Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/artman2/uploads/1/nicole_vanity_fair.jpg

Flicking through the newspapers yesterday I was stopped in my tracks by an image of the new Vanity Fair cover. This shows Nicole Kidman - two-time Oscar nominee, one-time winner - with a military cap on her head and an open-mouthed expression. Said expression is, I guess, supposed to be a Monroe-esque pout, but just makes her look (though it pains me to say it) completely bloody vacant. Beneath this vacuous visage, for no apparent reason, she is holding her shirt open to expose her white, bra-clad breasts. There is something strangely passionless and perfunctory about the pose - as though, off camera, a doctor has just shown up and told her it's time for an impromptu mammary examination. (Or, indeed, the magazine editor has just told her she is off the cover unless she gets on with it and gets 'em out.) "Nicole Kidman Bares All" screams the coverline.

And this image arrives just a few days after the release of photographs from the new Agent Provocateur advertising campaign, featuring another highly lauded actor mugging shamelessly in her scanties: indie favourite and two-time Golden Globe nominee, Maggie Gyllenhaal. The full series of pictures are due online this Friday as part of a book of "adventures" called, very cheesily, Lessons in Lingerie, in which Gyllenhaal stars as a character called Miss AP. Those released so far show Gyllenhaal, variously: reclining in a basic black push-up bra and pants; gazing coquettishly over her shoulder in lacy knickers and a pair of stockings; cavorting in a bubble bath in a striped one-piece (so heavily styled and made up that she resembles another young actor, Brittany Murphy, far more than herself); her breasts pushed up in a tight pink corset, looking as awkward and unhappy as Kidman; and, in the most provocative shot, trussed to a strange wooden chair, legs spread wide, in just her bra and knickers.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/Fifi_468x468.jpg

The general take on the Gyllenhaal pictures so far has been that they are fabulously sexy (indeed, the Sunday Times's Style magazine used them as a peg for a piece about "girl crushes". So why did I find them - and the Kidman shot - so supremely depressing? It can't just be because they feature women as sex objects. After all, there's a constant parade of woman-flesh on the newsstands each day, and while I find the half-clad photos of Hollyoaks stars and Big Brother contestants depressing, too, they don't have the power to surprise these days.

But photographs of genuinely acclaimed actors in their underwear affront me every time, whether it's Angelina Jolie draped in a silk sheet for US Esquire, or her great rival, Jennifer Aniston, baring her breasts for US GQ. There seemed something sad to me about the controversial GQ cover of Kate Winslet a few years ago, not because of her legs being digitally lengthened, but because I couldn't understand why the youngest woman to receive five Oscar nominations had to be togged up in a basque. And as for the Vanity Fair cover of Teri Hatcher, in which the story of her childhood sexual abuse was illustrated with a just-out-of-bed shot of her in nothing but a white top and white knickers, well ... words fail me.

http://www.informativos.telecinco.es/imgsed/angelina_070604_400.jpg

http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/D20051117/32_618236719_jenniferanistongqcover_H155605_L.jpg



I think what I find so incredibly discomfiting about these pictures is their suggestion that, no matter how talented a woman is, how many plaudits she has received, how intelligent her reputation, how garlanded she has been for depicting one of the most talented writers of the last century while sporting a huge prosthetic conk on her noggin, at the end of the day, if she wants to stay in the public eye, if she wants the magazine covers and the leading roles, she has to be willing to reduce herself to ti.ts and arse.

One of the most blatant demonstrations of this came last year, when Vanity Fair (them again) published their Hollywood issue. Put together by the fashion designer, Tom Ford, the cover featured Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley, two talented young actors, completely naked. Rather bizarrely, Knightley was being sniffed by a fully-clad Ford. Inside, it was explained that Ford's appearance had been a last-minute addition and that a "certain young actress" had been slated to appear as part of a "gorgeous female threesome", but hadn't understood the nudity requirement and "bowed out when the clothes started coming off". Said actor was Rachel McAdams, who, at that junction last spring seemed on the brink of stratospheric fame. She had appeared in three successful films in 2005 - Wedding Crashers, Red Eye, The Family Stone - and, some might have argued, was worthy of a fully clad Vanity Fair cover. Since declining to bare all, McAdams' career has gone strangely quiet (she has apparently turned down some offers of sidekick roles), while the fame of Knightley and Johansson has soared. Coincidence? Well, maybe.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Renata_mcm/leibowitz1hi.jpg
That example suggests that it is a simple equation - get your clothes off, see your career rocket - but, of course, it is not. It is a hugely risky business to disrobe (the same people who laud your sexiness will think much less of your talent), and it is a risky business to leave them on (see McAdams, and, no doubt, many other aspiring, principled actors throughout the decades). Actors such as Kidman and Gyllenhaal must recognise this edge of risk, which brings me to another depressing spectre. For many women, it seems, no matter how successful they are, the need to be pleasing to men, to say, "However powerful and clever I might seem, I'm just a playful, bra-baring bunny underneath," trumps everything. Excuse me while I wipe the tears off my keyboard ...

source.






well said.



but really it all comes down to us women ourselves. there goes the women rights movemnt thrown out the window. so in the end what really did we fight for? out of the aprons just to strap on sex gear.

Maggie Gyllenhaal is hot... have you seen her in "The Secretary"?

As far as your point, "flesh" sells, that is the point.

women in hollywood are nothing more than sperm receptacles who suck and **** their way to fame. what...you just learned this? this is a recent developement? in order for them to make it as actors they have to be willing to be softcore pornstars on demand. thats the way its always been. thats what sells. sluts.

Originally posted by Schecter
women in hollywood are nothing more than sperm receptacles who suck and **** their way to fame. what...you just learned this? this is a recent developement? in order for them to make it as actors they have to be willing to be softcore pornstars on demand. thats the way its always been. thats what sells. sluts.

Happy but true.

Sex sells... but is that really so awful? Let me tell you, if men were considered sex symbols that just had to expose some rippling abs to get girls jilling off to their photos with great vigor, we wouldn't be posting threads like this. We'd be too busy reaping the benefits of being the symbol of beauty, again (as we were back in early Greece).

However, I understand where you're coming from. More power to you.

They're going to hell, ya know..

Originally posted by debbiejo
They're going to hell, ya know..

I hope I am, too droolio

I don't disagree or agree.

It just is. I think a lot of women misplace their anger or unease with the way female careers are, they aim it at men, because it's aimed at us. It's not our fault, these women want to do it, and if they don't then they have no right to complain, cos they're doing it for money anyway.

Blame them. Not us. If they're willing to get their clothes off, I'm willing to enjoy it.

Let's not overlook the fact that half those actresses probably wouldn't be anywhere without posing for magazines. Natalie Portman has a decent movie career and she has never had to get naked because she actually has the talent.

It's like fat women who blame men for liking "Sticks". No, we just don't necessarily find obesity or being overweight to be attractive, and if you bothered to ask, most would say anorexia isn't too hot either. Anything gets the point of the finger besides those responsible or to blame.

-AC

Article was rubbish, but thanks for the great pictures.

Err, what? Wasn't the whole point of the women's rights movement to gain equal rights and the ability to chose to do what you want?

So how does actresses choosing to pose half-naked go against this? No one is making them do it. They decide to do it, and if they don't want to they don't have to.

Originally posted by Lana
Err, what? Wasn't the whole point of the women's rights movement to gain equal rights and the ability to chose to do what you want?

So how does actresses choosing to pose half-naked go against this? No one is making them do it. They decide to do it, and if they don't want to they don't have to.

the point is that they are obligated to do so in order to gain success in hollywood. their other choice was failure.

More the pussy the better, Juses Christ

Originally posted by Secretus
More the pussy the better, Juses Christ
going for the dyslexic sacrilegious pervert angle?

Originally posted by Schecter
going for the dyslexic sacrilegious pervert angle?

I thought it was the dyslexic sacrilegious pervert who pronounces the name Raymond in a manner that sounds offhand poetic and has billboard appeal, but is ultimately meaningless.

(Angle).

I haven't read the article but I will however say this much. I am as well against the whole entire: show some flesh for the sake of publicity. I simply find it all to be simply a whole bunch of bullocks but unfortunately thats just how it goes. As the priest at my church has said (who has worked in business before becoming a priest) there are two rules that they teach you right away in marketing:

1. Sex sells.
2. Feed on Greed.

The two actually go hand in hand, what with the first one acting as a catalyst for the second rule with the audience wanting more and more of the sexual images. Plain and simple, its derogatory and unnecessary. But surely if i think this then why don't I just simply ignore this. After all ignorance is bliss right? Wrong again, in this world the frequency of which I even run into this stuff (which infects every font of multimedia) makes it damn hard to ignore since they shove this stuff into your face making such a thing as ignorance damn near irrelevant. By damn do i hate objectifying.

If you can't stand those mazines don't read them.jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
If you can't stand those mazines don't read them.jm
unadulterated ignorance makes everything better these days?

I doubt she knows what that means

You are so right!! *O* seems like all pretty famous girls are reducing themselfs to this kinda stuff, so sad :l and the sadest part of it is that the world is filled with pervy people now! >.< why else would they do this? 0.o They already have tons of money but no-ooo... they have to go and be all slutish to get attention =P Bleh.

I don't know if I disagree or I agree. Because, while I don't particularly like to see successful women degrade themselves on the covers of magazines, I have to say more power to them for doing what they want and exercising their freedom to do it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't disagree or agree.

It just is. I think a lot of women misplace their anger or unease with the way female careers are, they aim it at men, because it's aimed at us. It's not our fault, these women want to do it, and if they don't then they have no right to complain, cos they're doing it for money anyway.

Blame them. Not us. If they're willing to get their clothes off, I'm willing to enjoy it.

Let's not overlook the fact that half those actresses probably wouldn't be anywhere without posing for magazines. Natalie Portman has a decent movie career and she has never had to get naked because she actually has the talent.

It's like fat women who blame men for liking "Sticks". No, we just don't necessarily find obesity or being overweight to be attractive, and if you bothered to ask, most would say anorexia isn't too hot either. Anything gets the point of the finger besides those responsible or to blame.

-AC

Have you seen her in "Closer"? She's not naked, but she bares a lot of flesh, like many other actresses have done to boost their careers. If not, rent it, the stripper-Portman scenes are well worth the two pounds.

It doesn't bother me, what i have noticed and DOES bother me however is that women level the finger at guys and say things like "oh but if a woman goes around sleeping with everyone, you call her a ****, its her choice."
I hear more women calling other women sluts than i do men. I don't know why women think its ok for them to ***** about another woman, but find it repugnant when a man does.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy





http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/artman2/uploads/1/nicole_vanity_fair.jpg

Flicking through the newspapers yesterday I was stopped in my tracks by an image of the new Vanity Fair cover. This shows Nicole Kidman - two-time Oscar nominee, one-time winner - with a military cap on her head and an open-mouthed expression. Said expression is, I guess, supposed to be a Monroe-esque pout, but just makes her look (though it pains me to say it) completely bloody vacant. Beneath this vacuous visage, for no apparent reason, she is holding her shirt open to expose her white, bra-clad breasts. There is something strangely passionless and perfunctory about the pose - as though, off camera, a doctor has just shown up and told her it's time for an impromptu mammary examination. (Or, indeed, the magazine editor has just told her she is off the cover unless she gets on with it and gets 'em out.) "Nicole Kidman Bares All" screams the coverline.

And this image arrives just a few days after the release of photographs from the new Agent Provocateur advertising campaign, featuring another highly lauded actor mugging shamelessly in her scanties: indie favourite and two-time Golden Globe nominee, Maggie Gyllenhaal. The full series of pictures are due online this Friday as part of a book of "adventures" called, very cheesily, Lessons in Lingerie, in which Gyllenhaal stars as a character called Miss AP. Those released so far show Gyllenhaal, variously: reclining in a basic black push-up bra and pants; gazing coquettishly over her shoulder in lacy knickers and a pair of stockings; cavorting in a bubble bath in a striped one-piece (so heavily styled and made up that she resembles another young actor, Brittany Murphy, far more than herself); her breasts pushed up in a tight pink corset, looking as awkward and unhappy as Kidman; and, in the most provocative shot, trussed to a strange wooden chair, legs spread wide, in just her bra and knickers.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/Fifi_468x468.jpg

The general take on the Gyllenhaal pictures so far has been that they are fabulously sexy (indeed, the Sunday Times's Style magazine used them as a peg for a piece about "girl crushes". So why did I find them - and the Kidman shot - so supremely depressing? It can't just be because they feature women as sex objects. After all, there's a constant parade of woman-flesh on the newsstands each day, and while I find the half-clad photos of Hollyoaks stars and Big Brother contestants depressing, too, they don't have the power to surprise these days.

But photographs of genuinely acclaimed actors in their underwear affront me every time, whether it's Angelina Jolie draped in a silk sheet for US Esquire, or her great rival, Jennifer Aniston, baring her breasts for US GQ. There seemed something sad to me about the controversial GQ cover of Kate Winslet a few years ago, not because of her legs being digitally lengthened, but because I couldn't understand why the youngest woman to receive five Oscar nominations had to be togged up in a basque. And as for the Vanity Fair cover of Teri Hatcher, in which the story of her childhood sexual abuse was illustrated with a just-out-of-bed shot of her in nothing but a white top and white knickers, well ... words fail me.

http://www.informativos.telecinco.es/imgsed/angelina_070604_400.jpg

http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/D20051117/32_618236719_jenniferanistongqcover_H155605_L.jpg



I think what I find so incredibly discomfiting about these pictures is their suggestion that, no matter how talented a woman is, how many plaudits she has received, how intelligent her reputation, how garlanded she has been for depicting one of the most talented writers of the last century while sporting a huge prosthetic conk on her noggin, at the end of the day, if she wants to stay in the public eye, if she wants the magazine covers and the leading roles, she has to be willing to reduce herself to ti.ts and arse.

One of the most blatant demonstrations of this came last year, when Vanity Fair (them again) published their Hollywood issue. Put together by the fashion designer, Tom Ford, the cover featured Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley, two talented young actors, completely naked. Rather bizarrely, Knightley was being sniffed by a fully-clad Ford. Inside, it was explained that Ford's appearance had been a last-minute addition and that a "certain young actress" had been slated to appear as part of a "gorgeous female threesome", but hadn't understood the nudity requirement and "bowed out when the clothes started coming off". Said actor was Rachel McAdams, who, at that junction last spring seemed on the brink of stratospheric fame. She had appeared in three successful films in 2005 - Wedding Crashers, Red Eye, The Family Stone - and, some might have argued, was worthy of a fully clad Vanity Fair cover. Since declining to bare all, McAdams' career has gone strangely quiet (she has apparently turned down some offers of sidekick roles), while the fame of Knightley and Johansson has soared. Coincidence? Well, maybe.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Renata_mcm/leibowitz1hi.jpg
That example suggests that it is a simple equation - get your clothes off, see your career rocket - but, of course, it is not. It is a hugely risky business to disrobe (the same people who laud your sexiness will think much less of your talent), and it is a risky business to leave them on (see McAdams, and, no doubt, many other aspiring, principled actors throughout the decades). Actors such as Kidman and Gyllenhaal must recognise this edge of risk, which brings me to another depressing spectre. For many women, it seems, no matter how successful they are, the need to be pleasing to men, to say, "However powerful and clever I might seem, I'm just a playful, bra-baring bunny underneath," trumps everything. Excuse me while I wipe the tears off my keyboard ...

source.






well said.



but really it all comes down to us women ourselves. there goes the women rights movemnt thrown out the window. so in the end what really did we fight for? out of the aprons just to strap on sex gear.


SEX sells. Has for centuries. Will continue to 4ever.

Originally posted by Schecter
women in hollywood are nothing more than sperm receptacles who suck and **** their way to fame. what...you just learned this? this is a recent developement? in order for them to make it as actors they have to be willing to be softcore pornstars on demand. thats the way its always been. thats what sells. sluts.


Even in Hollywood every woman is not a ****.

Originally posted by Naz
I don't know if I disagree or I agree. Because, while I don't particularly like to see successful women degrade themselves on the covers of magazines, I have to say more power to them for doing what they want and exercising their freedom to do it.


How are they degrading themselves?

I gotta subscribe to that magazine dd

I prefer Maxim...wanna know why? see below...

http://usera.imagecave.com/roguejedi/kh1.bmp.jpg

no problem ISNT sex selling. but it shudnt be PATRIARCHAL. you dont NEARLY find the same number of baring{and thinking up of new workouts/ways to talk/posing to please women} male models and respectable stars pleasing the female public. its the typical things about MALE satisfaction.

also, sex shudnt be the ONLY thing that sells, all other aspects{emotionsal, talent.intelligence, ingenuity, performance etc} shud sell as much as sex.

in short degradation of women to NOTHING MORE than sex objects is wrong. {same reason why men are so conmfortable with drooling over lesbians while its thoght of as UNMANLY and gross/embarrising to be GAY. or for women to fantasize about gay men. certainly u dont have male models and celebrities gaining point for kissing other MEN. as opposed to lets say madonn/christina/britney etc}

Originally posted by Schecter
the point is that they are obligated to do so in order to gain success in hollywood. their other choice was failure.

Oh my, oh my, men have to carry boxes, in order to get anywhere in a factory....the tragedy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh my, oh my, men have to carry boxes, in order to get anywhere in a factory....the tragedy.

nice analogy...no it isnt.

Originally posted by Schecter
nice analogy...no it isnt.

It is though.

They make money by being popular. Posing nude (or semi nude) is a way to achieve that.

What's the problem?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is though.

They make money by being popular. Posing nude (or semi nude) is a way to achieve that.

What's the problem?

if you see no problem with such an obligation, then thats that.
im of the mentallity that there should be a distinction between one who acts in film and one who is a porn star, or more to the point, a lack of obligation to be one in order to be the other. still it was a crappy analogy.

Originally posted by Schecter
if you see no problem with such an obligation, then thats that.
im of the mentallity that there should be a distinction between one who acts in film and one who is a porn star, or more to the point, a lack of obligation to be one in order to be the other. still it was a crappy analogy. That's idiotic. The people that will sell the most movies get casted. If doing nude shots is a requirement to some casters (which apparently it is) the ones that do it are better suited for the job than the ones that do not. It's their choice, but if they don't do it they might just not be employable. It's not a job requirenment it just makes you better at what you have to do (which is not act, but sell tickets and DVDs) and I really see nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's idiotic.

you're idiotic

Originally posted by Bardock42
The people get casted that will sell the most movies. If doing nude shots is a requirement of that (which apparently it is) the ones that do it are better suited for the job than the ones that do not. It's their choice, but if they don't do it they might just not be employable. It's not a requirenment it just makes you better at what you have to do (which is not act, but sell tickets and DVDs) and I really see nothing wrong with that.

yes yes thats you're opinion. i didnt forget. however since its completely subjective and one's ability to strip factually has nothing to do with acting ability, and vice versa, thats as far as you can take your opinion. i dont understand how you intend to finalize it as an undisputable point, but have fun trying.

Originally posted by Schecter
you're idiotic



yes yes thats you're opinion. i didnt forget. however since its completely subjective and one's ability to strip factually has nothing to do with acting ability, and vice versa, thats as far as you can take your opinion. i dont understand how you intend to finalize it as an undisputable point, but have fun trying. It's not an opinion. It's a fact.

Whether you can act means **** all to the people that pay the bill.

End of story.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Whether you can act* means **** all to the people that pay the bill.



*didnt you mean to type "strip"? if not, i agree. but fail to see the relevance to the topic

Originally posted by Schecter
*didnt you mean to type "strip"? if not, i agree. but fail to see the relevance to the topic

Think about what you are arguing. You admitted that apparently the ability to strip matters in Hollywood.

I'm not saying that I don't prefer someone that can act over someone that stripped in a magazine I will never see, but if the person paying for the movie thinks the person that stripped in that magazine will get more people to buy that movie (whether they can act or not) they will get them to work for them (of course it is not always the case, but apparently enough so most acctresses do it (whether they want to or because they want to be more attractive for some jobs).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Think about what you are arguing. You admitted that apparently the ability to strip matters in Hollywood.

yes...yes i did. except that wasnt an admission but rather the central point of my argument. i feel it shouldnt be a requirement, and that such an obligation dumbs down the industry.

on a personal note i never cared for nude/sex scenes as some manditory interlude, irrelevant to the story. (team america: world police expressed it well for me) like as if the director thought "lets give them this scene in case they want to whack off". thanks, but i have porn.

:edit: hehe

v=mYVubroSJFA

Originally posted by Schecter
yes...yes i did. except that wasnt an admission but rather the central point of my argument. i feel it shouldnt be a requirement, and that such an obligation dumbs down the industry.

on a personal note i never cared for nude/sex scenes as some manditory interlude, irrelevant to the story. (team america: world police expressed it well for me) like as if the director thought "lets give them this scene in case they want to whack off". thanks, but i have porn.



I don't dispute your argument, it's an opinion.

I'm just saying why it is the way. And I told you I personally don't see anything wrong with it (subjective)

Originally posted by Dear
You are so right!! *O* seems like all pretty famous girls are reducing themselfs to this kinda stuff, so sad :l and the sadest part of it is that the world is filled with pervy people now! >.< why else would they do this? 0.o They already have tons of money but no-ooo... they have to go and be all slutish to get attention =P Bleh.

Yeah... I wouldn't be saying that with a sig like yours...

I shall repeat: rejoice the fact that it's easier for you to get laid than us. Embrace the power you have over men (and 5% of women). Don't scorn it and complain that you're just too damn sexy, because that will anger the beauty Gods and they will punish all femalekind with sever ugliness. Then, man will be forced to make hot sex robots and women will never get laid again. DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT?! Of course you do, because it's a proven fact that all women hate sex and receive no pleasure from it :P

It's easy money.

That is all.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no problem ISNT sex selling. but it shudnt be PATRIARCHAL. you dont NEARLY find the same number of baring{and thinking up of new workouts/ways to talk/posing to please women} male models and respectable stars pleasing the female public. its the typical things about MALE satisfaction.

also, sex shudnt be the ONLY thing that sells, all other aspects{emotionsal, talent.intelligence, ingenuity, performance etc} shud sell as much as sex.


Just because male actors/singers dont do it doesn't mean the demand isn't their, it just means they dont do it.
And people who are genuinely talented dont need to use sex to sell, its generally the people who are short on talent who rely on sex to sell their product.

Originally posted by Dear
You are so right!! *O* seems like all pretty famous girls are reducing themselfs to this kinda stuff, so sad :l and the sadest part of it is that the world is filled with pervy people now! >.< why else would they do this? 0.o They already have tons of money but no-ooo... they have to go and be all slutish to get attention =P Bleh.

An example of my point before. In this thread, no male (apart from Schecter who could go either way but i'm assuming is male...) has called any women "sluts." Yet here is a female using a defamatory term designed specifically at her own gender. Is it like black people saying ****** alot or something?

Originally posted by BackFire
It's easy money.

That is all. I'll show you easy money....*unzips pants*....get on your knees, byatch.

Wait, I can get paid for doing that?

Damn pvs..he lied to me.

Originally posted by BackFire
Wait, I can get paid for doing that?

Damn pvs..he lied to me. I'll pay you, baby, I know you are da shizzle.

Originally posted by BackFire
Wait, I can get paid for doing that?

Damn pvs..he lied to me.

the contract clearly stated on page 150 that you would be paid handsomely with pearl necklaces and damnit i never welshed.

I disagree with the article for reasons that I don't have the motivation to type out right now because I'm fairly hung over from last night. However, one thing I do agree with is Scarlett Johansson's boobs.

I just stumbled upon this Cate Blanchett cover

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/5319/cateblanchettwmagazineap4.jpg

None of those pictures do it for me. And it's not for any reasons stated in the opening post.

They're just unattractive pictures.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Cate is just unattractive, period.

Originally posted by InnerRise
None of those pictures do it for me. And it's not for any reasons stated in the opening post.

They're just unattractive pictures.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....


Well, I can understand why you think so.