This striking, provocative, and, at first-glance, disturbing ad was created by the nonprofit organization Moms Demand Action, which works to promote gun control. The group formed the day after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, and started as an online Facebook campaign, quickly gaining in size and recognition. In the short year that they have been in existence, Moms Demand Action has grown to boast over 130,000 members who represent all 50 states. Although I was unable to find out where the ads, like the one I chose, were distributed, I would guess that they were seen online.
Everything about this image is compelling, but undoubtedly the eye goes first to the young girl holding the machine gun. What is she doing with the weapon? Why does she have the weapon in the first place? And why, which is the second focal point, is there another young girl sitting next to her, positioned side-by-side in the middle of the picture, with the same expression, posture, and seemingly importance holding a picture book? This is what Moms does ingeniously. You cannot look away from the ad without reading further into it to find the answers to these questions. You then discover their equally ingenious argument through the accompanying text that if Little Red Riding Hood is banned, then why haven't we banned assault weapons already? So we've "protected" children from the dangers of wine, but we have yet to do the same for assault weapons. How is this possible? Well, this is what Moms Demand Action wants you to advocate with them for.
And how could you not? The image and text work hand in hand to overload the viewer with pathos. Automatically, the girl with the assault weapon alone evokes shock and, to a certain degree, horror within the viewer, while she sits criss-cross-apple-sauce-ed in a library as if she is waiting for story time. No more than 8 years old, you can't help but want to protect her from the danger of the weapon. Even if you are opposed to gun control, after observing the image, you cant help but be swayed in opinion, or at least considerably consider the argument for it.
The text, white against the drab background of shades of brown, places its significance at the same level as that of the picture itself. The irony of the tone is designed to evoke anger in the presented misdirection of action in which we are protecting American children, both in fact (that Little Red is banned but assault weapons are not), and in it's call to "guess which one".
"Moms Demand Action" certainly took a risk with this specific campaign. Although you cant argue with their facts, their images of young children, specifically in this ad young girls, seen holding machine guns may seem outrageous to many and are certainly shocking to all. But its effectiveness is unquestionable. Even if it doesn't convince the firmest of viewers in their opinion on gun control, it does make all who view it at least question what we value as "protecting" our children.
"Moms Demand Action" Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moms_Demand_Action
Since you read yours in class I already gave you a note on your paper but just to reiterate. This was a very concise post. I love your rhetorical questions, as well as your italiced words, they really add to the overall success of this post. The only thing, you should add more analysis about color because the colors play a larger role then what you have said. But overall, a very nice analysis. Good job!
ReplyDelete