Analysing the Louboutin double page spread

•  Binary opposition between rich and poor
• Complete lack of anchorage, assumption of audience knowledge of luxury brands
• Binary opposition of images combine to create themes of poverty and inequality
• Loubitons logo placed underneath shocking image of poverty and deprivation criticises this luxury brand 
• Tagline: red soles etc functions as an example of dark humour. Red soles here is symbolic of bleeding feet, and the joke is intended to criticise Loubitons and the audience for living a luxurious lifestyle and not helping 
• Preferred reading is that this is sophisticated dark humour. However, an oppositional reading might be that the advert is racist, making fun of desperately poor people in Africa
• Use of colour, black and white image of a refugee camp forms a binary opposition with the colourful image of the runway model, once more reinforcing the binary between rich and poor
• Minimalistic advert and minimalistic layout in general. Sparse layout. Reflects a minimalistic, miserable life
• Barely any use of words and language reinforces themes of misery and lacking
• MES of broken, ugly bottles symbolises desperation of the desperately poor
• Complete lack of anchorage forces audience to make stereotypical assumptions
• Extreme close up shot of feet positions the audience in an extremely close and uncomfortable mode of address. 
• Potentially belittling and even offensive for the unnamed 'African person' 
• Low angle shot of model positions the audience in a subordinate mode of address. This is a complete diametric opposition to the shot of the 'African person's' feet
• Contrast between the two both belittles the audience and forces them to feel guilty
• Extremely low production values of the 'African person' image. Looks blurry, fuzzy, pixelated
• Bottles encode a strong theme of pollution and environmental destruction. The global west tends to produce a lot more pollution and environmental destruction
• Potential reference to sweatshop labour?