The Adjustable Productions Business Blog

One of the most interesting aspects of the USSR for me is how the marketing forces within it increasingly found a need to mimic the media trends of the capitalist state. This led to some very interesting products and advertising campaigns that had the vague intention of Western advertising, but with vastly reduced budgets, and varying degrees of self-consciousness over associating too ‘decadent’ an image with their products.

This creates a curious type of advertising. In the 80’s a lot of Western brands made it their explicit aim to associate glamour, decadence and style with their product. So why would Communist states try and reproduce this type of advertising, especially in a climate when independent business enterprise was extremely limited? I think it is symptomatic of the approach of the USSR’s Communism. They wait to see what Western Capitalism does, copies it badly, and then claims it is an example of Communist progress and development. At no point to the people making the knock off actually understand what original concept is or how it waorks. They just try and make something that looks similar. And because they don’t understand it they miss so much, and the average viewer can see straight through the laughable, but strangely interesting attempts at Western style advertising campaigns.

There was a need for the products, and it was largely driven by exposure to products from the West. The people wanted branded products, and Western style advertising was needed to develop the brands. Marketeers in the USSR became a necessary part in a developing retail system. While trying to create a branded products to distract the public from the appeal of the Western branded economy, the USSR perhaps unwitting embraced some of the core elements of Western Capitalist economy, and moved their Union further towards its own collapse.

There are a bunch of really interesting Hungarian adverts from the Communist era on Youtube at the moment, including this one:

This is a classic. It appears to be a product which aims to prevent motor vehicles from corrosion. I do not speak Hungarian,  so maybe I am harsh in my critique, but this seems to have all the core elements of an advert based on a misunderstanding of a western advert. It features a yellow puppet, which I think is supposed to be vaguely based on a Muppet design. However, the production team have missed a critical technical requirement. The Muppets had a pioneering design where the entire puppet is held above the head. The puppeteer used one arm to control the body and head, operating the mouth, and the other to control the arm like a glove (or with lighter weigh models, with a stick). If a second arm was required then a second puppeteer would step in to operate it in perfect harmony with the rest of the Muppet. In this production the puppeteer is clearly crouched behind a low desk. You can tell this because the puppeteer’s head is clearly visible throughout the opening shot. In this position it is not possible to emulate the classic Muppet stance, and the arm of the puppet does not seem to connect to its body. They do not even have the basic tools of the Muppet style puppeteer, a tv screen to show them what they are doing. You can actually see the puppeteer straining to see what is happening on the desk.

In their wisdom they have blessed this creation with a manic ring-modulated voice, full of menace and terror, the stuff of pure nightmares. I suspect this may have been at least partially inspired by the Honey Monster from the Sugar Puffs adverts. Coupled with a series of shots of the creature appearing unannounced in a variety of car based situations, culminating in him emerging like some beast from the depths screaming “mruh ha ha ha!”, you have an advert which would have had limited impact on Western consumers, but would most likely have scared small children, forever leaving them fearful of sun based talking hand puppets.

Sometimes I just can not figure out what is going on in the minds of those who are given the most attention in the media. Right now, the BBC reports that there has been an “outcry” against the detention of Roman Polanksi in Switzerland in accordance with their extradition agreements with America. The BBC reports that the French minister, Frederic Mitterand, has said “a scary America” has just “shown its face”. They report that British novelist Robert Harris described the arrest as “disgusting treatment”. They also report that the Swiss Director’s Association have also criticised the arrest. Apparently they called it “not only a grotesque farce of justice, but also an immense cultural scandal”. And don’t forget about the Swiss newspaper, Blick: “Switzerland let a guest walk into a nasty trap. We should be ashamed,”.

How blinkered, deranged and completely aloof these people are to think that trying to bring this man to account is unacceptable. Let us just be reminded of the facts. He was left alone in charge of a 13 year old girl whom he was photographing for a feature in Vogue magazine. He got her drunk on champagne and fed her quaaludes, and then undressed her and sexually assaulted her despite her protestations. He was tried and convicted and then absconded from the country prior to sentencing. There is no question of his guilt. If a man has done something, been convicted with overwhelming evidence in a country with a relatively highly regarded legal system, and then has hidden in other countries to avoid sentencing, surely those countries have been offering him shelter from justice? How can anyone suggest that he had been a “guest” who was “walking into a trap”?

Why do they think it is so wrong that he be arrested and face extradition? Are they stark staring bonkers? Do they not think it is right that people that commit such crime face the punishment? Do they think that because he is a famous director and regarded an artiste that he should be allowed to do such things? Maybe they think it is the girl’s fault? Or maybe it is just part of the culture in some parts of the media, politics and showbiz that it is ok to abuse young girls and boys?

I mean, it would be understandable to come to that conclusion if you look at the way the industry has treated Polanksi since he took flight. He has subsequently been welcomed as a stage director. He has directed blockbuster films for Warner Brothers and TriStar and subsidiaries of NBC and New Line Cinema. Those films have starred the likes of Walter Mattheau, Harrison Ford, Hugh Grant, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley and Johny Depp. Oh and I almost forgot, he has also won the Palme D’or and last year, Hollywood honoured him with an Oscar in his absence.

All of these companies, individuals and awards bodies have agreed to work with a fugitive on the run from facing sentencing for a sex attack on a 13 year old child.

Let me just clarify that: This is not even one of those cases where you can say “well, he paid his debt to society” because he didn’t. He did a runner. The man is a convicted fugitive.

So maybe we should not be suprised that the industry rallies around him when he finally looks as if he will face sentencing. Perhaps because he is ‘one of there own’ they are happy to overlook these things?

Written by Robert Wheeler