quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Punkyhermy





(please log in to view the image)

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.

(please log in to view the image)

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.

(please log in to view the image)

(please log in to view the image)



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.

(please log in to view the image)
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.

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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?

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's idiotic.

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42

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

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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

quote: (post)

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.

quote: (post)

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.