Noncompositional

Recently Citibank has been showcasing its identity theft services for their checking/savings/whatever accounts, and show the dangers of not having protection by showing normal, everyday-seeming people sitting in their homes, speaking to to the camera. Only it’s not their voice, it’s the voice of whoever “stole” their identity (ah, the power of metaphor) describing their purchasing adventures. In one particular commercial, a man sits on a chair in his living room near a table, and a fashion-conscience valley girl talks about how she emptied his checking account and went on a shopping spree. Now, in this commercial (and in others), there is very little body movement – the victim is sitting down, not gesturing wildly. All this contrary to how we might imagine the identity thief gesturing as she speaks very emphatically about her exploits. Well, that’s fine. I suppose the victim is depressed, downtrodden, and lethargic after having been taken for a ride by some scrupulous fraud.

But wait – in the commercial featuring the man, the woman thief talks about stealing a $1500 leather bustier that “lifts and separates.” While she notes this pair of features, the man makes cups with his hands, places them at chest-level, and makes a “lifting and separating” gesture. At around the same time, or slightly after, the man reaches for a can of fizzy beverage in a can-cooler and cracks it open. So what’s going on? There are several factors: is the man aware that someone has stolen his identity? Is he aware of who it is? (i.e., woman buying clothing items) Is the theft, who is detailing her crime, possessing the victim in body as well as in digital identification? If so, how much?

Well, it seems the guy is at least somewhat aware of his situation, because he gives a sigh at the end of the monologue. Maybe he’s been having the possession problem for a while, and the commercial is just “documenting it.” But let’s stop before there’s too much over-analysis (or have I already crossed well into the deep end?). So, he’s got at least some control of his own body, because he reaches for the drink. But the girl has some control, because she made him gesture. Or, he’s aware of what he’s saying and involuntarily gestures, as much of gesture is in normal conversation – subconscious but purposeful. But then there’s a problem – why only the one gesture? Given the nature of the monologue, you’d expect a lot more gestures.

I would guess that, given the commercial is a well-executed, meticulously planned short film, the producers thought long or hard about what, if any, gestures to include. I’d have to agree, if a middle-aged lethargic man is going to have his voice hijacked by a valley girl, then if anything is gestured, it should be the lifting and separating power of the leather bustier. And, if anyone out there is ever possessed by some other being, take note of which gestures you make, or are forced to make. It could be a great contribution to science.