Molson Commercials and Canadian Identity
Written December 5, 2003

In terms of popular culture and identity, Canada is a weak and susceptible nation. Indeed, we have actually achieved international notoriety for this dubious status as “’Canadianization’ became a term, in European broadcasting circles, synonymous with fragmentation and loss of national identity on the airwaves” (Starowicz 84). Perhaps in light of this disturbing identity crisis, Molson Corporation has released a number of extremely popular television commercials for their Canadian brand beer in recent years which largely showcase American ignorance about Canada and have been met with much critical acclaim and general approval as a step in the right direction towards defining what it is to be Canadian. However, examining these commercials in conjunction with Canada’s preoccupation with maintaining distance from the United States, and the role American media takes in feeding Canadians elements of their symbolic identity along with the ironic manner in which Canadians receive these ideas reveals Molson’s commercials as merely serving the same purpose as external American programming in defining Canadian identity, simply hidden beneath the guise of popular anti-American sentiment. Molson is not pioneering a new Canadian identity, but merely rehashing and reinforcing the same stereotypes about Canada that Americans have made popular, packaged in an attractive new format.

As a country possessing a “national culture widely regarded as one of the world’s most colonized and weak” (Straw 107), Canada often relies on the simple means of distancing itself from America and simply clinging to cultural survival as a means of identity. Theorist Frank Manning notes this phenomenon, mentioning “the extent to which concern about American cultural influence remains a Canadian preoccupation” and our “strident determination to protect [our] own identity” (Manning 3). These sentiments are echoed in the writings of a wide variety of other theorists interested in Canadian identity, who note the importance of the “drive to survive” (Straw 103) in the face of American cultural dominance. Indeed, this need for differentiation from our neighbor to the south can often manifest itself in anti-American sentiment, as witnessed on the CBC program Talking to Americans which features a Canadian comedian traveling to the United States and interviewing random citizens with questions specifically designed to make them look ignorant in the eyes of a Canadian audience. Political internet cartoonist J.J. McCullouch specifically identifies this phenomenon, stating that “one of the most defining features of Canadian society is its staunch anti-America attitude” (McCullouch). It appears as though the intense need for cultural separation from the United States is often popularly manifested in negative opinions and counter-stereotypes which Canadians hold and attribute to Americans. This is an evident feature of Molson’s Canadian commercials, which will be specifically addressed later.

Despite the enthusiasm and tenacity with which Canadians attempt to separate themselves from Americans, Canada ravenously consumes large quantities of American popular culture in the form of television and movies. It is suggested that “at least 95 per cent of film screen time in Canada is occupied by American films [and] 95 per cent of television fiction programmes in English are American” (Wernick 17). Paul Rutherford explores the manner in which this extraordinarily lopsided trend towards American programming developed, outlining the serious lack of Canadian content that was initially commissioned to accompany Canada ’s extensive communications infrastructure which resulted in a need to import American shows and features. Eventually, as he claims, “the rougher elements of society preferred an entertainment that was imported from the United States or that imitated American ways” ( Rutherford 264), gradually leading to the American dominance of Canadian popular culture. Furthermore, an examination of the cultural battle between the two nations states that “the most influential component of the media today is television” and that “television has become essential to the maintenance and functioning of any industrial body politic today” (Starowicz 94). If we are to assume that television is an integral function of maintaining a nation, the fact that such a large portion of this medium is controlled by another country is disturbing indeed. Even so-called Canadian content is often marred by an American influence. Starowicz notes that “Although the kids portrayed in My Pet Monster or Dennis the Menace go to Benjamin Franklin High School, which flies an American flag and celebrates American Thanksgiving… these programmes qualify as Canadian content on a Canadian channel. They were, after all, produced in Canada ” (Starowicz 100). While American television shows are sandwiched between substituted Canadian advertisements, the United States still stands to gain economically from their overwhelming cultural influence in Canada as “the export of U.S. television encourages the adoption of an American identity in other countries; more generally, it promotes the values of consumerism, which in turn enhance American economic and political interests” (Manning 10). Even Molson, the corporation responsible for the profit-boosting, identity-defining Canadian commercials, is partially owned by American companies. The United States has a vested economic interest in commanding Canadian media content and capitalizing on an insecure Canadian identity.

As a direct result of American domination of Canadian airwaves, some of the most popular and widespread stereotypes and generalizations about Canadian life have been generated and maintained by American-made programming. Andrew Wernick notes American involvement in perpetrating Canadian symbolism, stating that “the imaged Canada that circulates at home combines a cluster of images fashioned for the domestic market with others that are generated externally and, then, through American media, reimported” (Wernick 298). Popular American television programs such as South Park, Saturday Night Live and the Simpsons portray Canadians in light of common stereotypes such as excessive use of the term “Eh”, un-American pronunciation of the word “about” and as a nation of ridiculously small population. Further examination of common Canadian stereotypes on internet common-use encyclopedia Wikipedia reveals “poutine, winter, maple syrup, ice hockey and beer” (Wikepedia) as themes commonly associated with Canada . But are these stereotypes really accurate of average Canadian life and citizens? Many are based upon historical Canadian inventions or achievements but are proportionately blown up in terms of importance to Canadian symbolism through repetitious media associations. Rutherford claims that “many of the structures, institutions, and conventions that once had embodied different values and assumptions seemed to be overwhelmed or transformed in the new era of affluence, largely because of the effects of television” (Rutherford 272). From this we can gather the sheer strength which television programming, a facet which has been proved to be largely controlled by America , has for the purpose of redefining a fluid and uncertain Canadian culture, symbolism and identity. Essentially, many Canadians learn common conceptions of Canada through American media, subjecting our national identity to external manipulation.

One might ask how Canadians react to this external definition of our culture in the face of overwhelmingly American media content. Manning offers the suggestion that “Canadian culture is consciously ironic, parodic, and self-satiric. Canadians laugh at their culture, but they ‘do not destroy their culture by laughing at it; instead, they affirm it in a complex, introverted manner’” (Manning 19). This certainly seems to be the case when the American film Canadian Bacon, one of the greatest sources of Canadian stereotypes, is taken into consideration. Two prominent Canadian actors in the movie, John Candy and Dan Aykroyd, actively participate in advancing the popularization of such ‘typical’ Canadian images as plaid-jacketed, beer drinking lumberjacks in a deliberate satire of their country, of which they are fully aware is an inaccurate portrayal of actual Canadian life. Manning suggests that this parody is an essential part of Canadian identity, stating that “Canadians resist American influences, however paradoxically, by representing an image of themselves that Americans favour…” (Manning 24). His view is supported by an analysis of the ludicrous comparison between the national animals of Canada and America – a beaver and an eagle – which notes that “the fact that we can acknowledge [the eagle’s superiority] and laugh about it means that we’re not terribly invested in the whole stupid national-animal bullshit anyway, which, in turn, makes us superior” (Nolan 391). It appears as though Canadians are more than willing to take on the stereotypes and facets of identity thrust upon us by American media simply for the purpose of having an acknowledged identity, all the while smirking and laughing at the sheer stupidity of some of the ridiculous conceptions which our neighbors have of the Great North. This appetite for consuming and twisting common misconceptions of Canada is a primary aspect of Molson’s Canadian commercials, which play viciously on a variety of incorrect American viewpoints. However, while satire and parody is perhaps one of the most clever ways in which Canadians could accept the inevitability of an externally created national symbolism and identity, the sad truth remains that American media is the primary vehicle for delivering these ideas, ultimately giving another nation control over an important means of developing authentic national identity.

Finally, we come to the issue of Molson’s Canadian commercials themselves. Many have achieved cult status amongst Canadian youth and one writer describes these advertisements as “some of the most compelling things I’ve seen in the area of national identity” (Nolan 389). However, by examining each of the original series of five ads in turn, it becomes obvious that their success in ‘redefining’ Canadian identity lies wholly in the area of re-exposing traditional American stereotypes of Canada in an ironic manner and drawing heavily on our national need for separation from our neighbor – essentially delivering the same elements of Canadian identity which have been utilized by American media for years and adding popular elements of parody and blatant anti-Americanism as outlined previously. These ads are still heavily reliant on the stereotypes and symbolism of Canada as defined by American media, rather than attempting to add anything substantial or original to our national identity. Although these commercials were developed by Toronto-based advertising agency Bensimon Byrne, it is important to recognize that content developed in Canada may not necessarily reflect Canadian interests or ideals, as illustrated previously with the issue of children’s television programming. These ads can all be viewed at Bensimon Byrne’s website, http:// www. bensimonbyrnedarcy.com free of charge as of the writing of this paper.

The first commercial, entitled “No Doot”, depicts a Canadian and an American in an office situation. The American taunts the Canadian mercilessly with traditional stereotypes such as unnecessary use of “Eh”, the use of the word “toque” and odd pronunciation of “about”, depictions of Canada echoed in many American television programs. He also says that he “thought all they had up in Canada were lumberjacks and curlers.” Finally the Canadian loses his temper and assaults the American. However, it is interesting to note that his attack consists of ‘jerseying’ the American - the tactic of pulling one’s opponent’s jacket or sweater over their head before punching them – a tactic commonly employed in hockey fights. Although this commercial fulfils the Canadian viewer’s desire for separation between American and Canada through the conflict, and the parodic use of Canadian stereotypes as uttered by the obnoxious American, it nonetheless does not offer any identity alternative for Canadians. In fact, the Canadian’s use of jerseying to attack the American strengthens the notion that Canada is a ‘hockey’ nation – not necessarily a negative depiction but nonetheless a return to traditional symbolism rather than any advancement or innovation in defining Canadian identity.

The second commercial in Molson’s hat is entitled “The Rant” and is certainly the most widespread and popular ad of the series. This commercial depicts a character named Joe who steps to a microphone and delivers a compelling speech about what it means to be Canadian. He begins speaking slowly and quietly and gradually builds in tempo and loudness until he is shouting enthusiastically by the end of the commercial, delivering a subtle satire on the Americanized notion of Canadians as typically quiet, polite people. Joe addresses all of the common stereotypes included in Molson’s other commercials, such as Canada ’s ‘tiny’ population, the misconception that all Canadians live in igloos and eat blubber, and the “about” mispronunciation. He also goes one step farther, mentioning basic elements which distinguish Canada from America such as having a Prime Minister versus a President, a multilingual society: “I speak English and French, not American”, Canada’s peacekeeping reputation and Canadian diversity versus American assimilation. While the entire process of having to sum up the ways in which Canada is misrepresented or different from America may seem to be a satire in itself because of the unfortunate necessity in teaching Canadians about themselves, this particular ad essentially serves the basic purpose of differentiating the two nations. However, Joe takes a requisite stab at America at the end of his speech, declaring that “ Canada is the best part of North America ” and fulfilling the need for antagonizing Americans, which is an important theme in Molson’s commercials. “The Rant” is superior to Molson’s other commercials in establishing Canadian identity because it identifies some key facets of essential Canadian culture such as bilingualism, our huge land mass and political nature. However, the majority of Joe’s rant consists of dispelling American stereotypes of Canada which, like the rest of Molson’s ads, merely serves to inform Canadian viewers that we should be knowledgeable about these things because they are seen to be part of our culture, effectively entrenching them into our Canadian identity. Although this is done through parody, it nonetheless serves the same purpose as the satirical examples of Canadian stereotypes exhibited in American media and consequentially “The Rant” is reliant on American views of Canadian symbolism and identity for its dramatic purpose. Ironically enough, the actor who played Joe moved to Hollywood to further his career after being dragged across the country by politicians as a representative symbol of Canadian pride.

The third Molson commercial, entitled “Office Glen” is a short interaction between an American girl and a Canadian male, where the girl asks about a friend of hers who lives somewhere in Canada. The Canadian satirically answers “Oh…office Glen! He’s dead,” and walks away, simultaneously insulting American stupidity for thinking Canada is small enough that everyone knows each other and taking an amusing twist on the common American misconception of Canadian population size.

The fourth ad, “Fur”, sets up the usual ‘stupid Americans versus smart Canadian’ scenario in a bar, where two obviously stereotyped American louts mock a Canadian for his beer choice and for holding a fur coat, calling him a “pelt trader”. Their smugness is destroyed, however, when an attractive woman arrives, claims the jacket for her own and leaves with the Canadian. Once again, Americans are defeated – left alone while the Canadian gets the girl - and the historical Canadian association with fur trapping is parodied as the fur coat does not in fact belong to the Canadian as the Americans assumed.

The final commercial in Molson’s original Canadian series is called “Beaver” and is almost identical to “Fur” – two annoying Americans begin hassling a Canadian at a bar. They finally ask him “Where’s your pet beaver?” and are surprised when he answers “Right here” and procures a large specimen of Canada ’s national animal. He then orders it to attack and calmly drinks his beer as his beaver gnaws on the throat of the closest American, who emits girlish screams. This scenario once again initiates the all too popular conflict with Americans and mocks the American assumption that all Canadians carry a version of our oft-maligned national animal with them by imagining a situation where a Canadian actually does have one – and it’s tough on Americans. This commercial is once again a clever example of sardonic humour, but nonetheless does not offer Canadian identity anything new beyond the formulaic attack on Americans and satire of common Canadian symbolism.

In conclusion, Molson’s much vaunted Canadian commercials do not contribute anything new or substantial in the way of further defining Canadian identity. Despite their popularity and acclaim, these advertisements simply recycle a number of stereotypes and symbols of Canadian identity which American media offers Canadians as a means of national identification to rally around in the absence of anything better. In typical Canadian form as seen in our own interpretations of these ideals in American media, these symbols are satired and parodied mercilessly as a limited means of accepting an externally imposed concept of what it is to be Canadian. In response to a strong Canadian desire for obvious separation and distinction from the United States, these ads all feature conflict with Americans in which Canadians emerge victorious, a key factor in the commercials’ popularity with Canadian youth. However, the success of these commercials is still beneficial to American interest, as a substantial portion of Molson’s enormous profits is directed into American coffers and ultimately their economy. With the exception of a few key nationalistic distinctions made in “The Rant”, Molson’s Canadian ads do little more for the Canadian identity than display and play off the very same stereotypes which American programming feeds Canadian viewers, and should certainly not be viewed as an advancement of any kind in the formation of a solidified Canadian identity as defined by Canadians.

Works Cited

Manning, Frank. “Reversible Resistance: Canadian Popular Culture and the American Other” in The Beaver Bites Back: American Popular Culture in Canada . Pp. 3-28. Montreal : McGill-Queen’s UP, 1993.

McCullouch, J. J. “Anti-Americanism in Canada ”
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/america.htm . Accessed December 3, 2003 .

Nolan, Nicole. “Memo to Sheila Copps: Forget Those Flags. The Slickest New Nationalism is in the Latest Wave of Beer Ads” in Canadian Communications: Issues in Contemporary Media and Culture . Pp. 388-393. Scarborough : Prentice Hall Allyn and Bacon Canada , 1999.

Rutherford, Paul. “Made in America : The Problem of Mass Culture in Canada ” in The Beaver Bites Back: American Popular Culture in Canada . Pp. 260-280. Montreal : McGill-Queen’s UP, 1993.

Starowicz, Mark. “Citizens of Video America : What Happened to Canadian Television in the Satellite Age” in Small Nations Big Neighbor: Denmark and Quebec / Canada Compare Notes on American Popular Culture . Pp. 83-102. London : John Libbey, 1993.

Straw, Will. “Dilemmas of Definition” in Slippery Pastimes: Reading the Popular in Canadian Culture . Pp. 95-108. Waterloo : Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2002.

Wernick, Andrew. “American Popular Culture in Canada : Trends and Reflections” in The Beaver Bites Back: American Popular Culture in Canada . Pp. 293-302. Montreal : McGill-Queen’s UP, 1993.

Wickepedia: The Free Encyclopedia. “Culture of Canada ”
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_culture . Accessed December 4, 2003 .