Well, considering it was a perfume commercial for Gucci, what did you expect? Oh I forgot, every inch of film should be dedicated to promoting social justice. It was a fun, well-shot, interesting piece of film that demonstrates art really can be found within corporate constructs. In fact, here’s a news flash, film is a corporate art in and of itself.

This is an interesting discussion and hopefully we can get some more people to discuss. The point is it takes money to make a film, most often millions of dollars. Who’s going to put up that kind of money without any guarantee of a return? What, exactly, is a “commercial” film verses an “art” film anyway? They all cost money to make and they want to make that money (or more) back = a business. People want film to be something it’s not, you can’t really do it on your own like painting or writing. But the fact that you think Lynch’s commercial isn’t art would imply that there’s some type of barometer by what we can measure what is “art” and what isn’t. Could you tell me where I might find such reference?

A very inspiring essay, for me personally (ms. anonymous) is Tolstoy’s “What is Art?”
Highly recommended. Roland Barthes also has a lot to say on the nature of images that take place in this Gucci ad.
Film isn’t alway populist medium. Only commercial film. Maya Deren and Stan Brackage and the whole tradition of experimental filmmaking (which advertising co-ops.GAP ads being perhaps the most successful) has very little sense, if any, of commercial gain. Art, including film, is funded by the government in many cultures. Mexico funds the arts more than the States. I’ve heard the city of Berlin funds the art more than the states.
Perhaps as American artists we are forced into survival corners more than others, but we should understand the context of this and not accept it
‘as is’ or ‘the nature of film.’

Hasn’t it occured to anyone that Mr. Lynch is just having a bit of fun? Does no one see the irony, and deadpan humor in the commercial? It’s smart. beautiful and is imbued with his inimitable touch.

This brings to mind Dario Argento’s brilliant fashion show for Trussardi, where the models ended up slashing themselves to death on the catwalk.

Speaking of making essentialist statements, I can’t imagine someone more guilty than Tolstoy. Deleuze, Foucault, Barthes et al, offer some insightful analytical perspectives in regards to the interpretation of art, but I find (personally) their works ultimately irrelevant to any practicing artist. In less than 1,000 years the Gap Ads, Gucci Ads etc. will go in the same museum as Stan Brakage and Ken Jacobs (got to mention him!). But this is also a moot point. In a country that elected, then re-elected, one of the stupidest politicians in US history as our president and which 70% of the population believes the next president should retain “strong religious values” we should be thankful that we have the freedom to make a commercial like that at all. In fact, I think the only populations who would be offended by that commercial, would be countries who hold more conservative values than the United States. After looking at the ad again, I can find nothing gratuitous, offensive or inappropriate about it. I’m not saying it’s a brilliant piece of cinema, but it is what it is. I think getting notions of “guerilla class warfare” out of watching a Gucci commercial displays a degree of liberal insularity that’s tantamount to the same type of “artistic regulation” that conservative politicians would so love to employ.

I would think it is a more of a radical sensibility if we need to label it at all. Liberals love the NY Times and it is stocked full of all sorts of bourgeois advertising and the virtues of fine-dining.
Sergei Eisentein (an artist/filmmaker) felt the purpose of film was to drive forward the evolution of consciousness. Freud grew increasingly and fervently jealous of the film medium because of its potential to expose psychological truths. Fellini felt it was his ideological political and moral outraged that fueled his expression. I’m not sure how promoting perfume fits into this picture? I of course am only speaking to what personally inspires me (ms. anonymous) and the use of the film medium. Commercials like that one leave me feeling nothing except wondering how much was spent on them and what a better use of the money and resources might have been.
I think it is interesting that you think that that commercial depicts freedom. We are exporting that ‘freedom’ to Afganistan and any new market that we can find. Teaching women what they should look and act like in order to be appealing. Nothing free about it (including there off-beat dancing . . .). The veil and fundamentalist religion is one kind of entrapment. Make-up, five hundred dollar bottles of perfume, and anorexia is another.