iMedia: Levi's Commercials

I first saw the "America" Levi's commercial from the Go Forth campaign in a movie theater during the previews. I was slightly dumbstruck by the complete change in their approach to advertising. The usual Levi's jeans commercial consisted of gorgeous models wearing little to no clothing besides their signiture 501s, often integrating some sexual appeal, mythological theme, or a combination thereof. Basically, I would classify them as gratuitous. But this new one was amazing; you need only watch it to see that their sophistication and creativity level shot skyward at an impossible rate. It was artistic; historically relevant, yet refreshingly modern; frightening, yet optimistic. In short, something I'd never seen before from a company as commercial as Levi's.

I think "America" and "O Pioneers!" inform our culture of the relevance of recent history and the power of the individual versus the whole nation. I mean, where else would the public, so engrossed by their XBOXs and iPhones, hear Walt Whitman (who happens to be one of my favorite poets; I've had an excerpt of his writing on my facebook page for over a year) in a reading of some of his classic works? This ad exposes themes of rebellion and strength similar to that of the 1960s and the Vietnam war, while also keeping their message culturally relevant. Instead of implying that wearing their jeans will make you a supermodel and irresistible to the opposite sex, it emphasizes that Levi's has been there throughout history, witnessed it, and stayed strong. After all, the company has been around since 1853. I see the commercial as implying unity in the face of adversity while forcing us to see the mindnumbing change in our culture and outlook on the world since the last major crisis. Frankly, it's impossible not to see, what with their use of an image of an interracial couple, for example. The ad campaign is a striking sort of duality: eerie, haunting, intelligent, and most importantly, effective.

What struck me instantaneously upon viewing it, however, was not all of that. That came after, as I really thought through what I had just seen. My immediate reaction was how unbelievably cool the video was. The masterful artistry of the black and white scenes, the color scenes, the lighting and outdoor setting, the historical photography and the modern actors, the scratchy recording of classic American poetry, it all overwhelmed me. I left feeling confused that the commercial was even trying to sell me something, and therefore, more interested in the campaign as a whole. Something just worked through the ad; it was that ellusive je ne sais quoi. And to be honest, it left me, and many others, wanting more.


"America": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdW1CjbCNxw
"O Pioneers!": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG8tqEUTlvs&feature=related

Connections: Medieval Thinkers and Religious Extremists

Life is a balance of the forces around you, forces that are black and white and every shade of gray. Most thoughts and ideas fall somewhere in the middle, but not always. In my opinion, those that are a lovely and pure gray are ideal; they're not too extreme, not too conservative. I know some people would be cringing at that assertion, shouting that I don't believe in anything enough to support it with wholehearted commitment to a cause. This leads into the somewhat surprising struggle between the extremes and the middle.

The premise of King Lear is filled with power struggles and idea clashing between the Renaissance thinkers and the Medieval thinkers. King Lear, the person with most of the power according to the state, is bent on tradition and stability, keeping with the way things have always been done. He is very medieval in his ways. His opposition comes from those that disagree, namely his older daughters, Goneril and Regan. They are clearly Renaissance thinkers, and also quite Machiavellian in nature. Despite their selfish actions, they represent the middle shade of gray in this argument. Renaissance thoughts centralize around individualism and scientific discovery. During their time, this was considered very extreme. But in our society, Renaissance thinkers are more common and popular. In my opinion, this is the best way option.

Similarly, on the news we often hear about religious extremists causing trouble and terror around the globe. Their name says it all: they're extreme. They believe in only the fundamental guidelines of their religion and leave no room for progressive thoughts and actions. The people who tend to be in the middle religiously are the people I'm surrounded by everyday in my community. The suburbs are not where one would expect to find a terrorist hiding out. We collectively represent the "middle", ranging from religiously indifferent to very observant.

The reason for the religious distinction is an inability to agree between the extremists and the middle. This is the exact same as in King Lear, where the extreme Medievalists are dead set against the middle Renaissance thinkers. The significance of this connection is the unusual nature of it. Normally, the opposite extremes hate each other, or at least argue and fight. It's not often that an extremist in something is offended by another person's neutrality. But this is illustrated in Shakespeare's world and our modern world. Both concepts are alike in the fact that they're a bit unexpected, and thus important to keep an eye out for.

Dialectics: War and Creation

In the Broadway musical Rent, one of the characters, Marc, says "the opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation." Despite being housed in the middle of a somewhat cliché rebellion song, which consists of dancing on tabletops at a restaurant and singing about "sticking it to the man", this line exhibits insight beyond its surroundings.

So what is the reason for this divergence from the classical duality of "war and peace"? In theory, war is the definitive opposite of peace. One is violent and ruthless, the other is cooperative and prosperous. However, I think the reason for this lyric and everything it implies is that theory is not always the absolute authority. Something can be perfect in theory, but if it doesn't translate to actuality, then it's meaningless. In my opinion, war can be driven by the pursuit of peace, and I think it often is. Even when war is retalliation for an act against a country, for example, the base beliefs are that one party would bring peace if they were in power and perfect circumstances were set up.

This new idea of "war and creation" being opposites makes a lot of sense. Creation is never the direct goal of war; often, it's an indirect one. For example, if the Arab nations can destroy the Israeli state, then they can create their own Islamic "empire". War leads to destruction, then possibly creation. But never just creation.

So is there a possibility of a dialectical "third option", one which unites these very different concepts? I'm not sure if war can ever lead directly to creation without destroying first; it also depends on your definition of both destruction and creation. Does it have to be something you can see, feel, or touch? In the future, when our wars have become electronic like so much else in our society, will an attack on a database count as destruction? Or is everything technological just a series of electrical signals which are never destroyed, just rearranged? In the same way, would an addition to the internet really be created? How do you sense what is not within our capabilities of perception to feel?

Perhaps this unity of war and creation would be the exact equation for peace and prosperity, the ever-elusive utopia. If there was a way to wage war without destroying, just bringing about the creation of newer, better, and stronger institutions and people, then war would lose its bite, its horror. And this leads to the final question: is this possible in actuality, or is it just another theory?