanted to be like Marlene Dietrich or audrey Hepburn or Humphrey Bogart-- all of whom smoked. The second, more modern advertisement also utilizes "star power" to represent a universal personal identity but in an entirely different manner. Joe camel, who was once the coolest camel in the desert, has become a symbol of sickness in America. So much controversy surrounded the attempts of Big Tobacco to advertise to children who would become their customers in ten years that Joe because indicative of something else entirely. Joe now represents the fun party favor of cancer and the identity that he relates to people has become "non-smoker." I have found other niches in my young adult life and am now proud to use the title of "non smoker" when defining myself as an individual. 

I don't feel that advertising played a part in my smoking as much as other personal history that quite frankly I don't feel comfortable spewing... plus I really don't think anyone would care that much. But I know that research has suggested that cartoons aimed at garnering lifelong customers have been used in campaigns created by cigarette companies and fast food chains. Cigarette companies rely heavily on brand loyalty of their customers and in the 1990's Joe Camel was one of the most commonly recognized cartoon characters among kids. The advertisement for quitting smoking that I posted does seem to be concerned with ethics. Telling people that smoking causes cancer is a good thing-- but this add does seem to imply that smoking is an automatic cancer sentence. That may not be ethically sound.... like the "scientists" cited in the Dietrich add the advertisers are relying on people not taking their lives and the information available to them into their own hands.

When Dietrich's advertisement came out in the fifties cancer had yet to be linked with cigarette smoking. Using a star to sell a product is not, in my opinion, ethically irresponsible. If people are not willing to take accountability for researching a product before they buy it or for creating their own sense of self then that is their business. if a movie star wants to associate themselves with a product of questionable nature that is agin, their business. Citing scientific fact however, was and is ethically questionable. I have to cite sources in my term papers--shouldn't advertisers do the same? Ethics are difficult for me because I am a big believer in personal accountability. If we were all accountable for ourselves and to ourselves i think issues of ethics would come up much less frequently. 

Culture is constantly evolving, or so my anthropology professors tell me. How has culture evolved from the fifties until now? Technology is an obvious answer, so is pointing out the shift from a nuclear family dynamic to the belief that " we create our own family." Movie stars are still popular, but their weights, hair colors, cup sizes and style of dress have changed dramatically. Smoking is no longer cool in the mainstream, but there is a new component to the world of fantasy. The fast paced, drug addicted world that many stars are afforded due to too much time and money creates a niche that is smoker friendly. I am stunned by the number of kids my age in college who smoke. Enter a bar in Oregon before January 2009 and the smoke would slap you in the face like a low grade pimp who just lost a bill. So in the fifties the culture dictated that mainstream stars advertise smoking and the culture now dictates that the mainstream stars advertise quitting smoking while the underground scene is continuing to explode with cigarettes and other personal physical abuses. Where does that leave me? I'm not sure. I don't know that smoking will ever completely lose it's cool because kids will always feel invincible and adults will always find themselves craving a world just beyond their reach. (Obviously not everyone-- this is a generalization).