.jpg)
It's only been a few hours I've announced the reconciliation between LVMH (Dior being a major brand in their portfolio) and Hermes and the new spot for Dior J'adore perfume (trailblazing the relatable body products/cosmetics) has officially rolled out.
You can watch it here.
Forget the impressive staging of the fragrance commercial itself, the Top Kapi/Mission Impossible cascades, the theatrically choreographed motions of former Martini-girl Charlize Theron (which lipstick color does she use here, anyone know?), the gold dress, or the actual slogan "the future is gold" (I needed that, personally). The single thing to really note is they do know that they're letting down their old clientele and breaking up with them in so many words…"the past can be beautiful, a memory, a dream, but it's no place to live".
Riiiight, when you have rendered your perfumes unrecognizable by those loving them and cherishing them for years on end, it is "a sacrifice reuired for the future of the human race" as per Dr.Strangelove.
Additionally, can't resist: what the hell happened to Charlize Theron's face? It used to be pretty perfect (and more sensual) to begin with.
You tell me, in the comments.
Related reading on PerfumeShrine:
Dior J'Adore: perfume review and history/guide to flankers/limited editions
Optical Scentsibilities: the Neck Rings
Dior J'Adore: the Jean Jacques Anneaud commercial critique
Arnault's ability to get the rights for Versailles is quite impressive (this one looks like it involved no actual shooting there - with the dome popping up right in the middle of the gallery of mirrors). The future as a Dubai-like skyscraper jungle might not be as interesting, though.
ReplyDeleteAs for the lipstick, makeup artist Lisa Eldridge has a guide to oranges (apparently a trend this season), though I don't think there's any Dior in it:
http://www.lisaeldridge.com/blog/26419/lisa-loves-summer-orange/#.VAcc5WOKVhI
cacio
They're telling us perfumistas something we already know, but the average shopper will feel out of place. It's like saying, you're not good enough anymore, if you like it fine, take it. If you don't don't worry, others will, you are free to go, and thank you for the money you've given us all these years back. Sad but true. Damn you IFRA, allergies, conspiracy theories. Had to get it of my chest :/-)
ReplyDeleteum, yes, wow. that advert was a complete and utter turn-off for me! the vision of the "future" presented in it, a vista of shiny, brightly-lit, ultra-modern high-rise buildings, does nothing for me. it all rather reminded me of a sardonic american expression used to describe someone being duped: "i'll give you my shiny big nickel for your little old dime"...
ReplyDeleteI don't really know what happened to her face. I still think she is too gorgeous to be real. It appears smoothed out and softened and her nose changed too. Yes, you are right. it is different but still glorious. I think.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the commercial: I do need some gold in my life, not sure if I will achieve it by way of this allegory of time depicted by Dior. I want my future to be unpredictable as much as I want my past to be healed.
Your post really made me laugh... Thank you!
ReplyDeleteAnd I'll return the favor with a Dorothy Parker quote: "Oh seek, my love, your newer way, I'll not be left in sorrow. So as long as I have yesterday, Go take your damn tomorrow!"
I think Dior really struggles with its heritage. Its reputation was built on chypres; between the 40s and the 70s chypres were popular and Dior rode that wave by producing a string of them. Now of course chypres are not only unfashionable (in the mainstream), but impossible to keep it their old formulation.
ReplyDeleteChanel and Guerlain have much longer histories and hence a more diverse fragrance history from which to draw. And consider this: Chanel has No 5, Guerlain had Shalimar, and Dior has. .. Miss Dior. Hmmmmm ...
M,
ReplyDeleteit;s become a symbol really: French (and Euro-centric) market to hell ith you, Dubai and emirates here we come. :-D
Thanks for the video, this is one Eldridge video I had missed (and Chanel Incandecente is calling my name, though there IS a Dior in the list of selections apparently but not shown in the video)
A,
ReplyDeletehope that felt relieving!
Yup, take it or leave it approach. *sigh*
NFS,
ReplyDeletethere's a point in there and the commercial isn't badly made, but it does in the end leave a taste of "is this the best place to be there is?"
I didn't hate it, personally, nor did it leave a bitter taste like the previous one with the dead celebrities, it just confirms the thing perfumephiles discuss for ages. And that's kinda sad in itself.
FTG,
ReplyDeletelove your last sentence. :-)
I think she's still gorgeous, it's just that the effect is a bit jarring; plus, why mess with perfection to begin with?
OF,
ReplyDeleteyou're very welcome, glad it did!
And thanks for the ever smart DP quote. :-D
AMC,
ReplyDeleteit's the truth: they do struggle with the past.
But surely Diorling for instance is very fit to the modern market sensibilities; I bet it could be marketed to emancipated or not keen on florals ladies. Diorama still has the fruity core and the radiant hite floral heart that might interest a lady interested in being distinctive and a bit different.
I could even devise segmentation for Diorella and Diorissimo, not to mention Eau Fraiche (reformulated or not)
Miss Dior in its original form is a bomb and indeed very hard to digest for today's sensibilities, that I give you. But look the manner Chanel and Guerlain played with the "introductory" editions to their big guns: Eau Premiere and Parfum Initial. Dior could have done the same instead of defacing the flanker and usurping the name of the classic by dropping the Cherie. It could have caught on. But it's too late…too much confusion.
They did have the disadvantage of being too avant-garde (Roudnitska ahead of his time artistically) and too intellectual. These are not qualities that are appreciated in our day and age.
Age got to her face!
ReplyDeleteB,,
ReplyDeleteyou think?
It looks ironed out to me, odd because it didn't need any ironing out to begin with. She's only 39, I think? Too soon to start the procedures in my books (though she says she likes the aging, or am I mistaking the quote with someone else?) Just look at poor Nicole Kidman, a clown mask.
Charlize Theron: I don't see much difference except for, very possibly, veneers. her teeth stand differently, and they (veneers) often change the entire feel and look of a face. (See what - horror - it did to Whitney Houston)...
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeletethat's a good suggestion you know, hadn't thought about that particularly, but you make an excellent point. The nose seems different (less upturned, more "classical" straight) but if the mouth is dragged into a novel expression via veneers, it could be explained (?)
.
Or maybe it's dealing with a particularly creative makeup artist that accounts for the visible difference; very creative one indeed!
She does look a bit "surprised," but I think it's the makeup, especially the eyebrows--they're drawn on darker and with a higher, rounder arch than she usually wears. I think they're trying to make her look like Deneuve.
ReplyDelete