**Trigger Warning**
This is Sarah’s Story, an awareness raising ad from the Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Association, that was shown in 60 cinemas across the UK in January and February this year:
I can (sort of) understand what the ad is trying to say, but at the same time I find the whole thing problematic on so many levels I think the message the ad was intended to convey gets completely lost:
As part of the campaign we have created a 90-second film which is intended to convey the emotional impact of receiving a diagnosis of MND. It tells the story of a young woman who is suddenly ‘attacked’ by MND.
But that’s not the only story being told here, is it?
Unless the viewer knows beforehand what this ad’s about, they could also read it as some kind of rape/sexual violence awareness raising campaign, attempting to show how rape or sexual assault can have a long-term impact on a victim’s mental as well as physical health.
Or alternatively they could see it as yet another gratuitous use of rape imagery to shock people into sitting up and taking notice of an entirely unrelated issue…..
The Sarah in Sarah’s Story is based on Sarah Ezekiel, who was diagnosed with MND when she was 34 years old and seven months pregnant with her second child. Sarah actually appears in the film herself, or at least her body does, with the actor’s head superimposed for the sake of continuity.
According to the real Sarah, once she received her diagnosis, her then husband became both verbally and physically abusive towards her. But there’s no indication from anyone involved in the film that that abuse forms any part of this story. In fact there’s a film about the making of the ad here, where the director and the actor talk about how they’re trying to “physicalise the disease as an attacker, as if it was a human being attacking”
“There’s a feeling there’s somebody else there, attacking her body”
and ripping all her clothes off so she’s down to her underwear? And dragging her slowly across the floor……
To be honest I had one of those “is it just me?” moments when I watched this; you know, one of those moments when you see something and you know you feel uncomfortable about it for some reason but you wonder if you’re the only one that feels that way. When you start to doubt yourself and to wonder if the problem’s actually with you not with what you’re looking at. When you have to tell yourself “fuck it, if I’m wrong I’m wrong, but I’m going to have to say something ‘cos I really don’t think I am”, so I was pleased/interested/relieved to see that the film’s provoked a heated debate on the BBC’s Ouch! disability message boards, with posters there finding the film as problematic as I do.
At the bottom of the Sarah’s Story website there’s the usual: “Would you like to speak to someone about the issues raised in this film?” followed by contact details for the MNDA. I’d like to suggest they add the contact details for Rape Crisis as well.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Well, that was gratuitous. It was the tit-shot that clinched it – the “let’s just linger a while on this lovely cleavage” moment. And I don’t think I do know how it feels to get MND now, either. Unless it feels unpleasantly sexy.
My closest friend, whom lost one of her twin daughters to cancer a few years ago, is now struggling with her other daughter’s recent diagnosis of MND. I’m glad she’s not on the internet and we haven’t seen the ad at the cinema. It would only add to her distress.
So WTF does a disease have to do with your clothes being ripped off? Actually MND affects more men than women. And we’ve all heard of Stephen Hawking, so why use a woman in the ad at all?
Oh I see – naked women grab people’s attention. Whereas a dude who does physics doesn’t.
And did Sarah’s husbands abusive behaviour have anything to do with her disease, or was he just waiting around for an opportunity?
I think it’s awful: very badly misjudged.
Without reading the post, I would have thought it was about rape until it became clear. Even leaving aside the underwear element, the first two or three frames are almost willfully phallic, and I can’t imagine a director being that unaware of what he’s showing onscreen.
I can’t bring myself to watch it.
Yeah, I didn’t really get the whole clothes flying off thing. Unless it was something to do with a carer having to clean you up/wash you, in which case you wouldn’t be sat in your underwear, you would be mostly under a sheet with one person only seeing your bits in order to clean them. A bit odd really.
Yeah Biskieboo I took the clothes being ripped off as suggestion of loss of bodily integrity brought about by dependence on intimate care by the unacquainted. However, yes, all of it, badly executed and problematic on many levels – to say the least.
And patients are naked when nurses are using lifting equipment/ hoists for bathing. This sequence is demonstrating loss of dignity whilst experiencing incapacity.
Yes, I know, horribly deficient, both from a MND sufferer perspective and for what seems to be typical mainstreamed sexualised violence against women used ad nauseam to communicate a message.
I meant to say that the underwear ‘symbolizes’ nakedness.
But why not show a man in his underwear? As more men get the disease……
But why not show a man in his underwear? As more men get the disease……
This would have had a greater impact – imnsho.
Well it might have stuck in people’s minds, but I suspect it would be one of those ads you can remember, but not be able to remember what was being advertised.
Oh and here’s a Canadian Ad on the same theme….
Given our society is saturated with pornography and yes it is mainstream it is not surprising this young woman was portrayed not as a woman suffering from MND but as a dehumanised sexualised commodity.
This is what happens when society reaches saturation point, every woman has to be shown in a sexualised male titilating manner. It becomes even more evident when compared with the Canadian advertisement. The Canadian advertisement does not show the man losing his clothes and neither does the camera linger on the man’s genitalia. No men are treated with dignity and respect – but women – well as we know women aren’t human their only value lies in being sexualised.
So who cares if this woman suffers from MND – her body is portrayed as ‘sex’ and that apparently is the only point for making this film.
OMFG, I watched the clip – the first part is most definitely like a rape sequence, it’s not your imagination Cath. This CSA is most definitely triggering for any victims of rape or domestic violence. The makers of this film may be concerned about the sufferers of MND, but obviously don’t give a flying fuck about victims of sexual assault or DV.
What a contrast with the Canadian CSA.
Apparently it is possible to make a CSA without showing sexual violence towards females. Who knew?
Dear goodness, that’s appalling.
How many rapists were on the advertising team that came up with this. WTF is it with advertising and rape? They don’t seem to be able to get enough of it.
The invisible man did it of course. Fuckers.
Jim Weedon’s the bloke responsible. Quote:
You are so right about the invisible manz, delphyne.
It’s hot sexxayy disability again. The MS society pulled a similar stunt last year with women talking about how MS affected them wearing high heels and having sex. And one solitary man talking about how MS stopped him having a job. Of course.
I have watched this film, and for the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could sexualise these shocking, repulsive images. Girls I think you are reading far too much into this. IMHO this ad shows the rapid and brutal physical degeneration of a poised, successful and independent female into a dependent cripple, stripped of dignity, independence and her sexuality (the brief pan of the camera on her cleavage in one shot contrasts neatly with another in long shot which presents it as non sexual, perhaps non existant) i agree that the sudden attack may be similar to a rape..but so would a film about a woman knocked over by a bus. I dont want to be deliberately contrary in my opinion here(although I know you girls earnestly believe that all men, especially those who love porn, are LIARS and RAPISTS anyway)but for fuck’s, for celibacy’s sake, for the chopping off of all mens’ nuts sake… get a fucking grip!!
Fer gawd’s sake raaaammmiiieee MRA (Very Offensive), pay attention!
Contrast the SAME subject matter with a male shown, there was no ripping off of his clothes, no shot of the bulge in his trousers, no violent throwing around of his body.
You really need to be re-banned. For the dual crimes of being both boring and stoopid.
Thank you Stormy..ritualistic abuse and attempts to belittle the male (served here with a light-but-sharp sprinkling of racist stereotyping “pay attention” etc etc) is an implied tool of feminist discourse. But anyway….It would appear to me that most understand what “The construction of the feminine” is, because the construct is that which we see everyday on TV, billboards, cinema driving mass communications. Why pick such a heavy cudgel for one run-of -the mill ad? It’s as pathetic as announcing that romantic poetry in the English canon is responsible for perpetuating low self esteem in women. Commercial filmmakers must communicate in the language that’s available to them..why should they confer with the feminist lobby before shooting a reel? Anyway..your point is silly anyway because the ad being discussed is the one shown here..now if it was run on tv simultaneously with that of a bloke (as you imagine) then you would have a point and I would gladly eat my fedora.
anyway…I have decided that there is no point in arguing with feminists about female oppression..its much like white people condescending to tell me what black oppression is about..so I will shut my cake hole henceforth, and let you ladies get on with it. I am keeping those DVDs though.LOL
While the makers of a ‘text’ such as this advert might mean to ‘encode’ a meaning in a certain way so as to secure a ’preferred’ reading from their target audience – in reality individuals still make sense of text in different ways. Moreover, not only individuality but the social position of the decoder also influences the way in which the text is decoded.
Therefore, as an informed woman, I believe the producers here are seen to be utilizing the prevalent and acceptable genre of using sexualised violence against women to push their message.
In actual fact, interpretation (decoding) work that involves individuals or audiences needs to be regarded as a practice in its own right.
Stuart Hall stressed the role of social positioning in the interpretation of mass media texts by different social groups.
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem08c.html
I.e.
“oppositional (‘counter-hegemonic’) reading: the reader, whose social situation places them in a directly oppositional relation to the dominant code, understands the preferred reading but does not share the text’s code and rejects this reading, bringing to bear an alternative frame of reference (radical, feminist etc.)”
Gosh you’re so brainy sparks.
Thanks Polly and I have one more. 😉
There are two different details here. Firstly, the diverse decoding due to individual frames of reference and secondly the continuous use by mainstream media to use the portrayal of sexualized violence against women to communicate anything from a PSA to commercial advertising.
So, while some may not agree with our decoding; who is anyone to say it’s “wrong“ where a plethora of diverse understandings are likely to draw, as I have said – a totally different set of life experiences, expectations and interpretations.
Interesting note: seemingly bestowals of liberty (whilst decrying socialism) are very often the first ones to attempt to censure dialogue. The paradox – it has you.
Leap of logic alert!
The phrase “pay attention!” is deemed racist when directed at a manz.
Who knew?
ok.hands up i cheekily plyed the race card here..but hey..women are always playing the gender card..which is fair game too.whats the point of having a card and not playing it?
BTW..who’s been re-reading Roland Barthes’ Mythologies? lol.
It’s the humanistic psychology alumna Ramiie. I don’t need to ‘re-read’ Roland Barthes.
Perhaps in Troll-land that irrelevant card playing tactic makes sense.
I hereby declare that raaaammmmmiiiie’s last ten comments were sockist. That’s right, I was wearing socks, and he insulted feminism.
Do fuck off now raaaammmiiiee.
I have never read Roland Barthes mythologies. And I think I’ll live. NB Ramiie, I can’t copy on Cath’s blog but your comment about the woman being reduced to a ‘dependent cripple’ is very ablist. And no one is going to take your DVDs away, you’re safe.
And FFS Ramiie, you’re not the only person in the world who’s been to university ya know, though you are living proof academic qualifications are not evidence of intelligence.