Through the festive lens; A FEMINIST CRITIQUE OF THE OF THE GLO FELIZ NAVIDAD AD USING LAURA MALVEY

  Imagine this Glo holiday commercial rolling during your favorite festive playlist. There is a cozy living room, modern décor, maybe a fireplace cracking softly. A woman- lets call her Ana – unpacks a Glo device under the twinkling lights. She is smiling, dressed up but relaxed, exuding a kind of polished ease. There is maybe an upbeat Latin jingle in the background. The vibe is cheerful, warm, aspirational – like a holiday you wish you were at.

It’s the kind of ad designed to make you feel like Glo is more than a product. It’s a piece of holiday magic, something that helps you live that moment; stylish, fun, and sharable. Pretty benign, right?

But here is where Laura Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze – from her 1975 essay Visual pleasure and narrative cinema – comes in. she would say this is not just “selling” Glo. Its showing you a version of femininity, packed for someone else’s pleasure.

Mulvey would first ask; who ask the power to look in this ad , and who is the object of the look?

In this Glo spot, the camera is Ana’s silent admirer. It lingers on her smile, frames her in soft, flattering light, maybe pans slowly down her outfit or through the roll of her hair. The ad doesn’t give her eye- line to the camera or let her look back. She interacts with the product, but the main star is her appearance.

This visual structure says, the viewer (let’s assume male by default, but really any viewer) is invited to observe her, find her attractive, find her the scene pleasing. Ana doesn’t speak into camera. There is no direct woman as spectacle, viewer as gazer, camera as intermediary – is exactly what Mulvey warns us about as the “male gaze”.

Mulvey describes visual pleasure in terms of voyeurism ( watching the unattainable) and fetishism ( idealizing the observable). In this ad, Ana becomes an icon of holiday glamour. The soft-focus shots, the warm color palette, the gentle music- its designed to be visually and emotionally pleasing. You are drawn into the scene’s beauty. But here’s the catch.

Ana isn’t really acting or having meaningful conversations; she is displayed. Her presence exists to sell an idea- or an ideal. Its not actually about her as a person. There is no deeper backstory, no real agency conveyed other than “ put on this, enjoy this look like this”. That is the trap Mulvey highlights: even if things seem joyful or empowering on the surface, the underlying structure treats women as beautiful objects- for consumption.

Even if no man appears in the frame, the male gaze is omnipresent. The ad assumes someone is watching her with interest. That is no accident: it plays on a traditional cultural script. And if there  is man- someone who notices her, maybe admires her, maybe receives a Glo device from her- it subtly reinforces a power dynamic. He is active ( observing, maybe gifting ) , she is the observed.

This dichotomy- active male versus passive female- is core to Mulvey’s theory, and the ad fits the pattern. She is not doing anything. She is just being seen. Even in a Glo commercial.

Now, these ads often try to be modern. They hint a confidence, freedom, choice. Maybe Ana takes control, initiates a gesture, transitions from one mood to another. The messaging might say, “GLO is for the woman her own terms”- a nod autonomy.

But post- Mulvey, we must ask: is the image actually liberated?  Or is it liberation repackaged into something palatable, light and brand- friendly? If Ana’s actions revolve entirely around preparation-looking , appearing festive and delightful- then agency is superficial. She is still within narrow aesthetic boundaries

This is what MULVEY would call “ reassuring patriarchy”. It’s the illusion of female empowerment, delivered in a product wrapper. It whispers freedom and independence, but within a cosmetic or consumerist fantasy. The ad assures us , “ you can be free as long as you look a certain way and follow holiday-coded norms”.

Some modern ads challenge Mulvey by letting  women look back, breaking the fourth wall, or taking control of the narrative. Maybe there is a moment in the Glo ad  where Ana pauses, the camera lingers on her for  a beat longer, and she smiles knowingly at the viewer- as if saying she is in on the ad. That could subvert the dynamic, let her gaze hold power.

But if that moment is missing or if its brief and quickly glossed over, then it feels more like a token gesture than real challenge. For real rupture, she would need a moment of revolt- smirking at the expectations, directly owning the camera. Without that, the gaze remains static.

She is unboxing the product, yes- but then she turns, locks eyes with the camera,  and performs some minor skip or wink. The camera pulls back so we see she is in charge: she set the lighting, she chose the decoration, she decided when to share this moment.

Then we see her brother or friend, a man, hesitating. She tosses him a Glo. Then he uses it. Suddenly, the gaze flips: he is the observed now. It is playful, unexpected. It reverses the traditional script. That would reflect, real agency, real divergence from holiday marketing tropes.

Mulvey’s point is that every image reinforces a broader cultural habit- where women are for looking with. When ads repeat this structure, they teach everyone- women and men- what behavior is expected, what roles are “normal”. Even casual festive commercials become instructional in maintaining gender norms and consumerist values.

And during the holidays, when emotion is heightened, the impact is doubled. We are more insecure. The harmless sparkle of the season makes the underlying messaging messaging more subtle- but no less powerful. So calling out these dynamics is not about being cynical. It is about opening our eyes.