Gisèle Bündchen stars in Chanel N°5 latest commercial

After all the teasing and taunting the new commercial for Chanel N°5 has been released.

Starring Brazilian supermodel (such a cliché) and directed by Australian Baz Luhrmann, it is without doubt an advertising "masterpiece" (which means it captures your attention, if only for its extravagance), running to over three minutes at its longest version and featuring all the glamour and style you would expect.

Gisèle Bündchen (screenshot from Chanel N°5: "The One That I Want - The Film"

But does the self-proclaimed "world's most desirable fragrance" need to spend the spondoolicks on a campaign (and a launch party) for a product which already projects an image of unobtainable luxury.

Bündchen alone was reportedly paid $4 million for her role (admittedly less than the $7 million Brad Pitt apparently received for his yawn-along part in a previous commercial) - and that launch party in New York?

Gisèle Bündchen (screenshot from Chanel N°5: "The One That I Want - The Film

Well, as usual, Chanel is keeping mum about the figures. But the marketing people must know what they're doing - n'est ce pas?

Opinions are divided over the new commercial. "Wonderful" for some, "average" for others.

Perhaps the most captivating element as, in the words of the New York Times review, Bündchen "an overtaxed modern gal" struggles with the complexities of every day life (as if) such as "surfing in the Hamptons, sending her daughter off in the care of a nanny, getting in a quick photo shoot and reuniting with her man for a canoodle at a jazz club" is the background track.

It's an almost soporofic but at the same time hypnotic remake by US singer-songwriter Matthew Hemerlein - better known (apparently) under his stage name Lo-Fang - of the appropriately entitled (for the purposes of the commercial) "You're the won that I want" from the 1978 film version of the musical "Grease"

Conclusion - beautifully shot, definitely bewitching on first viewing (it holds your attention) but as triumphant as previous campaigns - the jury's out.

And whether, as Luhrmann insists, Bündchen "is the perfect modern No.5 woman" - well the answer is a resounding "no."

That accolade belongs - and this is going to appear entirely contradictory to many probably - to the woman, who when asked what she wore in bed, famously said "Chanel No. 5, of course".


Marilyn Monroe surely remains as modern today as she did back in April 1960 - a fact Chanel recognised in a 2012 retro (in fashion you just have to wait a bit for the "old" to become "new" again) campaign.

Marilyn Monroe (screenshot from "Marilyn and N°5 - Inside Chanel")

Marilyn Monroe (screenshot from "Marilyn and N°5 - Inside Chanel")

Anyway, here's Bündchen in Luhrmann's "mini-film" commercial.

You judge for yourselves.

Do the French really need 72-hour antiperspirant protection? Does anyone?

There's a myth - still doing the rounds apparently - that the French don't like washing and instead prefer to douse themselves with perfume.

Take a look at this dumb question posted on a health forum and answered last year.

In 2005 the BBC's Denise Winterman looked at some of the reasons the British in particular might still hold (ignorant) stereotypical notions of French toiletry habits.

It was one element in an article exploring how some British viewed "their cross-channel neighbours with suspicion and antipathy."

That the French have an aversion to soap and water or - at least are not as clean as other nationalities - is of course more than just fallacy. It's discourteous, xenophobic and has no place in the minds of any sane thinking person.

So why then do the manufacturers of antiperspirants choose to market a product to the French that promises "48 hour protection"?

And there's worse still in terms of their judgement on the perceived personal hygiene needs of the French because some also offer 72-hours-worth of "security".

Who the heck needs 72-hour protection?

That's three whole days of accumulated perspiration for men or glow for women - bearing in mind that only horses "sweat".

What in heaven's name is going through the minds of manufacturers when they come up with the idea that anybody requires such a product in everyday life?

This apparent desire not to wash and instead use a deodorant is admittedly not just a French phenomenon - at least not if the commercials are to believed

Scoot around YouTube and you'll pull up any number of ads from countries around the world all presenting the virtues of 48 and 72-hour protection.



Here are just a few - some tasteful - others less so.







What next? 96 hours perhaps.

It gives new meaning to the reaction "Hum"