I saw it as a big butch guy with matching butch dog calling the fairy ‘Silly Fairy’ and then being transformed into his opposite, a probably gay or at least metrosexual guy with little frou-frou dogs. Or as someone said above “I’ll show you silly fairy!”
I like the original version, and oddly the phrase “silly fairy!” didn’t strike me as even trivially derisive of (or even remotely referring to) homosexuals, but of Disneyfied cuteness, especially since the fairy is clearly a ripoff of Tinkerbell. Fairies (and related tradespeople like pixies) have a well-established mythical history predating the derisive nickname by hundreds of years. It’s presumptuous to assume that because something negative has been recently linked to the original, the original must be banished with no mental effort expended to make the distinction.
Actually, I find that anyone that complains is being a big ol’ drama queen.
Look, this is a silly argument, and I have the answer to my question. As I see it, there are two posibilities here:
Not the way that I interpeted it, but if it is the intended meaning, I think it’s pretty funny. The gay version of the guy isn’t the villian of the spot, it’s his loutish predecesor who gets his comeuppance for his homophobic remarks. It’s also a positive thing, I think, because it portrays being turned gay as just deserts, when in earlier times portraying someone as gay would be beyond the pale no matter what offense they committed. As I said earlier, gay folks are a normal part of society, so there should be no beef with showing them as such. The butt of this particular joke was the lout, not the gay version, and as such the outrage from groups like Commercial Closet is a stupid overreaction.
#2 The guy wasn’t intended to be gay, just to present a stylistic contrast to his previous appearence(what I saw). Nothing in his changed appearence is overtly “gay”, and as such the outrage from groups like Commercial Closet is a stupid overreaction.
I think the important point here is that the outrage from groups like Commercial Closet is a stupid overreaction.
I didn’t see teh ghey in the commercial either, but my wife latched onto it immediately, and she’s usually right about…well, everything if you ask her, but specifically, her gaydar is far superior to my own.
And, yeah, if it weren’t for the smokin’ hot faerie, it would be one of the most annoying commercials in recent memory. And kind of stupid. I mean, preppy may be many noxious things, but I wouldn’t call it cutesy.
When the guy called the fairy “silly fairy”, there was no homosexual undertone there. It’s the look on her face, the vengeful look in her eye when she transforms him into (in some people’s opinion) a “fairy” that’s the root of the argument.
She could have made him a gruff guy with big dogs dressed in a Tinkerbell outfit ala the Snack Fairy. Didn’t do it. She made him into a “fairy”.
I’m wondering if the ad agency was oblivious to the possibility of the gay angle or if they went ahead despite it, perhaps to cause controversy. (Maybe they think that the people who will be offended enough not to buy a Dodge will be exceeded by the people for whom the message is appealing.)
Well, that still didn’t suggest “gay” to me. In fact, it kinda reminded me of a scene in Beetlejuice when a character’s clothing is magically transformed into something he finds horrible. I find the joke is in the contrast, not the result. Similarly, the humour in the guy derisively saying “Silly fairy!” in the first place is the incongruity of an urban dweller finding fairies so mundane that he casually laughs at one when she runs into something she can’t handle.
In a vaguely similar vein, the jingle for a “Goldfish” commercial cracks me up:
Here’s our jingle for Goldfish
Yes, baked and not-fried Goldfish
The yummy snack that smiles back until you bite their heads off…
The sudden intrusion of the violent image throws everything off track, in a comical way.
For what it’s worth (not much, I expect), another straight guy here who just took it to mean that she turned him into a preppie/yuppy style person, not that she made him gay.
I saw her fly around, zap things to make them cute, fail to affect the car and hit the wall. A guy laughs and says “Silly little fairy” because she is, in fact, a silly little fairy and she responds by making him “cute” out of spite. The fact that he gives an offended “Hey!” makes me think that only his outer appearance has changed and, mentally (and presumably sexually), he’s the same guy he was seconds before.
At no point did I think “Wow, she made that guy want to go have crazy gay buttsex!” I guess I missed the cleverly hidden subtext or something.
I don’t think people who are offended are going out of their way to be offended. The commercial heavily implies that the silly little fairy turns him into a silly big fairy. I wouldn’t be surprised if rather than being clueless, they did it deliberately. Nothing like controversy for free advertising that people don’t even have to see to hear about your product’s name.
Most straight men also don’t commute on a toy train to their gingerbread office. She made the skyscraper “cute”. She made the train “cute”. The car is resistant to being made “cute”. She made the man (multiple choice) A) “cute”, or B) gay.
Clearly, given the full context of the commercial, the “gay” message is overwhelming. That must have been it.