VIDEO: What's wrong with the Sydney Sweeney ad?

Walt was not far enough away from civilization (?) to avoid the controversy over this ad for American Eagle jeans. "Some people" (you know who I mean) are criticizing the ad for being "provocative", "divisive" and even... wait for it... "racist"! Well, let's have a look.

 

I'd say 1000s of real women are running down to their local clothing emporium, even as we speak, to buy a pair or three. And hundreds of thousands of real men are buying a pair (or three) for their significant others. 

Why not? Well, the wokesters at The Body Optimist will tell you why this ad offends them, in an article headed: "It's even racist!": Sydney Sweeney criticized for an ad deemed provocative", by Léa Michel (note the pretentious spelling of the name) posted today. No need to follow the link. Walt is going to turn on the bullshit meter and analyze the whole steaming load. The woke BS is in pink and my comments are in brackets.  

Now American Eagle's latest campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney has set social media ablaze. With the slogan "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans," the brand aimed for "a stylish homage to denim classics." Except the message wasn't received the same way by everyone. Accused of reviving sexist stereotypes and even flirting with racist codes, the ad campaign has sparked a lively debate about the boundaries between marketing provocation, gendered representation, and latent cultural racism. [Who "sparked" the debate? I didn't hear anyone complaining.]

In the most talked-about clip of recent days, Sydney Sweeney, who rose to fame in the series "Euphoria" and "The White Lotus," repairs a vintage car—a Mustang GT350—wearing a fitted tank top and skinny jeans from the brand. [The video above is not the offending clip. This is the hot one!]  

The whole thing is a mix of modernized pin-up aesthetics and a tribute to the codes of male auto mechanics. [See, for the wokesters, nothing offensive is ever said directly. You have to know the "code" to get the sexist, racist, yada yada message.] She is then seen wiping her hands on her jeans before getting into the vehicle. The slogan, in turn, refers to the cut of the jeans and, according to the brand, the "confidence each person can have when wearing them." 

What could have been a slightly retro and sexy campaign quickly drew the ire of several internet users. Some people saw it as an "anti-woke" or even supremacist message. Others denounced the staging as reducing a woman to her appearance, in a pose that flirts with the most persistent clichés of 1990s marketing. [Some people saw it like that? Were they looking through pink- or mauve-coloured glasses?]

A gendered and racial reading of the message The phrase "superb jeans" has been accused of playing on a double meaning: jeans (pants) and genes (genetics). A potentially problematic pun, according to critics, who point out that in English, the pronunciation is identical (jeans / genes). 

[Wait. It gets worse.] On the X network (formerly Twitter), some voices saw in this choice an allusion to the supposed "purity" of the actress's origins - young, white, blonde, thin - often elevated to a Western aesthetic fantasy. [You bet! I've been trying for years to construct a real fantasy out of a fake reality.]

Criticism also focuses on the actress's posture, her sexualization, and the fact that the campaign once again exploits a hyper-standardized image of femininity: a slim body, a soft gaze, suggested but controlled sexuality, all in a setting that recalls the appropriation of a so-called masculine universe (mechanics) to divert it for aesthetic purposes. An approach deemed dated by some commentators, who denounce a vision still largely dominated by the male gaze. [That's a lot. Pass me the barf bag.]

Faced with the controversy, American Eagle quickly took to its Instagram account to speak out. Refusing to apologize [Good on `em!], the brand insists that the slogan refers only to jeans, the ones worn by the actress, and in no way to anything else. It writes: "The slogan 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans' is and always will be about jeans. Her jeans. Her story." 

She [sic] also says she wants to "continue to celebrate the way each person wears their AE jeans with confidence, in their own way," emphasizing a desire for inclusivity. [Oops, got some weasel words in there, at the last minute.] The brand therefore seems to be taking ownership of its approach, focusing on a visually strong editorial line, even if it means shaking things up. [Shaking what things up? Do they mean the woke narrative that anything that appeals to men and their "toxic masculinit" is baaddd?]

Notably, the White House itself intervened. Steven Cheung, the presidential communications director, posted a message on X declaring: "Cancel culture has no limits. Liberal ideology is twisted, stupid, and blocked, which is a big reason why Americans voted the way they did in 2024." [Right on, Steven!]

This unexpected support, in particularly virulent language, reinforced the idea that this campaign is now being co-opted in an ultra-polarized political climate, both in the United States and elsewhere. [Co-opted by whom? Steven Cheung is a Chinese-American. Is he working for the white supremacists? LOL]

The fact that American Eagle's stock jumped nearly 10% [Forget the jeans. Buy the stock.] after the campaign aired is no coincidence: commercial provocation still pays off, especially in a context of growing rejection of political correctness in certain circles. [Are you in the same circle as Walt?!]

[Last words to the woke.] Ultimately, this campaign highlights a growing tension in contemporary society: how can we speak to the greatest number of people, in an era saturated with images, without offending? Should we please or disturb in order to sell? And at what cost? 

The Sydney Sweeney case also illustrates the tension between female injunctions to emancipation and those that continue to sell a standardized, desirable, and performative femininity. By choosing a renowned pop icon with an image that was both glamorous and accessible, American Eagle knew it wasn't speaking into a vacuum. However, the reception shows how diverse, sometimes contradictory, and deeply politicized contemporary interpretations are. [Last word to Walt: If these ads are divisive, it's only because "certain people" want them to be so, as the culture wars continue.]