DOES THAT SOUND SMALL TO YOU?

There’s an advert on TV at the moment for Sky Broadband. The advert features the American actor Bruce Willis playing the American actor Bruce Willis. In the advert, Bruce Willis (played by Bruce Willis) marches into the office of his broadband supplier to complain about his service:

Bruce Willis (here playing Bruce Willis) appears to have walked into this office wearing pyjamas and a dressing gown. It’s not the sort of thing you’d expect Bruce Willis to be wearing in public. Why is Bruce Willis in his pyjamas?

Those two men shaking hands on the left there don’t even seem to have noticed the fact that Bruce Willis has just walked in wearing a dressing gown. If I worked in that office and Bruce Willis walked in wearing a dressing gown, I would definitely look round. “That’s Bruce Willis” I’d think. “Why is he in his dressing gown?”

Watching the advert, I assume the implication is that Bruce Willis’ character (played by Bruce Willis) was at home using his laptop when his broadband failed and he became so enraged that he stormed out of the door to complain face-to-face without stopping to get dressed.

There are several problems with this scenario though.

Let’s assume it’s true. Bruce Willis is at home in his pyjamas, maybe in a dressing gown. He’s using his laptop. Suddenly his broadband service is interrupted. He jumps up (grabs a dressing gown if he wasn’t already wearing one) and storms out the door to confront his lousy broadband suppliers.

But how does he know where to go? I use BT Broadband. I wouldn’t know where to go if I wanted to complain. OK, so let’s say he has a bill to hand. Maybe it came in that morning’s post, or it came the day before and was stuck to the front of his fridge with a novelty magnet he picked up on a recent holiday. He grabs the bill, looks at address, then shoves it in the pocket of his dressing gown.

OK, he now knows where he needs to go, but it’s unlikely that he’d recognise the address. He goes back, grabs his phone, then looks up the postcode. Is it likely that he lives walking distance from his broadband supplier? Not really. He goes back inside for a third time, grabs his wallet and his car keys and storms out again.

By this time, I’d be thinking that maybe it would be easier to just phone up rather than go there in person. I’d probably also think that it might be a good idea to get dressed properly.

But let’s assume that Willis’ character (Bruce) has tried phoning them in the past and it’s never worked. First you have to go through the automated call centre, entering your account number and other details, then you’re put on hold for ages, and when you finally get to speak to someone, you’re told it’s not their department and they need to put you through to someone else which means being put back on hold and then having to explain the problem all over again. Also, it must be a bit annoying when you phone a call centre like that and they ask for your name and you say “Bruce Willis” and the other person laughs and says “No, really” and then you have to say “Yes, really – my name is Bruce Willis!” and then they say “What? Really? Bruce Willis? Like the actor?” and then you have to say “Well, actually, I am the actor. Bruce Willis. That’s me” and you have to go through this every single time you want to complain about your broadband or order a pizza or whatever.

Bruce Willis (played by Willis) has had enough of all that bullshit. He’s going to go there in person and he doesn’t care how impractical that might be or how cold he might get wandering through the streets in his pyjamas and dressing gown.

So, he arrives at the offices of his broadband supplier. Now what’s his plan? What does he say to the receptionist? “I want to speak to someone, I’m unhappy with my broadband service?” She recognises him. Of course she does. He’s Bruce Willis (Willis’ performance here is quite uncanny in the way he is able to so accurately capture all of Bruce Willis’ mannerisms). She lets him through. “Just take the lift” she says. “It’s OK, it very conveniently opens out into the main office floor and there aren’t any further doors you need to go through or anything.”

By this time, of course, “Bruce Willis” would already be trending on Twitter. People are posting photos of him wandering around in his dressing gown. Everyone assumes he must be on drugs.

The lift doors open and he’s in the offices of his broadband supplier (who appear to be called “Broadband”). “Who’s in charge here?” he asks. Within seconds, he’s identified the “manager”. The manager of what? The manager of “Broadband”? Surely not. I mean, just look at him. Let’s assume he’s just the Customer Services Manager. Let’s not say that he’s in a more senior role because I think the actor playing the manager is younger than me and it would be upsetting to think someone younger than me might run a company as big as “Broadband”.

Willis shows his laptop to the manager and explains the problem.

“When I’m on the internet, this keeps happening…”

On the basis of this advert, we are to assume that Bruce Willis sits around at home, in his pyjamas, streaming his own films and watching them on his laptop. Is this how Bruce Willis wants us to think of him? A lonely man sat at home, watching past glories on a small screen? And why is he streaming these films anyway? Why doesn’t he just buy them on DVD? The Die Hard Quadrilogy is only £10.99 from Amazon (on Blu-Ray, it’s £19.99)

Even more puzzling is quite how he is able to continue streaming these videos on his laptop once he reaches the offices of “Broadband”. He left his flat, carrying his laptop under one arm, but the film he was watching carried on playing. Either the signal is extremely strong (in which case, it seems churlish for Willis to complain about the occasional outage) or Willis actually lives in the same building as the offices of “Broadband”. This would also help to explain why he is still wearing his dressing gown, but it might have been helpful to have some sort of establishing shot which would illustrate this point rather than expect us to guess that for the dramatic purposes of this advert, the actor Bruce Willis happens to live downstairs from his broadband supplier.

And if it is the case that he lives downstairs from “Broadband”, then that surely reduces the impact of his “face-to-face” confrontation – turning him from an outraged customer to a slightly ratty neighbour.

The fact that Bruce lives downstairs would at least explain why those two men shaking hands were so blasé when he walked in.

Except even that doesn’t make sense. If he’s always wandering in, then why is the ginger haired woman so clearly starstruck as he walks by:

She’d be used to it if he lived downstairs and was always doing this.

As would the dark-haired woman sitting near the manager:

It’s obvious from the way she looks at him and mouths the words “Bruce Willis” that she fancies Bruce Willis. But note how she only mouths the words “Bruce Willis”, not “Bruce Willis – why is he in his pyjamas?”

Willis explains what he expects from a broadband supplier:

I don’t want smaller, I want bigger. I want helicopters shot down by police cars. I want people on the verge of mass destruction. Saving people’s lives on a daily basis. Does that sound small to you?

Although actually, considering Willis’ most famous role as John McClane, it would be more accurate to say he saves people’s lives on little more than a near-annual basis.

Hearing this impassioned speech, the dark-haired woman bites her lip in a sexy way:

She then explains that actually, Sky’s broadband service is much better because it is “totally unlimited”, adding that she is also “totally unlimited”. I think that’s meant to be sexy in some way. Willis then winks at her and the two walk out together, presumably to fuck in the toilets.

I’m not sure what this advert is trying to say. I’ve watched it about fifty or sixty times now. I’m guessing Bruce Willis hasn’t had some sort of Charlie Sheen-style breakdown, but it’s difficult to interpret it in any other way. Either he’s wandering the streets in his dressing gown, or he’s picking up girls who work in the office upstairs. Something has gone wrong in his life.

I don’t plan to change my broadband supplier as a result of this advert.

PLATFORM 6: VERY SLIGHT UPDATE

As I mentioned yesterday, I’m trying to find out what this advert, exposed as part of the renovation works at Waterloo, relates too:

Something which ended in the letter “e” was opposite platform six (I assume it’s opposite, it could have been “beside” platform six, but that seems like a slightly odd choice of words).

At the bottom of the poster, it says “Promoted by Ian Fletcher” and then “[something] Children, Pembridge Hall, Pembridge Square, London, W2″

Tom Cleaver pointed out in the comments to yesterday’s post that up until 1981, Mencap used to be called “National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children” and that they were based in Pembridge Hall, as this advert shows:

So, the “[something]” in front of “Children” is “Handicapped”. It also means whatever it was which was opposite platform six was there before Mencap changed its name in 1981. But what could this early version of Mencap be offering “instantly” opposite platform six?

Also, a couple of people mentioned that the “6″ looked a bit odd, as if it had been altered in some way. On my way home yesterday, I took another photo from the other side of the poster:

The six has been stuck on. This means either whatever it was used to be opposite a different platform and was moved, or that it was a generic poster, perhaps used in lots of different stations with the platform numbers added later.

The quest continues.

PLATFORM 6

Back in March, I had an idea of spending full day at Waterloo station. I’d take a day off work, get the same train I normally get each morning, but rather than continuing my onward journey, I’d stay in the station all day and then get the same train I normally get to go home.

It didn’t quite work out as planned and I only spent half the day at the station. Little did I know however, just how significant my timing would be. I took the 31st March off work and, though I knew that there were plans to “improve” the station, I hadn’t realised the station would change so quickly. The next day, the Sloe bar closed. Over the next few weeks, the Proteus retail units which ran along the centre of the concourse were dismantled one by one. This video captured a moment in history:

A long mezzanine floor of retail units is being built along the length of the wall facing the platforms. 1,860 square metres. 17 new “retailing opportunities”. You can’t stand in the way of progress. There’s no point living in one style and dying in another.

As part of the redevelopment, the retail units which used to surround the steps down to the Underground opposite platforms seven and eight (Cranberry, Upper Crust, Thresher, Tie Rack and TM Lewin) have also been removed. During this process, a fragment of an old poster has been revealed above the steps:

Someone was being invited to visit something (ending in “e”) which used to be somewhere near platform six (I’m guessing it’s “opposite platform 6″, or possibly “beside platform 6″, but opposite seems more likely) and whatever it was offered instantly. But who was being invited to visit what near platform six and what was available instantly?

There’s something written in small red lettering along the bottom of the advert. On the left it says “Promoted by Ian Fletcher” and then on the right it says “[something] Children, Pembridge Hall, Pembridge Square, London, W2″.

Pembridge Hall is an independent school for girls:

The school is a non-selective day school for girls aged 4 to 11 situated in Notting Hill, West London. The school opened in 1979 and was originally run by a religious order of nuns. In 1983 it moved to 18 Pembridge Square. In September 2002 it was sold to the Alpha Plus Group and in 2003 expanded into number 10 Pembridge Square and became a three-form entry school. The Alpha Plus Group Board carries out the corporate governance responsibility for all of the schools and colleges in the group.

Nuns? Anyway, let’s assume we’re looking at something from the early 1980s. It sort of looks like it’s from that period, it has that kind of Preedy brown lettering, and I need to start somewhere.

I started looking on Google for photos of Waterloo from the 1980s. I found these beautiful pictures from 1987:

My train normally leaves from that platform.

This one is good:

You can almost see something by platform six, but I don’t think it’s the same thing as in the torn advert.

Both those pictures come from this collection of photos which is part of a quite incredible website, Nosher.net and features a remarkable wealth of images from the last thirty years or so:

Perhaps in fifty or a hundred years’ time, people will look at these photos with the same curiosity as we do those of Victorian times: a brief glimpse of how life was, of strange people, strange fashions or strange activities that were once considered harmless (even though it currently remains legal to photograph almost everything in the UK). The photos are from various sources, from scans of varying quality through to a couple of gorgeous Pentax digital SLRs – the *ist D and the K10D. They’re simply a documentary of an average existence.

“Simply a documentary of an average existence” – that is a wonderful phrase.

I also found this brilliant set of photos:

There are lots of other fantastic photo sets on Steve White2008′s Flickr stream.

These photos are beautiful, but they still haven’t help me solve the mystery. I remembered the video to West End Girls by the Pet Shop Boys. There’s a bit where Neil and Chris walk through Waterloo station. It was a long shot, but maybe that would offer some sort of clue:

I like Neil’s coat.

Unfortunately, even though they walk right past platform six, there’s still nothing which helps me.

One day, I’ll find out what used to be opposite platform six. I won’t give up until I do.

EDIT: A very slight update.

BABY PREEMIE

As I mentioned yesterday, I emailed the No2AV campaign about this advert which appeared in the Birmingham Mail earlier this week:

Originally posted here: http://twitpic.com/42j5p0

I was concerned about the baby and whether, by voting “Yes” in May, I was condemming this baby to death. Unfortunately, in the twenty four hours since I emailed No2AV, I haven’t had any kind of response.

If you do a Google image search for “premature baby” this image comes up on the fourth page of results:

It sort of looks like the same baby. As Joshua Goodwin pointed out in the comments to yesterday’s post, if you do a TinEye search on the original image, it comes up with six other instances of the same image being used elsewhere.

It seems that the image originated from Getty, although it’s no longer on their site. I phoned Getty to see if they knew why the image was no longer available and spoke to a nice woman called Kirsty. She looked into it for me and discovered that the image was now available through their partner site, Thinkstock, with image packs starting at a very reasonable £39 for five images.

According to clause 3.6 of the Thinkstock Image Pack License Agreement:

If any Licensed Material featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person, Licensee must accompany each such use with a statement that indicates that: (i) the Licensed Material is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the Licensed Material, if any, is a model

Fortunately, there’s nothing unduly controversial about using an image of a premature baby in an advert campaigning against a change to the electoral system, so there’s no need to worry. The other bit of good news, is that you can vote “Yes” in May without feeling responsible for killing the baby. The same baby appeared in this story which dates back to Tuesday 12th August 2008 which means she’s almost certainly better by now. Well, either better or already dead. Either way, your vote won’t affect that baby in the slightest. She, or possibly he, almost certainly doesn’t live in Birmingham anyway and whether or not we vote “yes” or “no”, and whether or not Birmingham Children’s Hospital gets a new Children’s Heart Centre makes no difference to her, or possibly him. Of course, those of you tempted to vote “yes” simply to get the vicarious thrill of contributing to the death of a baby will no doubt be disappointed, but here is a list of Nestlé brands by way of an apology. Go down the shops and have fun.

BABY

This advert appeared in the Birmingham Mail the other day:

Originally posted here: http://twitpic.com/42j5p0

She needs a new cardiac facility
NOT
an alternative voting system

On 5th May you’ll be asked in a referendum whether you want to change our voting system to the Alternative Vote: a change that would cost our country at least £250million. Now is not the right time to be spending money that could be put to better use. Like a much-needed new Children’s Heart Centre at Birmingham Children’s Hospital.

Say NO to spending £250million on AV. Our country can’t afford it.

Now, I’m broadly in favour of voting reform but I’m pretty much against killing babies and this appears to be the choice we are being offered. I was going to vote “Yes”, but now I’m worried that by doing so, I would effectively be murdering this poor little girl. That makes me feel bad. I don’t want to murder a baby. That would be an awful thing to do.

It doesn’t really go into much detail about the girl. It doesn’t say what’s wrong with her or anything like that. She must be pretty poorly if she needs an entire hospital facility to be built. I don’t know how long it takes to plan and build a cardiac facility, probably quite a long time, so she can’t be in immediate danger, which is a relief, but I’d like to know a bit more about her condition before I decide whether or not to have her killed.

I decided to email the No2AV campaign:

Hi,

A couple of days ago, an advert for the No2AV campaign appeared in the Birmingham Mail featuring a picture of a baby girl and the message “She needs a new cardiac facility NOT an alternative voting system”.

The advert explained that the £250million which would be spent switching to AV could be better spent on a new Children’s Heart Centre at Birmingham Children’s Hospital. I was just wondering if you had any background information on who the baby is and what her condition is. I really don’t want the baby to die just because I voted “yes” and so I want to have all the facts at hand before I decide how to vote.

This is the deciding factor in whether I vote “yes” or “no”, so any information would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,
James

I hope they reply soon, my vote hangs in the balance.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 159 other followers

%d bloggers like this: