David Spade apologizes, sort of, for exploiting his dead buddy
Filed under: Charity, Relationships, Consumer Complaints, Celebs & Money, Ad Rant
When David Spade's tasteless DirecTV ad went out in late October, it was immediately hit with a hail of criticism.Writers, including our own Jami Bernard, were quick to point out that the commercial, which used footage from 1995's Tommy Boy, essentially came off as a cruel and shameless exploitation of deceased actor Chris Farley.
Although Spade has repeatedly stated that he considered the commercial a tribute to Farley, he recently told People magazine that "The movie is important to me, and I would hate to offend [anyone] because that's one of my favorite things I've ever done. So I would apologize to someone who took it that way." He went on to state that "I wouldn't want anyone to get a whiff that I'm trying to get something off Chris."
As Bernard pointed out on WalletPop, the Farley estate was complicit in the ad. Farley's brothers have already received $25,000 for a billboard bearing his likeness; presumably, they accepted a lot more cash for this ad.
While some of this money has gone to support the Chris Farley Foundation, which uses humor to combat teen substance abuse, it still feels exploitative. Speaking personally, the DirecTV commercial generally leaves me feeling like I need to take a shower.
On one level, it is easy to see how Spade might have been surprised by the popular reaction to the commercial. In his films, he generally plays characters who are snotty, smug, and offhandedly cruel. What makes them palatable is that they eventually emerge as vulnerable, wounded and basically decent. It's a process that enables Spade's characters to brutalize others, yet come off in a positive light.
This theme is particularly obvious in Tommy Boy. All through the film, Spade's character, Richard, covers his own pain, resentment and sense of loss by being cruel to Farley's character. By the end of the movie, however, Richard admits to Tommy that he considers the large boy-child to be one of his few friends. In that vulnerable moment, Spade manages to downplay the spikiness for a moment, allowing a sincere sentiment to emerge and giving his character a depth that the actor rarely reaches.
In the DirecTV ad, Spade seems to be going through the same process. In the beginning, as Farley begins playing with the blue blazer, Spade turns to the camera and sneers "Great. I'm here with tons-of-fun when I could be home watching DirecTV."
The insult, which stung in the movie, is even more painful here, as Farley can't defend himself, laugh it off, or otherwise turn the scene to his advantage.
However, at the end of the ad, when Farley rips the jacket, Spade softens his customary smirk and says "Ha ha, never gets old." For a moment, the viewer can see what seems like real emotion as Spade expresses admiration for Farley's comic stylings.
From Spade's perspective, this might have been a collapsed version of the movie, and a real tribute to his friend. The trouble is, from this side of the screen, it just looks like a baldfaced attempt to rip off a dead actor for a few cheap bucks.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 21)
11-02-2009 @ 1:07PM
Gevian said...
Whoever thinks this ad was exploitative has never been exploited. If you think this is commercial was a way to make a few more bucks off a dead actor, then take your iPod, DVD and Blu-Ray players and chuck them out the window. If you own your 4th or 5th remastered Beatles album, chuck that out the window, too. And if you the deluxe, digitally remastered edition of any movie starring some actor who has been long dead or recently dead, get rid of them too because guess what? In your act of purchasing product like this, someone made a few more bucks off of some dead actor or musician.
The movie was funny. The commerical was funny. And someone in Farley's family received compensation for the use of their loved one's likeness. What's really in bad taste is the way talent has been exploited time and time again by management for centuries in ways both known and unknown to us, and sorry, but this is not one of those times.
Reply
11-02-2009 @ 7:06AM
Tim said...
Hi everyone I found Jessica Simpson's sex*tape is here:
http://tr.im/qKc2
11-02-2009 @ 7:17AM
JustMe said...
Kudos ... I had so many thoughts like this, & couldn't have said it better.
11-02-2009 @ 7:31AM
hookmrl said...
this is how much i care about hollywood,I did not know this guy was dead
11-02-2009 @ 7:53AM
Wendy said...
I totally agree with you. You have more knowledge than the writers of this website.
11-02-2009 @ 8:13AM
Jessica said...
I just wanted to say that your argument for this commercial is the smartest one I've read. Yoko Ono has been making money off of Lennon for 20+ years, but no one bitches about that.
11-02-2009 @ 8:21AM
WearArmor said...
Well said, Gevian! David Spade would only honor Chris Farley, and that's what he did.
11-02-2009 @ 8:22AM
spreadeagle135 said...
This writer is wack, doesn't know what he's talking about, or is just trying to create a stir like ALL of these pointless aol writers do.
11-02-2009 @ 10:22AM
daniel said...
If you really think about it Chris was a comedian and what is the highest form of flattery for a comedian? To be remembered at the highest form of there art. I think it is offensive that the writers would want Chris image and likeness to be buried and forgotten. This guy was a great comic and he would have totally approved and so do I. Down with the stupid writer who is attacking Spade. What a moron to do that.
11-02-2009 @ 8:40AM
b said...
I have to agree with you. Elvis still makes more money that most music stars that are alive. Again, people see what they want to see. Creating yet another Elvis hits CD is a tribute to the star, using someone's likeness in a commercial is exploitation. Exploitation has two definitions: 1. The act of using something for any purpose. In this case, exploit is a synonym for use.
2. The act of using something in an unjust or cruel manner.
When we use the word exploit, we often use the meaning of the second definition. I do not see anything cruel or unjust in the Dtv commercial. People, get over yourselves.
11-02-2009 @ 8:59AM
math704 said...
Much ado aboput NOTHING.
In the article last week about this non issue, most the commenters thought the writer was a douche. There was nothing wrong with Spade reliving moments from their biggest movie.
Leaving me to wonder who thinks this is news worthy? Who are these hords of people who find this commercial offensive?
11-02-2009 @ 9:07AM
David said...
forgive me but i read your comment and i cant possibly see how you can compare the commercial to buying remastered music or anything like that. yea it is in some sense exploitation but nothing compared to something like this commercial which takes the original material and flips it around to sell something completely different. In no way did that advertise tommy boy it was all about direct t.v., A remastered album is just simply a way of taking a song and making sound as clear as possible even though i dont belive it should be dont either because you can never beat an original recording.
11-02-2009 @ 9:15AM
Brian said...
Agreed!!
11-02-2009 @ 9:28AM
Red said...
Thank you! You made some excellent points.
Articles like this really annoy me. It's a commercial, it's supposed to be funny. People are acting like they dug up Farley's body and are using him like a puppet.
I have Tommy Boy on DVD; should I not watch it since he's dead? My wife has Dirty Dancing on DVD; should she not watch...wait, maybe that's not such a bad idea...
11-02-2009 @ 9:33AM
USNShevet said...
Perfectly said Gevien!
Although Hollywood has no shortage of money- grubbing celebrities, this was not used for that purpose. I think David Spade knew and loved Farley enough to know if Chris would have found it offense. I watched the commercial twice and listened very carefully to the tone of Spade's voice and his body language, and found NOTHING offensive about it, Just a happy and sad, memory of a genius comedian, taken from us far too soon.
People need to lighten the he** up.
11-02-2009 @ 9:33AM
mcaff83 said...
Gevian ........ I couldn't agree with you more. That is all.
11-02-2009 @ 9:46AM
cingisbleeving said...
I have to agree. The movie was funny, and it represented Chris at his best comedy. I was not shocked at all by the commercial. I don't understand why anyone would be offended or bring criticism against David Spade for doing it. If anyone knew Chris Farley it would be David Spade. I'm certain that he knows this would NOT be offensive to Chris. In fact, it is honoring that the man didn't just fade away. That speaks mountains for his longevity as a true actor and comedian. Chris Farley gave so much in his movies with David Spade. This is one way of giving back to Farley. Some of the money is going to the Chris Farley Foundation to combat teen substance abuse and to his family who has control over his estate. What's the big deal?
11-02-2009 @ 9:55AM
Glove Doc said...
Outstanding!...I am 100% in agreement with you on this...Chunk all you CD's, DVD's and i-Pods out the window if you have purchased any of the products after someone has died!...
11-02-2009 @ 10:04AM
john said...
You hit the nail on the head
11-02-2009 @ 10:04AM
ToityB said...
I couldn't have said it better myself. Can anyone say "Michael Jackson"?