'11
This is the new ad for Marc Jacobs’ perfume Lola, starring 17-year-old Dakota Fanning. What’s up with the Fanning girls lately, huh? I guess it’s not really their fault that stylists, designers and photographers keep putting them in these “Lolita” photo shoots, but at some point, maybe their parents should say something? In Elle’s case – with the Blackbook and Marie Claire photo shoots, which I considered much too adult for a 13 year old – I expressed my hope that the “Lolita” styling was just about how easily Elle’s “look” can easily go to that retro Jean Shrimpton/Twiggy vibe. As for Dakota, who just graduated high school but isn’t yet legally an adult, I feel like she signed on to this Marc Jacobs campaign with her eyes wide open. I mean, did they have to pose her with the “flower bottler” right on her crotch?
At just 17, Dakota Fanning is still a year under the legal age of consent in her home state of California, but this trifling fact doesn’t seem to concern Marc Jacobs. The 48-year-old designer chose to place the teenager in a provocative pose – in homage to a 1950s novel about sex with an under age girl – to sell his new perfume, Oh, Lola!
Jacobs’ long-term collaborator Juergen Teller shot the Twilight star in Los Angeles wearing a girlish, pink scalloped polka dot dress. The background, is similarly juvenile – it’s monotone pastel pink compounding the innocence of the composition. But then a large bottle of the scent, featuring it’s signature rose-top has been placed provocatively in between the young starlet’s legs. The teenager clutches it as she tilts back lasciviously and stares intently into the camera.
New Yorker Jacobs admits that his intention was to portray the young woman as a re-boot of the tragic character in Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 novel, Lolita, which tells the story of young girl’s sexual relationship with a much older man, who becomes her step-father.
He told Women’s Wear Daily: ‘When we were speaking about who to use in the ads, I had recently seen The Runaways…I knew she could be this contemporary Lolita, seductive yet sweet.’
The iconic novel tells the story of sexual predator Humbert Humbert and his exploitation of his ‘Lolita’ from the age of 12.
Ironically, this is the age at which Dakota first posed for the successful designer.
The pull of Jacobs is so strong that Fanning admitted she was: ‘humbled by the offer and said yes immediately.’ Dakota recently graduated from high school and joined her peers to receive her diploma. She attended classes at the $30,000 a year private school in North Hollywood and last year was crowned Homecoming Queen. But despite her Hollywood career Dakota insists that she is a down-to-earth normal teenager.
She said: ‘I have such a normal life when I’m not working… It’s just nice to be around people you care about and who know you best.’
[From The Mail]
So, Marc Jacobs wanted to create this creepy, sexualized image of a 17-year-old girl who looks 13. Gross. Of course, Jacobs also sexualized himself for the ads for his men’s cologne Bang:
So… he doesn’t have the best judgment. By the way, CB wanted me mention that Justin Bieber (of all people) is in trouble because his perfume Someday blatantly rips off the Lola flower bottle. You can see photos of the two bottles here, at E!.
Ads courtesy of Google.
Written by Kaiser
Posted in Advertising, Dakota Fanning
- Heidi Klum is a rock singer now [Crazy Days and Nights]
- Heidi Klum never gets it right [Go Fug Yourself]
- Lots of gorgeous photos of Tom Hardy [Lainey Gossip]
- Kate Moss is wasted [D-Listed]
- Marvel creates superhero for boy with a hearing aid! [Jezebel]
- Daniel Radcliffe wants a superhero movie [Evil Beet]
- Cool photo of couple marrying - with tornado in background [Fark]
- The best onscreen wedding parties [Buzzsugar]
- Men in Black III review [Pajiba]
- Obama bogarts the weed [Gawker]
46 Responses to “Dakota Fanning’s latest “Lolita-styled” Marc Jacobs ad: gross or meh?”
Leave a Reply
By commenting you agree to our comment policy
Use the "Report this comment as spam or abuse" link to ask the moderators to delete a comment if it's offensive. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please e-mail cbcomments at gmail.com to get it retrieved.
Get an icon next to your name by signing up for a free Gravatar
Things in the advertising world have gotten way out of control – child porn has taken it over. I find it disgusting and disturbing.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I don’t think gay men like Marc Jacobs (the type that are OTT and incredibly superficial) really give a damn about the issues surrounding the objectification of women. Sure, if Marc Jacobs wants to objectify himself, then sure, but he presumes that women, many of which have been fighting against such objectification, don’t care about this.
Anyway, Lola is a rubbish perfume. I’ve tried it during the hoopla of its release, it’s nothing special and he resorts to these prepubescent styled images to sell it to young girls.
Tragic?
On may levels. But what is even more tragic is that this rubbish fashion designer still has a job for one of the most prestigious firms. Who the hell is he sleeping with to retain it because his designs aren’t anything special or complimentary to the female form.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I’m no prude by any means, but that top pic is just. Plain. Wrong. This kid is 17. It’s pervy and completely unnecessary. Honestly, what is wrong with people anymore? From the advertisers to her parents to Marc Jacobs himself. And to anyone who supports this kind of crap.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Innappropriate for a 17 year old.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
yeah, sorry…that’s just wrong.
“here’s my flower…don’t you want to pluck it?”
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Well I think if she had been paid to pose with a guy or something it would be really inappropriate but its not like that all. I don’t find anything wrong with the pictures. They do a give strong super innocent vibe but I think thats ok, I mean she just sitting on the floor in a short cute white dress and holding a perfume bottle. Its not that big a deal. I have seen worse perfume ADs.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I think it was supposed to be elicit. If she wasn’t holding the bottle in her crotch, this wouldn’t be so big a deal. However, Lolita is likely the inspiration and it’s not a good image for young girls to idolize. If you have read and remember the plot of the book, it is not a “positive” one.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
just wrong. i, for one, in my own little protesty way, am refusing to buy products that are marketed this way.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Inappropriate for someone younger than 18. And not very interesting or original either way.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
geez they’re pictures. i don’t see anything wrong with them. you guys got all puritan all of the sudden. and shes 17-so its not 18 but she isn’t 6.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I think it’s sad imagery like this is used so often. The simple fact that some of us are defending the theme or view it as blase is very telling. And for those that would consider my viewpoint “prudish” let’s remember who the target audience is.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
If you choose to see something wrong with this, you WILL see it. I’m not defending Jacobs, who can be quite a creep, I just don’t see anything wrong with the photo. I wouldn’t trust the Mail either when it comes to being outraged either, they’re good at causing shitstorms out of nothing.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
very ” smell my little flower” :it’s a few provocative but not worse than her in Cherry Bomb in THE RUNAWAYS and the perfume is propably for the teens
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Marc Jacobs’s perfume’s ads (for men) remind me of those Tom Ford came up with not long ago: perfume bottles placed right on people’s crotch and ass. Bang’s ads are not only tacky, but unoriginal too.
The top picture of a Lolita-styled Fanning is wrong, there’s nothing innocent about the way the bottle was placed, nor is the way she’s staring at the camera. But just wait until the super modern people and pedo wannabes show up here to say we’re overreacting.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I find this to be sad and disturbing. Where are her parents? She seemed to have escaped the oversexualization of Hollywood until now. Way to go Jacobs.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I don’t think the picture is that bad, but I think they could’ve made it naughty without the bottle on her underage lady parts. As far as the ads with Marc Jacobs himself, didn’t Tom Ford (my first choice for a BF if I was a gay dude) do this a few years ago?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I saw Bieber rips off of the Lola bottle couldn’t he or his people come up with something new and what is Justin Bieber doing make a perfume first it was nail polish and now this what next female underwear. The sad thing is these little teeny boppers well buy his crap.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Pervertic….smell my sweet flower??? That bottle could have been in her hand not her crotch!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Shay, I agree about the aspect of objectification of women, much less a very young girl. On the one hand, I’m not sure Dakota Fanning gets that, too. Truthfully, I roll my eyes more at the idea that this is a campaign that’s trying too hard to be shocking or controversial. I’m not really offended by the photo, but I am offended by the lack of creative avenue. Trying to go for shock value doesn’t necessarily equate compelling and artistic.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I’m sensing a theme here.
(between the legs positioning…he might as well use a neon arrow). The “bang” ad is pretty silly looking.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
The picture is certainly suggestive,but Dakota is 17, practically an adult. Hardly a big deal.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Honestly, there isn’t that much of a difference between 17 and 18. It’s not like BAM your 18 and all of a sudden more mature. And as for the objectification of women, I think women do that to themselves. When you go out to the bar flaunting your wears, what do you expect? So it’s ok for us to act like sex objects, and then expect men to not think like that? It’s absurd. As for the ad, it’s the epitome of bad taste. But she’s 17, hardly a child.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Bless you Anna, for being a voice of reason.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
That’s just gross…
@Anna, I agree with your point about 17 and 18′, but even for an 18 year old it’s still gross, in fact for anyone other than a p0rn star its just gross.
I’m not sure you can simply blame women for the objectification of women, I don’t agree its that straightforward
Whatever happened to subletly? Art is supposeed to make you think not just smack u in the face with the most obvious in an attempt to be controversial
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I’m starting to think that Mrs. Fanning is giving Kris Jenner a run for her money in the ‘pimp my daughters’ sweepstakes.
New reality show soon? Fawning Over the Fannings?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I agree @ladybert62
Eww.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I am a fan of Marc Jacobs fragrances, and I love her dress. She looks adorable. WHY the flower in the crotch? It just ruins it. There are so many more creative directions they could have gone with this beautiful girl that would have been more appropriate, creative, and would have resulted in a much better ad. It seems like this is the easy way out. Get a little buzz and controversy, alright, done! Disappointing.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
well thank god she is not 12………………… jezz!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
My larger question would be why is a 17 (18) year old the spokesperson for this perfume in the first place. Being an adult female and seeing someone her age in an ad would not make me want to purchase this product It is basically just silly marketing–”let’s deflower the kid”–just does not make me want to buy the perfume.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
nothing wrong with this imagery?
to all of the people who think this…
YOU. ARE. WRONG.
Marc Jacobs should be ashamed; Dakota Fanning’s parents should be ashamed; Dakota Fanning should be ashamed.
I actually really respect her abilities as an actress who is able to normalize her profession, but this…is debased and depraved and not role-model behaviour.
She IS 17, not 6, so shouldn’t she understand the position that she places herself in? It is a poor compromise.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I think the pictures are quite pretty. She’s over the age of consent here, as it happens.
The fashion industry uses inappropriately young models all the time. Heat magazine dragged out some photos of a 17 year old Kate Moss modelling wedding dresses, and no 17 year old should be contemplating marriage! But raising hell at the fashion industry over using incredibly young girls (14 and 15 seems to be the average age to start now, many girls actually peak at 17/18!) would be far more effective than moaning about one specific actress, just because you know her age.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
If she didn’t have a come hither face with a giant flower seemingly sprouting from her crotch and a pink filter, the picture would probably be fine.
So what I’m saying here is, ew.
Also, taking pictures like that is risky for a young actress, she might get herself a silly nickname like Flower Crotch.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Juergen Teller’s work is craptastic.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Good Lord, PEOPLE! I see a pic of a teenager wearing a dress whose hem-length is currently in fashion, looking at the camera with a pleasant – but innocent – expression on her face. And she just happens to be balancing an EXTRA LARGE bottle of perfume on her lap. Seems casual and non-provocative to me. (And I AM a prude . . . and an excellent mother to two daughters – one of whom is a college freshman who has never tried cigarettes, alchohol, drugs . . . nor has she ever even kissed a boy…or girl.)
Report this comment as spam or abuse
What’s the difference between that guy above posing with the bottle on his crotch and this 17 year old? Same crap but marketing is sugar coating it.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
That’s actually pretty funny in its obviousness. Also, Dakota Fanning is 17, not 7. Do you really think she didn’t get the suggestiveness of the photo? Some of you seem to be under the impression that because she’s been acting since childhood and she’s such a level-headed actress that she’s asexual or something, which isn’t the case. A 17-year-old girl wanting to look sexy is nothing new, nor is it something to be ashamed of.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
gosh, her and her sister are so effing cute!
that being said, i feel like some of you people are just so delusional.
she’s not on 16 and pregnant, get over it. im sure MOST of you were boning by the time you were 15. this is 2011, America.
and unlike those babies having babies on REALITY shows, Dakota Fanning is an award winning and well respected Actress.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Uh…discretion out the window much?
@Anna: I understand what you’re trying to say, but by your logic, it can be argued that some children are more mature than other children, and some kids are ready for sex while other kids are still only ready for the chemistry that comes with being in a kitchen baking cupcakes. There has to be a line somewhere. Call me whatever you want, but no child is ready for exploitation, even when they think they are. And the fashion industry should step off and only feature consenting adults. Doesn’t anyone here remember what sort of stupidity is produced through your teens?!?!? You think you know everything then, when you really know nothing. Even about yourself.
@Crash: agree completely. If you give a pig a pancake…
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Also, I would like to add that Justin Beiber is a full-on female masquerading as a boy. And a bad masquerade at that. Who does he think he’s kidding?
edit: and by “female” I mean ridiculously, flamboyantly gay. I’m not suggesting he’s a girl in drag.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Honestly, I didn’t even see where the bottle was until you mentioned it. And, I don’t see lasciviousness in her expression. It all looks rather blank and tepid to me.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Boring, overused, unimaginative. Offensive? Yes. But not in a provocative way. Just in a way that makes me tired. We know that ‘sex sells’ but do we really need to stick the perfume bottle in her crotch? I and I know she is “17 not 7″ but she is an icon of a child actress to us – we all know and think of Dakota as a child. All this just makes me sad. And I echo the sentiments, “What were Dakota and her parents thinking?” Pure consumerist trash.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
The only part that annoyed me is the way the bottle’s pointy bit is digging in between her thighs, like a damn dong. If she had been holding it slightly higher, or holding the bottle from the bottom so it doesnt dig like that…. it wuda made a world of a difference. And STILL fit in with the “Lola” image. But this, is just gross.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
My vote: gross and very inappropriate. Disappointing!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I wrote a novel on the Elle Fanning photo spread, so I’m not gonna say much. I just think this picture is dumb. It seems so lame and obvious and transparent. This girl is beautiful, and here she just looks bored and over it. Just like me.
Except the dress. I love the dress.
And the Fanning girls.
but these pictures lately. ugh.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
beautiful photo. those who see there’s any unappropriated content are completely brainwashed by massive propaganda machine!!!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
It’s a gorgeous picture of a gorgeous young woman. It’s a touch racy (and admittedly it’s terribly kitschy/obvious, Juergen Teller should be ashamed) but she’s not Fern from Charlotte’s Web, or Sally from Cat in the hat. Which is obviously what some people still have stuck in their heads. It’s like seeing some distant relative whom you haven’t seen since they were nine year old. You still think of them that way. I’m sure many/most young actors and actresses have that problem.
Plenty of less savory examples of that over the years.
Report this comment as spam or abuse