Nina Simone's Sinnerman on television commercials and movies

I was thinking about commercials again last night. There are several (recently cell phone commercials) that are using a song that probably everyone knows from the climax of the Thomas Crown Affair remake with Pierce Brosnan. But the question is what is the song that really makes that scene move?

It's a catchy song and I had to figure out who made it. Turns out that the song, Sinnerman, is old. Real old. It goes back to roughly 1900, but the version that we know today was the Jazz Gospel version done by Nina Simone in 1965. The full song goes as follows:



This song is great. But what you may not have noticed is that it's having a surge of interest lately. Since 1999 the song in some version (usually this one) has appeared in 12 movies. It's been on 11 television shows, including Top Gear in the U.K. and the anime series Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex 2nd GIG. That does not include the multiple television commercials and video games it can be found on as well.

Nina Simone, who died in 2003 at the age of 70, was an pianist, singer, songwriter, and civil rights activist. Her musical style encompassed classical, jazz, blues, gospel, pop and R&B. Her music is still often samples by hip hop artists and she was an influence for Mos Def among others.

There are even plans for a movie based on the life of Simone. It's expected to be released in 2012. May J. Blige is planned to play the role of Simone. I only hope that Blige can do justice to this artist both musically and in her acting.

If you are interested in hearing more of Nina Simone's work you won't have trouble finding her work. She has albulms spanning 1959 up to 2009, though the albums from 1997 on are compliations and remixes of her work. Her last album was in 1975 making her career span 16 years, which is better than many artists today.

So the next time you hear Sinnerman on a television cmmercial or in a movie, you won't have to wonder who did that song any more.

Left for Dead 2 television commercial: What is that song?

So have you seen the Let for Dead 2 video game commercial? I'm sure most have by now. It's all over television.

The commercial itself is pretty common considering the genre. Blast the zombies and stay alive. Nothing all that new for an FPS (first person shooter), though it has gotten high marks from the reviews I've seen.

Honestly I wouldn't even think about the game as I generally don't bother with FPS video games (Resident Evil excepted). But it's the commercial. The damn thing just sticks in my mind. Actually the background song of the television commercial - Bang Bang Bang Bang, Vamanos! Vamanos!



It just lingers. I have to say that it is the best part of the whole game commercial. It almost makes me want to go out and buy the game. Almost, but it is highly likely that the musioc won't be in the game itself.

So if you are like me, here is who made the song. The band is called Clutch, and they've been around since 1990. They play funk and heavy metal. Also they do hardcore punk and blues rock. The last is very much what is in this song.

The song is called Electric Worry. It sounds like it has it's inspiration in Muddy Waters. If you don't know Waters, definitely check him out. Here is the video (which really needs work).



And if you wanted to see a bit more of Left for Dead and the sequel, to this same song, I also found a nice fanvideo.

Warning - This is a bit graphic in violence and gore.

Guinness goes after African American middle class

I saw a really cool commercial for guinness beer today. You might have noticed it recently as it just came out on the 9th of this month. It's called Fortune Favors The Bold.

The concept of the commercial is a lone pint of Guinness beer is poured and then sent sliding down a bar. It continues across a rail, over the hood of a taxi, down the street on a skateboard, across a construction I-beam, to a window sill. Inside the office of that same window sill we see a smartly dress Black guy closing a deal with another businessman. The Black guy obviously has the upper hand and the beer arrives just as he closes the deal to his satisfaction. He then picks up the beer and toasts the deal.

I've been looking for the video of this commercial but have yet to find it. [Update - thanks to a reader, I know have the video]



It's really well done on multiple levels. It's obviously targeted to African Americans and the middle class. It's not about hip hop or being ghettofabulous. It's smooth and interesting.

Of the many commercials that are targeted solely to African Americans this is one of the best I've seen in a long time. In fact I think that McDonald's, Burger King, and American Express can learn a lot from this commercial - just to name a companies that seem to have no idea how to market to the Black community without blaring music and hip hop.

It's yet another sign that some in advertising understand that the Black community is not a single uniform entity that can only be approached with street slang and minstrel-like joviality. Nor are we so unaware of what is happening that we don't notice when we are made to be the butt of jokes or marginalized in a commercial that seemingly is supposed to endear us to this brand or that.

Considering the roughly $1 trillion in buying power that African Americans use every year, the approach by Guinness is a refreshing change of pace.

Now if I can just find that video clip.

Tiger Woods is back; just not at Accenture Match Play

Tiger Woods is back on the PGA Tour. There is almost nothing that can be said about his return that the following commercial by Nike does not capture.



Yes the party is over. Or is it?

Watching Tiger play in the Accenture Match Play Championship today, versus Clark tells me that the laser beam is off center.

Tiger Woods is just not as sharp as we all expect him to be. Now this is match play, so it’s not like a regular competition. And Tiger can easily be far better on different courses. But I watched him through the 11th hole. And the best he did was end up even.

This is not the Tiger that the rest of the field fears. This is not the Tiger that the fans expect. There is just no other way of stating the facts.

There were just too many shots that were not close enough, or putts that were dropping. Any other golfer in the world would be pleased, and fans would accept the results. But we are talking about the Great One. A golfer that can easily break every record, even at a severely reduced attempt to do so.

Tiger Woods has another 20 or 30 years of golf before him. So I do not doubt that he will achieve new records for other golfers to strive for. Nor do I doubt that he can win virtually at will. The only question at this point is does he want it as much as he did 5 years ago?

There is nothing wrong with having family as the first priority. And I believe that Tiger has enough endorsements and ability to take care of his family for life. In fact I think his business acumen has ensured their comfortable living standard for decades to come. But watching him today was like watching a man in quicksand.

Now it’s a given that he has not been in competition for a year. Add to that the stress of a new child. Plus there is no way I would ever match up to Tiger on his worst day with the benefit of my handicap and a great caddy. So my criticism is separate of my ability. Given.

Still I’m waiting for Tiger to turn on the fire. It seems that the WCG Accenture Match Play Championship will not be it. But once he turns it on, well the commercial says it all. Yet I can’t describe my displeasure at Woods losing on Thursday.

It’s like a vortex, like the bear market, like the prospects of the stimulus plan working. We all want it to succeed, but we know it just isn’t happening. But unlike the rest of the economy, or the pipe dreams of Democrats, I believe Woods will pull through. And so do you.

The ratings for Woods first match back are up 50% from a year ago. That’s good news for the PGA, the players and fans. Imagine once Tiger gets back into the swing of things.

Well enough rambling. Tiger Woods is back. The trophies are waiting. And I wouldn’t bet against him even with Vegas odds.

PETA promotes soft core porn?

Wow. The people at PETA are really something else.

Warning, the following video is highly suggestive and therefore may not be appropriate for anyone under 18.



Now here is the question. Is PETA promoting sex with vegetables?

That seems to be the only thing that this ad is promoting. Fetish sex. It does nothing to say that wearing a mink in Miami is wasteful or cruel. It does nothing to explain why pitbull fights are a horrendous act of depraved human beings.

Now I love animals as much as the average person. I can agree with a few of the things that PETA is against. But I am no fanatic. I love a good steak and cheeseburger. So PETA is targeting me in this ad that was rejected for the Super Bowl.

But beyond the suggestion that these women are using these vegetables as a means of self-gratification I don’t get the point. In fact the only thing that this commercial would make me wonder, besides what I have already stated, is where did the statistics on vegetarians come from? It’s not like I trust PETA enough to just take them at their word.

The only controversy in this television ad is what the woman is doing with the pumpkin, since the other women are very explicit in what they intend to do with their vegetables.

But PETA has me discussing this ad. So they are getting part of what they wanted. The problem is that I’m not discussing helping any animals. Nor am I thinking that being a vegetarian is of any more benefit than holding a carrot on a date.

They have failed their base, annoyed ultra-conservatives, titillated more than a few pre-teens, and exposed kids to a new fetish they probably didn't know of. And not one animal has benefited from the ad. At least they helped the women in the ad stay employed. That’s a positive.

Nerf - too real or just right?

I was speaking with friends about the state of Black buying power, the economy, and what I noticed about the Audi television commercial when the subject of Nerf toys came up. It may sound odd but it made sense in the course of the conversation. With the holiday season about to go full blast with Black Friday mere days away, there is no end to commercials targeting the latest gadget that a kid today might want. But the question is what are they really getting?

I remember Nerf from almost the beginning. The first Nerf toy I recall was the Nerf football. They were spongy and small, but cheap and useful indoors as well as in the street. You only need to throw one bad pass that hits a car or a window to appreciate the Nerf foam. In the middle of the Bronx playing in the street you are bound to hit one or the other. So suffice to say I have fond memories of Nerf.

And then as I grew up, Nerf grew up faster. And not only for my generation, for all of the ones afterwards as well. Their were Nerf guns of every sort, but at first there was no comparison to an actual gun in any manner. On Saturday I noticed the latest toy commercial from Hasbro, the NERF N-STRIKE LONGSHOT CS-6

What the hell has happened. Nerf is selling guns, military guns to kids. The abovementioned toy is a kids version of a sniper rifle. And there is the NERF N-STRIKE VULCAN EBF-25 YELLOW which I defy anyone from describing as not looking like a SAW or M60 machinegun. And people wonder if kids are getting violent because of video games.

Now I’m not against guns, nor do I think kids shouldn’t be allowed to rough-house. It’s part of growing up and it has it’s own lessons to teach kids. Within reason.

There is a big difference between kids playing cops and robbers, to planning out and executing small squad tatical assaults. There is a dramatic difference of teaching a kid to hunt and respect a weapon and sitting in the backyard with a foam sniper rifle waiting for the neighbor to get home. It’s just wrong. And there is no comparison to when I grew up.

Yes kids live in a world with terrorists, 24 hour news, drive-by shootings, and drug gang wars. Given. Still how helpful can it be when we are arming these children and sending them out to play wargames with weapons fashioned after the military? How can we be surprised when some of these same kids go out and use a real gun?

I’m not blaming Columbine, or the recent double murder committed by an 8 year old, on Nerf. Nor is it guns that I am upset by. A gun is no more dangerous than a rock, until it is picked up with intent. I’m upset with the media and parents.

The media selectively chooses to pick on aspects of the lives of children to blame when something goes wrong. Oblivious to the force-feeding they do in the name of marketing and advertising dollars. They blame video games for more violent kids, while advertising those games and more importantly these real world military assault weapon substitutes. And then say they have no connection to the problem at hand.

And parents that buy these toys for their kids. What are they thinking? That if they give little Tommy a gun similar to the one in their video game, and send them outside to shoot the neighborhood kids, it’s ok because they got him up from the television set? IF that’s the choice, leave them on the video game At least some of those games involve creatures that can never be confused with a human being.

I admit that I like the Nerf Longshot. Then again I am a 40 year old man, that served in the military, and find the resemblence of the toy to a sniper rifle appealing on a level. I can’t begin to imagine what a 6 year old (which this toy is recommended for) is going to think. I can’t imagine how a parent can convince that child that their toy is not like the gun in the attic that looks the same. How they might explain why it’s ok to shoot someone with this rather realistic toy but wrong to do the same with its real counterpart.

I’m not against guns. But I am for the responsibility that goes along with gun ownwership – which in my mind includes replicas and toys made in that same image and style. And I can’t see a responsible way to own these toys and not create a conflict.

I’m single, my friends I spoke with on this subject are all adults some with grown children. None of us either have kids in the range of 6 – 15 or at all. So this is a question we could not resolve. But some of my readers surely do have kids in that age range right now. So I want to know what do you think.

Are these Nerf guns too realistic? Is there a difference in a kid’s mind? Is there a way to play with this toy that is not indicative of harm to fellow human beings? Can young children understand the difference?

If you use meatitarian, read this

Have you seen this Wendy’s television commercial?



The term “meatitarian” has been sweeping the nation. I know this because I was recently called one. Just to be clear, I hate vegetables. All of them. In a good year I might eat 1 salad, of just lettuce or plain spinach, or maybe a few in a can of soup. So to be clear I love to have meat in each meal. Or just meat as a meal. A good steak is fine all by itself, and sliced pepreroni is a great for a snack food. (potatoes are perhaps the only exception)

Thus I understand where the reasoning comes from in calling me a “meatitarian”. But the only thing I get from the commercial and the term is the unbridled idiocy of those using the term.

Seriously, are some people so dumb as to not understand that a word for this already exists? It’s called carnivore. So anyone using this word created by Wendy’s might as well just scream out loud “I am a lemming! I have trouble adding 1+1. And I run with scissors in my hand on wet floors!”

There really is no way to insult someone’s intelligence after they have uttered this term in a sentence. You just can’t reach lower than they have. Even Don King has better validation for the imaginative concoctions and combinations he utters as words in English. I really just can’t drown out the voice in my head that wants to choke such a person with a spoon (another term belonging to gowks – and yes I had to look up that word myself).

Perhaps I should look at this from a different perspective. Maybe a more British take on this will help. Only a complete plank would use such a term. The use is gobshite.

I think I’ve been very clear here, but for those that think this is a great word and useful (they are out there) I will be even more blunt. You are obviously the product of a defective gene pool, please do a favor to the human race and never procreate.

Now in reflecting on the matter, a friend brought up a great observation. Vegetarians are just herbivores. It’s the same kind of dumb, recessive gene, make up a term because you can’t read the actual word logic. And I have to say that this is correct.

Why is vegetarian good then? Who cares. Nobody cares what those emaciated, odd colored, odd smelling, too healthy to live, 2-legged cows call themselves.

But for the sake of being fair I looked up the definition and etymology of vegetarian. In fact the 2nd definition of vegetarian is herbivore. And they are those that eat fruits, vegetables, grains and nuts (which I personally think you have to be to not eat meat – and I’ve had an ex that proves it).

The words seems to have first appeared in 1839, is noted to be the irregular formation from vegetable (n.) + -arian, as in agrarian, etc. It’s popularity and use came from "… largely due to the formation of the Vegetarian Society in Ramsgate in 1847." This society believed that the word they created, vegetarian, was from the Latin 'vegetus' meaning 'lively' (which is how these early vegetarians claimed their diet made them feel).

Now in 1839 the word OK was first used. Belgium became a kingdom that year. The first state passed a law allowing women to own property, modern rubber was first created, and the first Opium War starts. In general people were uneducated and stupid enough to not realize that a vegetarian is just a herbivore. And the term just stuck as did the idea of eating grass as a meal.

I seriously hope this trend dies, because as dumb as Americans are joked around the world to be, this term proves it.

Can television commercials promote HIV and AIDS?

Mrs. H,

Thank you for commenting. My response is not only to your comments but for those reading this post for the first time.

Now it’s not me saying this Levi’s 501 jeans commercial is about sex. I didn’t make it. But to watch this and to say they think that sex will sell their jeans seems obvious to me. The question of morality should be asked of Levi’s.

Now you asked how I connect this to HIV and AIDS. Well I view it like this. Teenagers and 20-something’s experience huge hormonal changes. Their sex drives are massively amped up compared to most any other age group, as is their belief that they are invulnerable to any harm. As such they don’t always think in the most logical or complete manner once sex is on the horizon. That leads to risky acts and spontaneous action.

That is not to say every young adult is like this. But honestly most are.

This is why far too many young adults don’t carry or use condoms. Add to that the general cultural fear and/or embarrassment about asking questions relating to sex and you have an environment that is ripe for transmitting STD’s. The worst of those STD’s is HIV and AIDS.

If unprotected sex can cause pregnancy, transfer Chlamydia or Herpes, then it can absolutely spread HIV and/or AIDS. Unprotected sex often is connected to high risk sexual activity, multiple partners, and spontaneous sex acts. The failure to even hint at a question of the sexual heal status of a potential partner due to fear, embarrassment, and/or fear of thus being rejected increases the chance of unprotected sex.

This commercial emphasizes spontaneous sex. It never asks any question of sexual health status. The very environment of the act demands the high risk nature of the sex. So in consequence it directly promotes the chances of getting an STD which means the chance of HIV and/or AIDS is MASSIVELY more likely.

Mrs. H, I see it like this. If we, via the media, promote spontaneous, high risk sex we promote the chance of getting and spreading HIV and AIDS. If we maintain a cultural fear and taboo about speaking to a potential sex partner about their sexual health status, we promote HIV and AIDS.

Unprotected sex is high risk sex and promoting HIV and AIDS. Ignorance of a sex partner’s sexual health is promoting HIV and AIDS. And both of these are the reason that most of those with HIV and/or AIDS currently in the United States are 25 or younger.

Assuming that unprotected random sex acts with a person that looks healthy, is of the opposite sex, or part of a race that is of lower HIV risk does not make anyone immune or safe from contracting HIV and/or AIDS. It is virtually inviting the contracting and spreading of the disease. And the 501 jeans ad does just that.

Some might think that I am overreacting. Perhaps I am. But what if your kid gets HIV and/or AIDS? What if it is you? IS not asking a simple question, having documentation, and being protected worth less than your life?

Because unprotected sex is like playing Russian Roulette with the odds, and you will be shot – if not the first time, then eventually. No one can beat the odds forever. Even if a jeans commercial would like to make it seem like you can.

Levi's 501 jeans - promoting HIV and AIDS?

Have you seen this television commercial?



It’s goal is to sell the Levi’s 501 jeans. Given. And it’s using sex as the medium to make the jeans sell. Normal.

But should it be aired?

I’m not talking about violating the Freedom of Speech. I support and understand their right to make the commercial. They did noting wrong in that arena. And I would argue if they were prevented from being allowed to air it, because of that right.

Perhaps the question I need to be asking is should they have made it in the first place.

The ad is based on the thought of ambiguous anonymous sex, and more than hints at unprotected sex at that. The kind of sex that promotes and spreads Sexually Transmitted Diseases – especially AIDS and HIV. And it’s targeting this thought on teenagers and 20-somethings.

The thought behind the ad is simple. If you wear these jeans, you will spontaneously be picked to have sex in the most unusual, and therefore potentially unprepared, places you can imagine. Wearing these jeans will get you to not wear them because of the multitude of random sexual encounters you will engage in.

If that sounds irresponsible it is. If it sounds like I got the message wrong, please look at the commercial again and tell me what else it might mean.

At no moment do we see the 2 in this video pause to ask if there is protection available. Or if they have been tested for HIV. Or any STD. Or even a hint of a condom on a pocket, wallet, or anywhere. They may not want to market another product (though co-branding couldn’t hurt either company) but just having the image can’t hurt them.

But why is there no mention of any responsible action or question?

Because it’s too sexual. Because that would be explicit. Because some mother or preacher out there would freak out that their child heard or saw something relating to sex.

Yes, an outline of a condom in the jean pants pocket is too sexual. But stripping each other and the glimpse of a woman’s bra and panties plus the jeans on the floor is NOT sexual.

People please. What the hell.

If we as a society are going to promote random, wanton sex especially among the youth of the nation, the least we can do is hint at the fact that some thought to protection from STD’s and HIV/AIDS has happened.

This commercial takes place in New York City - Manhattan specifically. There are at least some 14,400 known cases of HIV in New York City alone – 4,800 of them were new infections as of 2006. There is no way to accurately gauge the number of unreported cases. People that have not gotten tested to find out.

According to 2006 statistics Syphilis is up 60% not to mention other STD’s. That was 2 years ago.

So yes the commercial has the right to be made and shown. But it’s not responsible, and potentially it’s a deadly message that could affect you and/or your kids.

Be smart, be protected. Get tested. It’s your life after all.

Eva Mendes - the new Janet Jackson?

So Eva Mendes has committed the mortal Hollywood sin of exposing a breast on television – in a commercial for Calvin Klein for all of… an intolerable 1 second. Considering the outrage expressed against Janet Jackson – for her earth shattering 2.3 seconds, and the subsequent blacklisting of the entertainer, I have only one question:

**The following video is so tame as to be even less of an issue than when Diana Ross played with Eve’s breast on national TV. But this is the banned commercial.**



So this means that Eva Mendes should not get any work in movies and/or television and will be ostracized by the major media, right?

Heinz – For love or money?

I have just seen the latest Heinz mayonnaise commercial. This commercial was made for England, where it has aired. That is important because either Heinz thought this would appeal to the aptly named British dry wit or it was afraid of letting the American public see this.

Some find it funny, some see a political statement. I see the political statement.

What do you see? What do you think?

BuzzologySurveys has viewers choice awards for best television commercial in 2007

Was there a television commercial in 2007 that’s stuck in your head? Something that had you talking to your co-workers at break, or made you cringe everytime it started? Something that made you feel good about yourself, or insulted your race, religion or family values?

You are not the only one. Especially if you are African American. There are many commercials that piss me off. I’ve spoken about a couple that I particularly dislike due to the portrayal of Blacks, and the not-so-implicit stereotyping that occurs within them.

To that end, a blogger I know and respect (writing for BuzzologySurveys) is holding a Best of 2007 Awards. These will feature television commercials submitted by you the reader. Commercials promoting your favorite celebrity and entertainer. Ads on your favorite product. Sexy ads, dumb ads, television commercials that blatantly assume Black consumers are less intelligent than any other. Good or bad, the submissions are up to you.

My thought of a funny television ad came from Verizon, a good idea that isn’t worth the time from laptopgiving.org just made me sad. And Time Warner just pisses me the hell off.

"The boss is standing next to a water bottle with a clock in the background that shows 9:20 or 9:23 on it. Up walks a tall 20-something, perhaps thirty year old Black woman. She’s dressed well and holding a coffee cup. She walks right up to the boss and states, “Is 9 am a starting time, or is it a guideline?” Thank you Time Warner. Nothing like throwing in a stereotype for absolutely no reason."

But that’s me. Submit your own ideas and see if the rest of the internet agrees with you. You have noting to loose, and it’s more entertaining than all those reruns and American Idol.

What's better a laptop or food? 12.27.2007.1

Sometimes there are good intentions, sometimes there are good intentions that serve no purpose other than to makes people feel good about themselves. I think it’s important to know the difference between the 2.

You might have noticed a television commercial recently for Laptopgiving.org. It features one of the entertainers from the television show Heroes. In that commercial the theme of the organization is mentioned, they want to give a laptop computer to every child. The goal is to ensure a proper education to every child in the developing nations of the world. I feel its time and intentions wasted on a stupid idea.

Now I am not saying that the people behind this are out to make money, or deceptive. I do not question the conviction of anyone who is involved or making donations. I just think it’s stupid.

According to the official website nearly 2 billion children in the developing world receive little or no education, or are poorly educated. It states that 1 in 3 does not complete 5th grade. They state that in some countries less than $20 per year per pupil is spent on education. I don’t dispute any of these claims.

Intel, Norton, Wikipedia, eBay, Peru, Libya, Uruguay, Nigeria and many other countries and companies are all involved in this organization. This is a huge accomplishment and is well worth noting. Again I do not dispute the intentions.

My problem is that of the estimated 850 million people in the world that are hungry, 146 million are children that are under the age of 5 and underweight. That roughly 5 million children under the age of 5 die from hunger every year. That there is enough food in the world to feed every person a meal every day, and probably much more if much of that food was focus solely on children.

I have a problem when I realize that children are being made to be soldiers in many parts of the world. I have a problem with the U.N. and the United States in their progress on the Child Soldiers Act (and related Acts). I have a problem with the U.S. on the speed and attention given to the genocide of the Darfur Accountibility Act (HR 180 I.H.).

I have a problem when I realize that virtually all the developing nations have rudimentary (at best) landline capabilities. That the cost of wireless connectivity services is still far beyond the means of perhaps 40% of the world, and the lack of terrestrial repeaters make wireless options infeasible at best for most of the world.

Would I sleep well knowing that children are being educated properly around the world? Of course. But I am not naïve enough to believe that the lack of income, or religious persecution, or lack of technology is surmountable simply by buying a laptop for a child. I am perceptive enough to realize that hunger is a far more important basic human need and without it innate brilliance or learned knowledge is useless. That the dangers of war and lack of safe drinking water supersede an electronic box.

Is an education important? Absolutely. But if there is something that you want to do to help children, education far lower on the totem pole than improving life expectancy and quality.

Perhaps buying a kid in a poverty stricken nation a box of electronics is going to help some sleep at night. But when I think about the kids living in shanty towns in Brazil, or selling their bodies in Southeast Asia, or being killed for being born to the wrong tribe/religion/place/parents, or other parts of the world I just can’t see the internet as the answer. Maybe it’s just me.

Trying to improve the lives of children is important, and I’m glad there are many trying to do so. I just think all that effort and money can be better used than providing a product with limited uses that does not address the essential basic needs of children.

What do you think? What if it was your child?