Anyone who has walked through a shopping mall or downtown shopping district recently has seen H&M stores multiply like rabbits in recent years. From Sweden, H&M is a pioneer in inexpensive fashion that has had as much worldwide impact on the market for clothes as Ikea has had on the market for furniture. Their most recent marketing campaign, visible in their store windows and on their website, has prominently featured a distinctly 1960s American car — not surprising from a company based in a country known for its love of classic American cars, as described on this website over the years (here, and elsewhere).
Oddly, however, the car has been thoroughly anonymized, unlike classic cars used in countless fashion photo shoots that are chosen for their distinctiveness. Even more jarring, the campaign is for a clothing line whose tagline is “The 70’s continue to reign supreme for this fall’s statement look.” “This is not going to go well,” many are probably thinking at this point.
The car is a 1966 Ford Fairlane, based on the stacked headlights, the shape of the front and rear fenders, and the shape of the grille, which extends the full width of the front end from headlight surround to headlight surround. An unusual detail is the chrome pods atop the front fenders, not used on any 1966 Fairlanes as far as I could determine, which on a contemporary Mopar would be turn signal indicators. The car itself is a four door sedan with dog dish hubcaps, as plain as they come.
This Fairlane is made even more plain by the deletion of all badges, which would be a “Fairlane 500” on the rear fenders of the higher-end version or a “Fairlane” on the front fenders of the base model. The anonymizing does not stop there.
A 1966 Fairlane should have FORD over its trunk lid trim panel and tail lights with a vertical bar and a reverse light in the center, but on the featured car the nameplate is missing and the tail lights have simple red lenses. The anonymizing was so thorough that at first I thought that the car was a 1966 AMC Ambassador, hence the title of this article. A CC Capsule by Perry Shoar has described the 1966 Fairlane as already “Jet Age Generic,” and airbrushing or Photoshop has further scrubbed this car of identification as thoroughly as the FBI Witness Protection Program would scrub a person of anything identifiable.
The use of an anonymous 1960s American car to promote a line of clothes inspired by 1970s American fashions is more than a bit off the mark, and it is surprising from a company based in a country where many people know as much about classic American cars as any Americans do. Most likely, H&M’s advertising agency wanted a classic American car that would not distract a viewer’s attention from the model and clothes, and this square, beige, plain 1966 Fairlane fit that bill. At least it is a victory for plain-Jane, dull-colored sedans with dog dish hubcaps, which receive little love outside of CC. For better or worse, H&M uses this advertising campaign worldwide, everywhere where it has stores from Sweden to Saudi Arabia, where ironically a woman could not wear these clothes in public or drive a car.
A better representative of an inconspicuous 1970s American car to sit quietly in the background of a fashion photo shoot has appeared here, found ideally located in Sweden. Next time, H&M’s advertising agency may want to consult with CC for advice on period American car selection.
CC Global: American Classics of Sweden
CC Capsule: 1966 Ford Fairlane — Jet Age Generic
CC Capsule: 1966 Ford Fairlane 500 — A Fresh New Face In The Neighborhood
Officers Joe Friday and Frank Gannon:
“Okay, why did you break into our squad car?… Just the facts, Ma’am.”
(Dragnet- 1966 Ford Fairlane)
Friday “got volunteered” to auctioneer the 1970 police auction where she bought the car.
Every time I see a Fairlane like above, I think of the 60’s TV show Dragnet. Cannot tell you how many episodes I watched while not doing my homework!!
Ha! Just what I was going to post.
H&M needs a new advertising agency. They wanted something evocative of the retro ’70’s and they picked this? They couldn’t even get the decade right. Looks like the thing PN rode in as a kid – maybe a few years newer.
Can’t think of anything more representative of the U.S. auto market in the ’70’s than a Mark IV or V Continental. Or maybe one of those 500 cubic inch Eldorados. Before the downsizing that began with GM in 1977, this decade featured some of the biggest cars Detroit ever built.
So you’re assuming that this Fairlane was “anonymized” specifically for this shoot? I just assume that this is a mildly customized Fairlane that the ad agency happened to pick from a portfolio of some cars available to them, and chose this one because it’s rather bland yet still fits the brief. The youngish art director and such probably couldn’t care less if it’s not from the 70s. The look is right. FWIW, late 60s cars were very common in the 70s. 🙂
This Fairlane looks just like something I would expect a younger person here to be driving. It’s a look that’s “in”, because it is a vintage American car, but clearly not the typical “classic”. I think it’s a perfect choice to go along with the overall look.
I think you’re taking a bit too literal of an approach to this. Just because the clothes are “70s inspired” doesn’t mean that the whole thing has to be a time capsule. Fashion photography like this is intended to show the clothes in a setting that represents today, not then. And a hip young person today would find this Fairlane much more attractive than many others. Including the big Olds.
Fairlanes and Falcons are “hip”, as the article I re-posted from yesterday makes clear. It’s because they’re the anti-’69 Camaro and such; they’re cheap and readily available. As such, it’s a great choice for this shoot.
Wow – I just noticed that there is no door latch on that top picture. My guess would be photoshop, unless customizers have found another way to make the doors stay closed. I guess that was one way to keep this Ford’s doors from freezing shut in the winter. 🙂
Good catch. That pops my first theory, but I still maintain that’s it’s an good choice for this shoot. Art directors are a funny bunch.
Definitely a good catch, I did not notice that detail either. The photo editors appear to have been gone to great lengths to remove any small details that might distract attention from the clothes!
Not to mention the FORD data plate is also missing from the inside jamb.
Door latches, we don’t need no stinking door latches, when powerful magnets hidden under the skin will do the job!
And there’s no FORD on the hubcaps – a bit hard to remove that in real life.
It’s the 1960s version of the 2011 Mediocrity!
https://youtu.be/Zsfd_h4G1js
I couldn’t agree more, Paul.
I think the ad was going for the early 70’s style of 1970-73… Which was still an extension of the later 60’s and the hippy era. The time and setting, I feel, they are trying to portray.
Yes, as a lil tyke back then, in the 70’s there were plenty of 60’s cars driving around, just like in the 2010’s, there are plenty of 90’s and 2000’s driving around.
I think this 66 Fairlane fits the criteria perfectly.
Now, if they were going for the flashy, flamboyant disco era of 1976-80… Then the Caddy Eldorado or Lincoln Mark/Continental would be the cars of choice. 🙂
Paul,
I had similar thoughts which I expressed very briefly in the second to last paragraph, but not wanting to belabor the point, it looks like I didn’t explain it enough. I can easily see this Fairlane being chosen based on the instructions “Find an inconspicuous classic American car that won’t dominate the scene,” which would rule out something like a Thunderbird or any 1970s Brougham with a vinyl roof and other styling details. A Falcon may have been ruled out as too associated with a particular current-day demographic — urban hipsters, as described in Lawrence Jones’ re-released article from yesterday.
The use of a 1960s car for a 1970s theme is something that I find less odd than the thorough anonymizing of the car. I remember enough 1960s cars like this Fairlane on the streets in the 1970s and even early to mid 1980s that I agree that a 1966 Fairlane would be a good choice for the ad theme. Stripping off all of the badges and even the taillights is a bit odd, though, and beyond what is usually necessary because of trademark issues. For example, the Jeep Grand Wagoneer and International Scout are frequently used for clothing catalog photos with outdoor themes, and they appear to be kept completely identifiable all of the time. The airbrushing/Photoshop may have been motivated by a desire to remove distracting details from the scene.
It was obviously a very deliberate creative choice by the art director, and not a legal issue, otherwise the door latch wouldn’t have been photoshopped out too.
Art directors have their own ideas about things, and in this day and age, when awareness of the use of older cars has been very much heightened, he/she obviously made a decision to blank out elements of this car.
The use of old cars in ad, tv shows and movies is not as random as it once was. I’m continually impressed by the choices made in recent tv shows, like Breaking Bad and others. Art directors now consider the use of cars very thoroughly and deliberately.
I can kind of see the point, creatively.
It wouldn’t surprise me if people who choose cars for television shows and ads read sites such as this to gain an understanding of how various old cars are viewed today.
Also note that, in the early and mid-1970s, it would have been quite common to see teenagers and college students driving a mid-1960s car that was handed down from parents. (That is apparently the target audience for the featured clothes, based on the model.) It was uncommon for teenagers and even college students to drive brand-new cars. If they were driving a fairly new car, it was borrowed from mom and dad, and was likely to be a Torino Squire or Delta 88 Royale sedan, not a convertible, Corvette or Eldorado.
I’m willing to consider a both-and answer, i.e. that they wanted to avoid displaying any Ford trademarks AND also wanted to eliminate visual clutter in the photos.
The use of older cars in fashion photography is fairly common. Often the cars are easily identifiable even if the nameplates are not visible, such as an early Mustang or a ’59 Cadillac. The choice of a relatively frumpy mom and pop sedan, made even frumpier and more generic by the photo alterations, is a bit perplexing
What???
Are you senile?
These are not frumpy mom and pop cars compared to current models.
These are exotic esoteric extravagant and extreme by today’s standards!
clean your bifocals off and wash the sleep out of your eyes and have another look around. Wake up rip-van-winkle! Yesterday’s bland is today’s spicy eye-talian!
so much stuff gets kicked back from legal departments at the last minute when everybody is on their way out the door, that art directors have gotten in the habit of routinely deleting trademarks without even asking.
I had seen some shots with this car in the background and pegged it as a 66-67 Fairlane, but had not noticed the way the car had been “disguised”. They could not have picked a better color for an anonymous 60s car.
The Fairlane is perfect for the role, though, as it was always “Mr. Average Intermediate” in its era. It did everything competently, if nothing exceedingly well.
I don’t think that the H&M target demographic is going to know or care about the year of the car. To their typical late teen/20-something demo, cars from 1966 and 1976 are equally ancient and essentially interchangeable.
Another way to see the add campaign is that a 1966 Fairlane would have been a very common car to see on the street in the early/mid 70’s and so maybe the choice of a 60’s car with their 70’s theme isn’t so illogical.
It is always interesting how non-automotive companies try to anonymize the cars in adds–particularly I am thinking of auto insurance adds where they damage a car. It’s never very hard to figure out what the car really is, but then again, I am a curbsider, so don’t represent well the overall group that needs to be fooled…
The target for this ad, young women in their late teens early twenties, don’t care if the car’s model year or even decade coincides with the clothes. A retro looking car with the retro fashions is good enough for them.
Exactly. Younger folks in the 1970’s were driving cars just like these, easily obtained for a few hundred bucks and kept running with bubble gum and baling wire. If you were lucky, you could get your hands on a decent muscle car, but most of those were either used up or cracked up, and they weren’t a large percentage of overall production to begin with.
I was no fan of these as a kid, but the Fairlane GT didn’t look too bad.
Then and now, I thought the ’66 and ’67 Fairlane 2-door hardtops were good-looking cars, although the Pontiac styling influence is quite pronounced. Still, WAY better looking than the unfortunate ’65 models.
I never particularly liked them, I thought the stacked headlight era Fords all had a rather clunky looking execution up front and the grille bars always seemed to have a perpetually bent look to them where they transition into the tinny looking headlight bezels. The Comets were a little better though, to my eye. There was just something about the body styling of intermediate Fords of this era, even the hardtop coupes, that looked boxy and somewhat generic.
Not that I would turn one down though.
They were mostly extinct by the time you were old enough to drive. I wonder how you have any memory of them at all.
I’m pretty sure ’66 Fords were still common sights in the 1970s, though I agree it is a little off. Personally, I think a 1970 beak-nose Thunderbird would be fitting.
As for H&M, simply put, their clothes are crap. They look nice, but quality is far lower than even their affordable prices justify. $10 tee shirts can be bought elsewhere that won’t fall apart after one wash.
If the inspiration is the 1970-73 era, a young woman like the model wouldn’t have been able to afford a new Bunkie Bird. Maybe dad would’ve bought one as a midlife crisis/empty nest gift to himself and passed his ’66 Fairlane on to her.
I suspect you’re already past their target demo, and the real meat of their market is teenagers who still care about shopping someplace “cool” and will outgrow anything they buy before it has a chance to wear out.
Those fender mounted turn signal indicators were from a 64-66 Thunderbird. They look lame on a Fairlane, but I thought they were very cool back in the day.
You are correct. But the fender mounted turn signals were also a factory accessory for any FoMoCo product back in the ’60s. Odd that they should show up on such an otherwise “nosed” and “decked” vehicle.
The ever-present lawyers possibly made them anonymize the car to avoid any legal entanglements over the use of trademarks. While any copyright issues over the design of the car have expired…sudden thought: maybe they haven’t, for 1970s cars…the words “FORD” and “FAIRLANE” are still FoMoCo intellectual property.
Not the case. Perhaps if it was a new car. But a fifty year old classic? No way. If that argument should be valid, it would be the other way around, the car maker (Ford in this case) paying H&M to be seen in their ads.
This has nothing to do with lawyers, more to do with art directors seeking a “cool” look…
This article brings up an interesting point. I’ll use the 1950’s as an example, because in many people’s minds the most iconic 50’s car is the 59 Cadillac. The 59 Cadillac really spent a lot more time on the road in the 60’s than they ever did in the 50’s because of it’s late in the decade build date. That being said, a 46 Ford that was driven until 1961 was much more a part of the 50’s than the iconic 59 Cadillac. For me this Fairlane is a fair representative of the time period even if it wasn’t built in the 70’s.
Good point. Our family’s ’67 Chevy Bel Air was still in regular use in the early 70s as our only car. It was pressed into service on a cross-country trip in the summer of 1971, for example.
Keep in mind that the ’60’s did not actually begin until after John Kennedy’s assassination. Yes, all thru his term (1960 was still definitely the Eisenhower 50’s) there was talk of the future, but jazz, rock and pop music were still firmly in the 50’s, women’s fashion hadn’t become any more daring then they were in the 50’s (skirts were still knee length, and the most radical style of the time was the female beatnik’s leotard), and men’s hair was still short, short, short.
Go forward three or four months into early 1964 and (I’m looking at this from a US standpoint, of course): 1. The Beatles. 2. Dylan breaks out of Greenwich village. 3. Mary Quant bursts onto the fashion scene. 4. The British Invasion hits pop music. 5. The free speech movement at Berkley.
Now, you’ve got The Sixties.
By the above, it can be said that The Sixties started a good year to a year and a half earlier in England. Over there The Profumo Scandal was the last vestige of the dying 50’s, and could be said to be the first bit of 60’s behavior starting to rear its head.
Yup, the difference between the 1960s and “The 60s”. One is from a calendar, the other is an era.
It also depends on age. As a late baby boomer, my parents were of the Silent Generation, so younger than the WWII vets but older than the oldest of the boomers. In my midwestern household, “the 60s” didn’t really get rolling until maybe 1967. Dad continued to be a big Vitalis customer, and Frank Sinatra was still on the radio. By 1968 and the Detroit riots, we were hard into it. However, wherever there were older kids, I agree with your 1964 date as the opening salvo.
Now that you mention it, factor in location.
I come from Johnstown, PA a very conservative coal and steel town 75 miles east of Pittsburgh. Johnstown, back then, was essentially mini-Pittsburgh. And about as far away as you can get, culturally, from New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.
I graduated high school in 1968. In my senior year, the dress code was: Guys – short hair not touching the ears or collar (you could maybe push that a bit, but you wouldn’t get anywhere near long hair without being suspended), dress slacks (no jeans), button down shirts, no t-shirts, dress shoes (no sandals, tennis shoes). Girls – dresses or skirts mandatory, hemlines were allowed to be just barely over the top of the kneecap. Hair could be whatever was nationally in style.
No political items allowed other than mainstream Democratic or Republican candidate stuff around election time. Radios were not allowed in school, and all the other forms of music playback were in the future. Our school didn’t drop the “no jeans” policy until 1972 or so, and that was only after the parents complained that their kids couldn’t wear the latest styles.
The school look? Straight out of 1962, a month before the Chicago Democratic convention and all the jollies therein. The Sixties did not really hit Johnstown until somewhere around 1972. And I’m willing to bet there were more conservative areas that didn’t get The Sixties until Southern Rock took off.
Interesting topic. The more I think about it, “the 60s” is more like a thing created by and kept alive by early baby boomers. The earliest of them graduated high school in 1964. I am about 10 years behind you, graduating in 1978. By then, we young boomers were kind of experiencing the after-effects of “the 60s”, but had moved beyond them. We spent our youth watching our older neighbors and cousins “going 60s”, if only in a small, midwestern way.
Because there were so many of you early boomers, “the 60s” really became a thing, and remains so to this day. The rest of us sort of split between those who thought it was all foolishness and wanted no part, and those who wished they had been older or younger and had been part of it.
Due to local cultural influences, even though attending college 68-76 (two degrees), I was never a hippie. Didn’t have a chance, from my point of view those folks were aliens from another planet. I could have maybe passed for hip liberal circa 1965, not helped by my parents marching me to the barber shop before I got to the house any time I came home (which got to be less and less real fast).
Where I took off was the Glam Rock era of the early 70’s. Damn, I was pretty!
Just as many of us are now seeing the the stuff of our childhoods in museums (the ViewMaster, Polaroid “Swinger,” etc.), I laugh at seeing the cars of our formative years as (merely) the backdrop for a younger person’s “retro.”
I’m not gonna lose sleep over the ad’s mismatch, but note that midcentury *car* ads were very mindful of up-to-the-minute clothing/hair _fashions_; might we then expect an *apparel* ad to feature the era’s “latest-thing” _cars_, rather than a commonplace DD several years old?
I would like to suggest to H&M that they use a 1970 Hornet for their next ad campaign. No one (present company excepted) will know what the heck it is.
And that’s probably why they wouldn’t use it. Not identifiable enough!
There are cars in some of those photos, who knew. Actually the model, although certainly attractive, is too thin for my tastes, not to mention too young.
I tend to agree with G. Poon’s post that this car “may” have been anonymized (?) to avoid legal entanglements. I’ve seen this “process” on several TV shows lately.
I would think anyone using a car in an ad for “fashion”, no matter the decade being invoked, would pick a more colorful car. I mean, this light gold almost fades into the background. For a 70’s look, a white or red car makes a better choice.
There are no legal “entanglements” for using cars in ads, movies or tv shows. What could they possibly be?
The fact that the door latch was photoshopped out too pretty much proves that the all the other removal of badges and such were done for artistic reasons.
You haven’t seen instances where the badge on a grille or trunklid have been “conspicuously” blanked out or removed entirely? At one point, Toyota provided vehicles for the tv show BONES. Since the US government had (has?) a regulation that none of it’s agencies are to purchase vehicles with non-domestic badges….I thought Brennan or Booth driving a “pool” Sequoia was not likely. After the Toyota sponsorship faded away, the badges on their GM replacements did too.
This is not the only recent cop show I’ve seen where the trucks and large SUVs had missing badges. Cars? I haven’t noticed all that much.
You’re missing the point. That was done for a semblance of authenticity’s sake, not because of threats of lawsuits. You think the feds would sue the producers of Bones?
My point is that there is no intrinsic legal reason to have to remove badging on a car for its use in an ad, tv or movie. If they chose to do it for purposes of authenticity or artistic reasons, that’s quite different.
And that’s my point about this car; it was obviously done for artistic reasons.
I agree with Paul on this issue. The many things airbrushed/Photoshopped out — not just badges, but also taillight details and door latches — point to the producers of the ad campaign trying to eliminate as many visual distractions as possible, to keep all attention on the model and clothes. All of that is on top of choosing a car in the most inconspicuous color possible.
Yes, I agree. And, I think the car is also rather anonymous so that everyone can see their own car in it’s place, helping to see themselves in the picture as who would wear this brand… it is that universal average car.
And then you get people like us. “Cool Fairlane, bits missing though. Model? What model?”
🙂
“At one point, Toyota provided vehicles for the tv show BONES. Since the US government had (has?) a regulation that none of it’s agencies are to purchase vehicles with non-domestic badges…”
Eh, what? Can you back up that claim somewhere? Sounds like an urban legend. I call bullshit….
You see it with other props too, lots of MacBooks with the backlit Apple logo photoshopped out. They are a laptop with pretty clean lines, again serves the role but doesn’t distract.
I think the point is that it fades into the background. All eyes on the model. If you happen to notice the background, this car fits without being distracting.
I shop at H&M… They are good for basics, I have some cheap shirts and hoodies from there that look nice and have held up very well. I thought they were good purchases given the cost/quality.
Then you get people like me, who’ve never even heard of H&M. Don’t know if they even exist in my country. But Fairlanes do!
I still have no idea what this thread is about. Until I read your comment I thought we were talking about an old Ford. I thought “H&M” was a foreign euphamism for a Ford.
Anonymizing a car seems to be pretty common in many forms of advertising. My take is that this is not due to legal or artistic concerns, but more to avoid the distraction of seemingly endorsing another brand. Air brushing the door latch out was probably a product of just cleaning up the appearance of the door jamb – rust, dirt, oily residue on the latch, old oil company stickers, worn weather stripping, worn out tire placards etc . – all magically cleaned up.
For H&M, if they are using this ad in worldwide promotions, they’ve effectively made a car that could almost pass for an Opel, a Holden, a Chevy, Ford, Plymouth, an AMC a South American market only derivative of an American car, a British car, even possibly an Eastern block sedan. So, for H&M shoppers that think Americans are infidels, or whatever, this car is pretty innocuous.
If this was a RHD Australian Fairlane, it would had been quite at home since that bodystyle was made until 1972 Down Under.
They could even got a basic A-body Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant 4-door sedan since the basic body shape was made from 1967 to 1976.
But then you guys wouldn’t have recognised the front and rear ends. Hmmm…. maybe a good idea for their next campaign?
The location of the steering wheel was something I looked for, the first photo does not give away the car being a US or Australian version; the front and rear details do however.
These shots work. I don’t like the super-skinny female body so much, but the clothes are well-presented. As mentioned above, this car has been anonymised to eliminate distracting detail. Lots of clean, warm neutral tones sitting behind the clothes which appear to be colour-keyed or in striking contrast. Understated art direction except when examined minutely by a bunch of hardcore classic car aficionados. Legal issues are not the point – for cars it’s sometimes used for competing marques shown in an ad or genericised ‘beyond recognition’ for business categories such as Insurance.
I’d love to have the art director’s email address, to send him a link to this article. He’d probably be laughing himself silly reading it.
It’s an artistic choice, nothing else. For the AD, it’s all about shapes and forms and colours. As several have pointed out, a brand name would only take focus away from what they’re trying to sell. It got nothing to do with lawyers or trademarks or whatever, it’s an artistic choice, no more, no less. It makes for a really clean and neat and above all, cool look.
I don’t know what ad agency did the work, if it’s an American or Swedish agency. But going with the notion that:
“they’ve effectively made a car that could almost pass for an Opel, a Holden, a Chevy, Ford, Plymouth, an AMC a South American market only derivative of an American car, a British car, even possibly an Eastern block sedan.”
Then it’s very likely they wanted to bring forwards connotations (In Sweden) of the Plymouth Valiant. The Valiant was without a doubt the most single common American car in Sweden in the 60’s and 70’s, due to the fact they were made in Sweden from CKD-kits, and that the Swedish police force bought a lot of them. There may have been many other American cars at the time, but none that were so numerous and looked so alike. If H&M wanted an eveyrman look, that would be the perfect way to go.
In the mid 70’s I was driving a ’62 Ford Fairlane SW after I totaled my ’63 Rambler Classic. The next door neighbor was driving a ’62 Mercury Meteor(a Mercury Fairlane). There were a lot of ’60’s cars being driven in the 70’s. It seems like cars built in 60’s and early 70’s were the beginnings of cars with longer lifespans than previous cars. Example, when I was in High School in ’65-69 almost 95% of the cars that kids drove to school were less than 15 years old. FF to 2000-2004 my daughter went to the same high school as I did and I drove her to and picked her up at school. Almost 95% of the cars that the kids drove were in the 20-35 year old range and there were a lot less kids who drove to school. When I was in HS nobody got driven to school and picked up by your parents, you either walked, rode your bicycle, or got a ride with someones older bother or sister who had a car. Sorry for getting off on a tangent but the subject of this post goes to show you how radically different life is today but that people are still yearning for the “good old days” and how advertising is tapping into that yearning although they try to do it in generic symbolism.
A hot blonde Swedish model and we’re all looking at the car! We must be getting old!
Could they have picked a more boring car?
I remember their used to be a clothing store in the ’80’s called Miller’s Outpost and they had a giant picture on the wall of a bunch of good looking guys and gals in in 1950 Buick Convertible. The driver is looking over his shoulder as if he is backing up and everyone is having a good time. That was a good ad.
On the first photo, even the door latch has been photoshopped/airbrushed out.
I’m guessing that someone at H&M’s ad agency heard about the popularity of the early sixties’ Ford Falcon with trendy, retro-chic hipsters (coincidentally, there was a recent CC on this very topic), and this ’66 Fairlane was as close as they could find without expending an inordinate amount of time or money.
Silly ads. Lovely blonde models should be getting out of Thunderbirds, Corvettes, or even Chargers. Fairlanes (and Falcons) are for bespeckled librarians, teachers, and third shift nurses.
H&M ??? Why does Holman Moody keep coming to my mind??
Somebody needs to treat that model to a nice, high calorie dinner. In a restaurant, just to clarify.
She’s not too thin! When I was a kid, the average teenage girl had a figure like this-of course, that was before Happy Meals became part of the national diet.
Upon seeing the first picture, my first thought was that there was some optional equipment on that car that I like the looks of. My second thought is that if she is the driver, I’m up for going along with her wherever she’s going.
This particular 66 Ford Fairlane 500 was lent from a Berlin-based film-car-company and all the H&M-campaign-shots were taken in Germany.
The car was up to sale and advertised as “Dragnet-look” when lent by the H&M-agency.
All the symbols and decals were cleaned wit a little help from Photoshop.
The Fairlane also starred in the german kids-movie “Bibi and Tina” and was sold just after the H&M-shooting.
I agree with those among you who just have to smile about choosing a 66 Fairlane with the intention of creating a 70s time capsule (even the photo style, the colourings, buildings etc. remind me on a 60s atmosphere. BTW: The buildings ARE pure 60s…).
Imagine someone like Jessica Chastain posing in a sixties robe next to that car…