The Donald J. Pliner advertisement on p. 22 of the February Esquire:
At first glance - what does this image have to do with men's shoes?
We know that advertisements are very posed, very edited - pure intention. Notice the girl's little bubble skirt that's been lifted and pushed back. Why do we see the shadow where her inner thighs nearly touch? The suggestion in the shadow is probably more tantalizing than a peak of fabric. I'm wondering how much she's been airbrushed, because her legs look oddly prosthetic or otherwise marmoreal. And why should someone who looks to be seven have her nonexistent waist accentuated with a hot pink belt? The top of her dress is so oversized and stiff on her chest that it rises to meet her chin. An illusion of breasts? The worst part: her bottom is nestled into Donald Pliner's crotch. His legs parted and dangling. Her weak strap falling.
Put her in some fucking cords and silly broad horizontal stripes. What happened to children dressed like happy little elves? Photographer - at least sit her on the chair of the arm. If you want to depict a family man, find some more children to plant into your image.
I hate the crook in his eyebrows, the controlled hair, the suspicious lack of wrinkles on the glabrous gleam of his face. His ornate neck and wrist only look tawdry. Come on, sunglasses indoors? Thin lips, dark eyes. He has a filthy, furtive look about him. Certainly not paternal, grandfatherly, or remotely philoprogenitive. Louche!
Aw man - what if this child is actually related to Donald J. Pliner.
I've never been so immediately repulsed by an advertisement. I know I'm not making too much out of it - there are simply too many indications. What do you think?
He should return to ads with fluffy dogs, yes?
And in the same issue of Esquire, a misleading article on the Supreme Court.
How I wish Domino were still around to bolster non-news/image-filled magazines!