Scarlett NUDE on cover of Vanity Fair!!!

Post appearances in the media including print, online, tv, radio, etc. for cast and crew.

Moderator: Bob

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Suntory
For Relaxing Times Make It Suntory Time!
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:28 am
Location: Boston

Scarlett NUDE on cover of Vanity Fair!!!

#1 Post by Suntory » Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:28 pm

Scarlett is on the cover of Vanity Fair with Keira Knightly also sans
clothes. However of course it artistically done in a classic kind of style
and at first I did not recognize her. I read the cover and then did a
double take and *zoinks* it was Scarlett!!!

jm
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:10 am

Re: Scarlett NUDE on cover of Vanity Fair!!!

#2 Post by jm » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:14 pm

"[quote:4210a5d518="Suntory"]Scarlett is on the cover of Vanity Fair with Keira Knightly also sans clothes.[/quote:4210a5d518]
Well as long as she doesn't make anything with Robert Redford again, that's fine. I love her, but I've been terrible about following her career...I've only seen [i:4210a5d518]Pearl Earring[/i:4210a5d518] and [i:4210a5d518]The Perfect Score.[/i:4210a5d518]"
Last edited by jm on Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
K
LIT Super Fan
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:06 pm

#3 Post by K » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:48 am

She should of left her clothes on.

jm
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:10 am

#4 Post by jm » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:16 pm

"[quote:476461df50="K"]She should of left her clothes on.[/quote:476461df50]
"of"?

Sorry -- someone had to."
Last edited by jm on Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
K
LIT Super Fan
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:06 pm

#5 Post by K » Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:06 pm

Pardon?

User avatar
adrien950
Japanese Surfer
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: TEXAS
Contact:

#6 Post by adrien950 » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:31 pm

So does it make you think less of Scarlett for doing this photo shoot?

Image

There is a little clip of the photo shoot here:

http://www.vanityfair.com/videos/060208feou_keira_video
Image

I65
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:47 pm

#7 Post by I65 » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:57 pm

Personally, I applaud her.

It appears tastefully done to me, and to be that comfortable in ones own skin at such a young age is a gift.

Let's face it, gravity is not kind to most women in their later years. It is doubtful that her body will ever look as good as it does now. Why not seize the moment?

User avatar
52FM
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:49 pm

#8 Post by 52FM » Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:40 pm

OK – here comes the old fart to throw a damper on this. Please keep in mind my perspective comes from being a father with a 19 year old daughter. I’ve seen her seemingly confused by the images thrown at her since she was little – MTV in particular – good ol’ Britney Spears and Christine Aguilera etc who start out as squeaky clean Mousketeers and then suddenly can’t seem to undress enough on stage. It seems like EVERY young woman feels their value is measured at least in part by how attractive they are to men – or guys – or boys.

I respect Ith’s opinion on this and agree it is tasteful. This isn’t a raw Playboy spread or some completely gratuitous series of photos (though I haven’t seen what pictures they have in the actual article) whose main if not only purpose is arousal. And I do in fact applaud the notion that “real women have curves” and you don’t need to be scrawny -even when nude - to be considered attractive.

But (no pun intended) - I still wonder, as a father, what is the point? I too applaud the fact that Scarlett is comfortable in posing that way. And yet I can’t help but wonder why she felt it was something good to do? To keep guys fantasizing about her? To show people she’s grown up? Because she wants people to admire her boldness? To show off her “rack” (crudeness intentional)?

I really lament the fact that young girls who obtain some measure of respect and popularity based on talent then seem to (almost without exception) feel compelled to do photo shoots like this (or worse.) Are there no talented women who can leave that aspect private and special? Maybe I’m just an old fashioned guy who quaintly believed that women didn’t want to be thought of sexually – at least not primarily (and certainly not so publicly). Maybe it’s changed – where women now want to feel the liberation of expressing their innate sexuality – only on their terms. (And I’m sure the target audience for these types of photo shoots couldn’t care at all what the motivation is, as long as they keep 'em coming.)
(Edit: Poor choice of words.)

I suspect I’m a minority of one on this – but I’ve actually thought this through once I heard of and saw this cover a week or two ago. I certainly don’t go as far as labeling her a “slut” or anything like that; but I am disappointed that once again a woman entertainer’s beauty and attractiveness in the end (these puns just write themselves) inevitably yields a nude photo shoot.
Last edited by 52FM on Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jm
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:10 am

#9 Post by jm » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:54 pm

"[quote:1245af68ee="52FM"]OK – her comes the old fart to throw a damper on this. Please keep in mind my perspective comes from being a father with a 19 year old daughter. [/quote:1245af68ee]
I kinda agree with the (other) old fart there. I'm quite bored by the pictures, and I'd be happy if she only appeared in a burka if she'd just make some more quality movies."
Last edited by jm on Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

I65
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:47 pm

#10 Post by I65 » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:57 pm

Hehe ya your a prude :P

Well, I guess I can see some provocativity if you look at the picture as a whole, and that only due to the guy nibbling on the other girls ear.

I guess I addressed the query looking at Scarlet in the photo, disregarding the other two. You have a beautiful young girl in repose, without any adornments other than some make up.

And perhaps as a woman, since I got no sexual feelings looking at her, perhaps I don't see the issue. I think that young women should not feel ashamed of their bodies. To show that a body can be beautiful in a non-sexual way is what I see here from Charolette. But again, that is looking at her aspect only of this pic, and not looking at the photo shoot.

So 52...should all art be void of nudes? What about David? Or any other number of masterpieces that my uneducated mind can't bring to the forefront right now?

This isn't some ex-mouseketeer bumping and grinding and singing how she's not that innocent.

Are their mixed messages that teens have to sort through on their rode to self discovery? Sure there are. Are they going to go away? Nope. But is it not the parent's responsibility to raise their children with self respect, and values. For them to know right from wrong? To show them the difference between appreciating the nude female (or male) form, in it's prime, and pornography? (OK, you wouldn't "show" your kid pornography, but I think you get my drift.)

Should the rest of the world be denied the ability to appreciate the human body as an art form, because someone doesn't want their kid to see it?

" Maybe I’m just an old fashioned guy who quaintly believed that women didn’t want to be thought of sexually – at least not primarily (and certainly not so publicly). "

So are you saying that men DON'T ever want to be thought of sexually? That, as a woman, I only get to pick one way I want to be thought of, and that is how I always want to be thought of? I have to choose whether I want to be appreciated for my beauty, or my sensitivity, or my intelligence? I can't want to be appreciated for all the aspects of me when they are appropriate? I can't revel in the fact that I really am "the entire package".

No, personally I do not like to be constantly looked at as a sexual object. I do want to be seen as more than that, however there are times whenI believe most women do want their feminity acknowledged, as would most men want their virility acknowledged. And I think that Scarlet has proven that being a sex kitten isn't her focus in some of her career choices.

User avatar
52FM
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:49 pm

#11 Post by 52FM » Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:29 pm

AWLL - RIGHT!!!! Maybe I got the board a bit more active!

First, Ith - please recognize that my double entendres (sp?) were meant tongue in cheek. (Oh no -another one! I meant I was adding some light humor to what to me is a complex topic.)

"Should the rest of the world be denied the ability to appreciate the human body as an art form, because someone doesn't want their kid to see it? " Of course not! Please, I'm not "one of those". I re-read my response twice and I don't see where I left that impression, but obviously I did so it's likely a communication issue on my part.

"So 52...should all art be void of nudes? What about David?" Again, I didn't mean to imply that I am against the nude form being displayed artisitically. The fact is I personally don't see Scarlett's intention in this being completely artistic. I am also speaking as a father 24 and 20 year old boys - and as a former adolescent boy myself. (At least I seem to remember that period of my life vaguely.)

"there are times whenI believe most women do want their feminity acknowledged" Of course - but femininty <> nudity. (<> means "is not equal to" in some programming languages.)

"I have to choose whether I want to be appreciated for my beauty, or my sensitivity, or my intelligence? " Of course not. The key words that I needed to emphasize was primarily - and publicly. However, prude or no prude - nudity is a special case; if it were common - as I suppose or I've heard is true in Europe - I would likely think differently.

But in my mind it comes down to intent. What REALLY was Scarlett's intention here? To do an artistic photo shoot becuase she beleives she is an artistic beautiful woman and wanted to see herself that way? (Along with millions of other people seeing her?) Im' sorry - I don't understand the thinking and maybe I'm just being too crude in my thinking to see this.

I'd like to think that is the case - but time after time we see young women doing the obligatory Maxim or Playboy shoot. The fact that Scarlett decided to do it this way in my mind (and this is really jumping to an unfair conclusion) accomplishing the same thing but in a classier way. As in "yeah, guys are hot for me so I'll give 'em a little of what they want - but tastefully."

Now in effect I'm being two-faced - becuase I'll admit there have been occasions when I've enjoyed said obligatory shoots. And I have no objection to them in general - beleive it our not. I'd just like to see one attractive female artist not feel it is necessary or desirable to disrobe. Scarlett has plenty of feminitnity - no need to undress to show that.

One thing I will say - I think that Scarlett enigmatic. Impossible to categorize - and this is another example. Like I said I don't want to think of her as just another sex star - and I suspect neither does she.

Need to go - I haven't expressed myself well in this note either but I have to catch a train. Maybe I'll try again later.

I65
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:47 pm

#12 Post by I65 » Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:46 pm

So lets go to the why did she do it, and why make it public.

It is an unfortunate fact of being a celebrity, that personal aspects of your life in a way become public domain. I really don't follow or keep up with this type of thing much, but my understanding is that tabloid press puts a high dollar "bounty" if you will on certain photographs...celebrity weddings, births, and nude shots probably ranking up there highly.

Therefore, should a young talented actress refuse to do any type of nude shots, or nude movie scenes, the "premium" goes up that the tabloids would pay for these pics. If they are very illusive, quality doesn't seem to matter.

Therefore, I believe that many of these young artists would prefer to have their photograph done in a tasteful matter by someone they trust, and get paid for it, than to be stalked by paparazzi until they are finally caught "with their pants down". :P

User avatar
findingcharlotte
Charlie Brown
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:16 pm

#13 Post by findingcharlotte » Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:29 pm

in my opinion.........I say " what was the point " ? I prefer looking at both actresses with clothes on. Even if they are beautiful to look at ...it lumps them in with pop singers and other actresses in that never ending race to " out dare " each other in the next high profile shoot... The guy in the picture gives off a sleazy vibe, bringing down the photo....

suppose it sold mags........ :?
Call me if you get lost...

" before we go, Im not as brave as I told you.."

User avatar
52FM
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:49 pm

#14 Post by 52FM » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:47 pm

There IS a certain "Pretty Baby" look to this, isn't there? I read that Rachel McAdams was supposed to be the third person in the picture but backed out the day of the shoot. No reason - but the guy, whoever he is (I think he is a designer or photographer or had something to do with the original concept) stepped in. I think it detracts from the scene they were likely going for.

Ith - if what you say is true (and it certainly sounds logical) then it is really sad in a way. A female who is attractive is wanted / expected to pose nude sometime and she will be hounded until she does - so she feels "might as well get it over with on my terms" rather than "no f-ing way."

I also read that Jennifer Love Hewitt is considering a Playboy shoot. Now maybe that's just a publicity seekign statement - but what I found interesting is two things: she felt she can't get any roles outside her typecast (whatever it is) without a nude shoot, and that she said "the next time Playboy asks, I'll do it - implying there probably is a list of stars that Playboy regularly asks to pose. I'm sure Scarlett is on that list.

There just seems to be an aura of sexuality and expectations thereof for actresses and many female singers. And as "findingC" says, they all are out to top each other. You know, I guess in a way I don't care if it is a real choice of theirs - and I respect in a way the girls who pose because they have a certain exhibitionist in them or have some pride in the fact they are desired sexually. At least that is an honest expression.

Scarlett on the other hand comes across too much like she is trying to be above it all while still being right there in it. My opinion anyway from the interviews and quotes and rumors about her.

"I'm proud of my girls - they're my charms, my feminine wiles."

"I don't mind if a guy sees my breasts while on the set. Let him have the enjoyment for the day" (close paraphrasing)

"I hate this stupid bra - I'm doing the scene naked."

She's no Britney Spears by a long shot; but she definitley sees her sexuality as a professional asset. Unlike say Halle Berry - every bit as attractive or more and yet doesn't have to try to be classy about it; she just is somehow.


I thought about the art analogy and realized one difference. Nobody cared who David was or Venus or any of the countless nude women in famous paintings. That was always about the artist, not the subject. So the female body can of course be displayed beautifully. But when a particular female decides she wants the world to see her body specifically, it just seems a little less artistic and a little more exhibitionist.

But again, this is from a confused male point of view - who doesn't know really what he thinks. He just wants his little girl to still be five playing with American girl dolls and yet she is the same age as all these stars who seem so free sexually. And my sons are attracted to it and so are countless other guys and so would I probably if I wasn't a dad.

As I said, I just wish there was one attractive female star who avoided that aspect - and I guess I'm really saying I wish I coudl beleive that it's not so expected or accepted for women to display their sexuality publically that it's considered unusual not to or to object to it.

And with that I think I've said enough.

jm
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:10 am

#15 Post by jm » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:20 am

"Sorry, don't have time to read them all this morning.

Scarlett isn't making a David -- and btw, David SUCKS -- she's making a magazine cover that no one will ever see in a few years' time, except for a few library researchers. Find me one woman who is now accepting her body who wasn't before she saw that magazine. Pfui! :roll:"
Last edited by jm on Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
52FM
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:49 pm

#16 Post by 52FM » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:15 am

This article on CNN today hits some of the points that I was trying to make, and some of the points that Ith made as well. A few different ways to look at this topic - but one thing is clear: Vanity Fair benefited from this greatly.

Intersting fact mentioned in here: a magazine has about 2.5 seconds to make an impact at the newsstand for a buyer who is just browsing (not a regular reader who is looking for that particular magazine.) No doubt, this cover made its impact in much less time.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

User avatar
Suntory
For Relaxing Times Make It Suntory Time!
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:28 am
Location: Boston

#17 Post by Suntory » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:14 am

Well this is very interesting all the debate that my quick post
about a magazine cover has inspired! :shock:

I guess like anything else the experience of it, of percieving it and
having different reactions is kind of like what good (or bad) art is
supposed to do. There is what VF intended or had motivation for
and there is what we see in it. I think what VF intended was a more
multilayered thing because of the type of magazine it is.
At first yes they have to make an impression and sell magazines.
In the next layer it's how they presented what they did that makes
it more than just some second rate rag with a flashy cover.
As for the nudity I don't see them as being "naked" like in Playboy
and you don't really see much of anything particularly titilating as
far as I'm concerned (unless you're a butt man . . . . er um I mean
person... and like Scarlett's
butt :) ).

I read the articles in VF about it and yes Rachel McAdams was supposed
to be in it but then backed out when she found out about the nudity.
The article said something about how 3 girls together is a slumber party
while two is a depiction of lesbians and that wasn't what they were
going for. They felt the shoot needed something more and so Tom
Ford, the VERY GAY artistic director for the issue and who rarely
puts himself into any pictures got into the mix. Therefore another layer
to this shot is that to those in the know, it's kind of an inside joke that
he is there with the girls on the cover. And since he's gay it is deceiving
to someone who doesn't know this thinking that there is some heterosexual
chemistry there or thing going on.

Which leads to my next point and taking from what some people have
said about the artisticness of it. Look at this painting by Manet:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/ma ... -herbe.jpg
This is Dejeuner Sur Leherbe which is a very enigmatic painting.
Kiera's pose is not unlike that of the female nude in the painting
and Scarlett's is not unlike many other nude poses from paintings
from that and earlier time periods. I think this was no accident
as the artistic merit of the photo has to do with its homage, its
specific honoring and use of classical artistic techniques.
I think this is also one reason why the girls did the photo in the first place.
They knew that VF was not a Maxim or FHM and to me I see no
correlation in the poses or depiction to those openly racy
magazines. They knew that any shoot would be artistic and classy
and present them in a more tasteful fashion. As we have seen from
watching Scarlett in public appearances since LIT, she often has a
retro classical look of a movie starlet from the 30s or 40s etc.

To me the guy there looks like one of the clothed men in
the Manet painting. Ford also being the fashion industry icon
that he is and that VF is partly about fashion and Hollywood is
completely about fashion, the photo is all about THAT!
And if you're not into fashion and all that stuff then one is not
going to like or appreciate it on that level either.
Not everyone who likes seeing the girls is going to like
seeing him there or understand what he is doing there
and I for one didn't get what he was doing there either when
I first saw the cover.

"just wish there was one attractive female star who avoided that aspect"
Natalie Portman comes to mind!

And in the end no it won't hang in a museum - although given the
Museum of Fine Arts having a Herb Ritts exhibit of his
photos with celebrities in them you never know - but unlike
great enduring art, it is pop art which only needs to endure the
zeitgheist of its time and be "it" for the month it's on the stands
and then "it's" time for something else.

Post Reply