Art imitating life – or vice versa?

When a company devotes millions of dollars to the production and airing of a Super Bowl ad, they are at the mercy of several factors – one of those being an exciting game if you happen to have a spot airing in the fourth quarter.

We all know that the game itself came down to a late interception returned for a touchdown to secure the New Orleans Saints’ victory; fortunately for Audi this occurred after their commercial aired. For all the pregame talk about the pro-life ad sponsored by Focus on the Family and featuring the mother of Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow, the “green police” commercial sponsored by Audi may have the most lasting impact.

The ad opens with an innocuous transaction at a grocery store where the cashier cheerfully asks, “Will that be paper or plastic?” When the hapless customer answers “plastic” he’s rudely greeted by an officer from the “green police” who advises the customer, “you picked the wrong day to mess with the ecosystem, plastic boy!” From there, numerous people run afoul of the law for having batteries in the trash, throwing away an orange rind (a “compost infraction”), possession of incandescent light bulbs and plastic water bottles, and having the temperature of their hot tub too high. The only escapee is the one driving the sponsor’s diesel-powered car at the “eco checkpoint.” Even the classic rock band Cheap Trick redid their 1970’s song “Dream Police” into “Green Police” for the spot.

Great humor works because it has an element of truth in it, and this commercial reflects a number of moves already made by government. Indeed, traditional incandescent light bulbs will be going away after next year due to government edict and several regions of the globe ban the use of plastic grocery bags. Nanny staters constantly proclaim society needs to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

So far, though, America hasn’t gotten to the point where we have the government snooping through our garbage for contraband non-recyclable material or uniformed officers breaking into our backyards to check the temperature of the hot tub. But the spot is believable because we now can’t dismiss the possibility given the cap and trade legislation slowly seeping its way through Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency’s willingness to take advantage of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling allowing them to regulate carbon dioxide to promulgate new restrictions on commerce and daily life, all in the name of combating so-called manmade climate change.

It’s this climate fear that Audi plays to with their ad, on both sides. For those who believe they should do more to save the planet, the car is sold as an eco-friendly mode of transportation. On the other hand, those who are skeptical about our impact on the climate but believe the way of the future may well be reflected in the commercial might be persuaded to buy one simply to be left alone.

Obviously Audi is attempting to sell cars with this Super Bowl ad just as other sponsors pushed online services, beer, or snack food. While the vast majority of these ads were written and produced to be humorous in some sly way or another, the Audi spot will have a longer-lasting impact for its product because this humor made the consumer think.

Many found it funny only because it stretched what we believe into something of a tall tale. It’s when the tall tale becomes reality that the spot loses its humor, and in the coming decade we may see the Audi ad as prophetic of how society evolved.

Michael Swartz, an architect and writer who lives in rural Maryland, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

My latest LFS column to be released cleared on February 12.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

8 thoughts on “Art imitating life – or vice versa?”

  1. I’ve bantered (argued) with many people regarding the government and environment/climate change. I certainly try to live for better sustainability and all that jazz, but I have heard many complaints from people complaining that they are skeptical of our impact and believe “they” (aka THE MAN) are trying to change our way of life for a cause that citizens may or may not believe in.

    While I do believe that it couldn’t hurt to lessen dangerous emissions from our cars, businesses, and spray cans, (also, reusable grocery bags are like a million times more efficient and functional than plastic OR paper) the real problem is an industry that has been playing lobbyist/kickback grabass for years with the government: BIG MEAT.

    The (large and commercial) meat industry causes more global harm than any of our purported issues. (Disclaimer: I find nothing wrong inherently with eating meat.) Cows PASSING GAS cause more methane emissions than anything humans do. There are jillions of cows/pigs/chickens hormone-and-steroid-abused to feed America’s meat obsession, and these animals/factories are polluting our air, and using 70% of our water supply while likely polluting the rest of it. Most of our corn supply (one of the few government-subsidized crops – surprise surprise!) goes to feed these animals as well.

    And “they” won’t address this because Big Meat is a huge money grab. Instead they will blame it all on the citizens, I guess until Airwick and Sylvania start dumping money into corrupt politician pockets.

  2. “On the other hand, those who are skeptical about our impact on the climate but believe the way of the future may well be reflected in the commercial might be persuaded to buy one simply to be left alone.”

    If you honestly believe this to be true, you are an imbecile. If you don’t believe it to be true, you take your readers for imbeciles.

  3. Afterthegoldrush,
    Sorry, I don’t have a blog, never have. I do read yours though and find it quite interresting.

    Twirling towards freedom,
    Opinions are wonderful but don’t you think they should at the very least be built on facts? I do.
    Here is a fact, hormones in poultry has been banned since the 1950’s. Here is another, the Choptank is the cleanest out of the seven rivers that flow into the bay and it runs right through chicken country. I could go on and on but again I would encourage you to educate yourself.
    Btw, how many millions upon millions of bison do you think were around on the Plains emitting methane gas before all these “factory farms”?

  4. Perhaps I was a little off with the use of the word “hormones” – I was simply using it as a catch-all for all substances injected into farm animals. Here is an article regarding antibiotics and chickens:

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food/food-safety/animal-feed-and-food/animal-feed-and-the-food-supply-105/chicken-arsenic-and-antibiotics/

    The Choptank is nice – though I was actually speaking larger-scale regarding the water pollution. I live near the Wicomico which I don’t have the statistics on, but it looks pretty deplorable – at least the part I’m used to! Information about runoff:

    http://www.epa.gov/nps/facts/point6.htm

    As far as the bison, all I can say is touche, you got me there!

    So, I’m not completely talking out of my ass, though I’m sure any number of you commenters could go all over the internet right now to find a reputable site saying the exact opposite, just like I could find a number of reputable sites backing my claims.

  5. Mr. G,
    My apologies to you. I had you pegged for a certain local blogger who likes to stir the sh*t. However, after reading your last comment (with correct grammar and cogent points) I assume that I was mistaken.
    Nevertheless, TTF is my daughter and as a parent it is my duty to stand up for her. As far as the facts, I am not that knowledgeable myself., but I do give her credit for caring about current events. Most kids her age are more worried about which piercing or tatoo they are going to get next.

Comments are closed.