 |
Revealing Photo Threatens a Major Disney Franchise – New York Times — Note the New York Times headline. EXACTLY WHAT was revealing about this photo? What? Can someone tell me WHAT!?!? I do not get this at all. |
Fifteen years old, topless and wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet in the June issue of Vanity Fair. Did Miley Cyrus, with the help of a controversy-courting magazine, just deliver a blow to the Walt Disney Company’s billion-dollar “Hannah Montana” franchise?
Some parents reacted with outrage over the weekend when the television program “Entertainment Tonight” began showing commercials promoting a scoop: Ms. Cyrus, the star of the wholesome Disney Channel blockbuster “Hannah Montana,” had posed topless, albeit with her chest covered, for the Vanity Fair photographer, Annie Leibovitz.
Screen grabs of the photo quickly popped up online, sparking a blogosphere debate. “Bonfire anyone?” wrote Lin Burress on her marriage and parenting blog, Telling It Like It Is, referring to the mountain of Hannah Montana retail items — makeup, shoes, clothes — in the marketplace. “Parents should be extremely concerned,” Ms. Burress said in an interview. “Very young girls look up to Miley Cyrus as a role model.”
QUOTE OF THE YEAR: “Posed topless with her chest covered!”
I’ve seen worse in textbooks and in People Magazine. There’s not even a breast or curve to be seen here.
Who’s running Disney these days, Mike Huckabee?
All I can say is, “idiots!”
Jeff
I’d be more upset that she looks like a drug addict in that pic over the fact she’s showing some (back) skin.
It’s a vaguely sexual pose featuring someone aimed at children. Heaven forfend that the kids learn about sex before they turn 18. The same people outraged about this are the same people who endorse abstinence-only sex-education in schools, namely prudish idiots.
hannah montana is a sanctuary for children? lol
Why is anyone shocked that a young adult woman wants to show off her body? Britney Spears did it, just not in as classy of an avenue as Vanity Fair. Lindsey Lohan’s mom approved of her recent topless photoshoot, what’s the big deal here?
I disagree. My daughter, 7, is avid fan of Hanna Montana. This image is overly suggestive for someone with an audience so young. It would be different it she were 18+. if she were an adult while I would object if her audience were those still that young but I could at least respect her choice as a person. Call it what you want but the suggestive nature is not appropriate for her core audience and sets a bad example for a generation that already grows up too fast. I’m not a conservative person but this is the wrong image for girls this young.
You would see a lot more if she was at a pool in a bikini…
“Last week, Gary Marsh, the president of entertainment for Disney Channel Worldwide, was quoted in Portfolio magazine saying, “For Miley Cyrus to be a ‘good girl’ is now a business decision for her. Parents have invested in her a godliness. If she violates that trust, she won’t get it back.”
Now, not being an American this whole obsession with “godliness” just escapes me. Seriously, could someone on the other side of the pond explain this one to me, please?
Also, the photograph puts me in mind of a painting I saw about 5 years ago in the Tate modern. I thought that was classy, as I think this picture is classy. Given how most starlets end up looking in their birthday suits when in magazines, I would argue that this girl has a great deal more class then most of her contemporaries.
If she is a role model, then I’d say she is setting a good example if this picture is anything to go by, rather then the trashy crap that is plastered on every newspaper and music video that we’re bombarded with daily.
Sadly, the parents’ reactions are not hard for me to believe. While I’m not a fan of Miley Cyrus (even as a club DJ, you’d be surprised at the amount of requests that I decline), I think the photo in question is artistic. It’s very cliché to say this, but “negative” publicity like this from the NYT is exactly what’s making her such a big deal.
Prudishness has become nonsensical. Wow, she has a back, how scandalous. If this keeps up, we’re going to overprotect our kids to the point where they won’t mature at all until they’re 20.
How many years has it been now that Donald Duck hasn’t worn pants? And living with his nephews? Please…
i’m suprised everyone is missing the main point. this is a very deliberate and orchestrated stunt designed to “transition” this belle-du-jour into the next phase of her “career”. we see it time and again these days as starlets/handlers want to avoid the pitfalls of typecasting etc. things like this have always happened – it’s just manufactured these days.
I agree. This is just another classic example of using sensationalist language and deceptive reporting to stir up controversy where none exists in the hopes of pumping the ratings a bit, if even for only a couple days. I saw a similar headline on some news site about Miley Cyrus being in trouble again for more “controversial” pics that apparently she put on her myspace page or something. Of course like any concerned citizen I clicked the link to check them out and let me tell you, they are about as exciting as looking at pictures of… well… something not that interesting. WHAT?! HER SHIRT IS PULLED UP AND YOU CAN SEE HER BELLY?! SHE IS LYING ON THE SOFA NEXT TO SOME BOY?! OMG!!! CRUCIFY SOMEBODY!!!!!!!
If she just goes to the beach wearing a standard bathing suit, you’ll be seeing a lot more of her than any of these pics.
Give me a break.
#6
The only time I can see this has being a problem is if you let your daughter go through a copy of Vanity Fair. In which case I’d argue strongly that you have bigger problems then this to consider…
I’d also wager there are “innocent” pictures of her in say a bathing costume that are far more revealing then this.
She’s not the first, nor the last to pose for Annie, but at least she’s not acting like Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears. I don’t see what the big deal is, honest.
#6. I agree that this isn’t the kind of image you’d want to put on a Hannah Montana poster, but this particular image isn’t even from the Hannah Montana franchise. It’s a picture in Vanity Fair, a magazine that few seven-year-olds read.
What’s sickening is that if she was fully clothed and holding a gun or a knife, hardly anybody would have bothered. The US is so hung up on sex and yet gives violence a free pass.
Seems to me that the next step is to characterize this as child porn and arrest anyone coming into the country with either the magazine or a copy or rss feed on their hard drives.
That’ll keep the godless heathens out of the USA!!
BTW–a stupid business decision unless she is ready to jump to the young adult market. She should milk her current market as long as she can. Somehow I think that is what is motivating the “real” concern–ie==money.
@Krazy Kritter: Your 7 year old daughter reads Vanity Fair? If so, you need to worry more about the fact that you’re turning your 7 year old into a fashionista at SEVEN FRIGGIN YEARS OF AGE.
I agree with you John. Must have been a slow news day. But what’s sad about this is that showing your back is now considered to be sexually suggestive by the closet ped-I mean, social conservatives. Where does it end? Are we headed back to the days where to show your
ankle in public would be considered scandalous?
#11 has it right. I have a problem with a magazine and the photographers deciding that women need to be sexualized at every opportunity, and starting when they are young. Calling it ‘artistic’ is one way they get women to go along.
“Posed topless with her chest covered!”
Reminds me of the newspaper a few years ago that reported that an accused guy “had no weapons in his arsenal.”
I looked forward to reading Cracked.com tomorrow 😛
This is artistic and done with the approval of her parents. Annie L. is a very good photographer and there is nothing suggestive here a all.
I would have to agree with the other commenter’s here that if your seven year old is reading Vanity Fair, there are bigger problems than this photo.
My daughter loves Hannah Montana, but if she saw this photo, it would not trigger anything for her since it doesn’t really look like her on the show. (She won’t see this photo.)
No big deal for me.
What a beautiful picture. Barbie & Bratz are far more damaging than that picture. People finding the picture too sexual, should really be concerned about their own perceptions.
It bewilders me that a country so accepting of the commercialization of the tween market, finds such an image offensive.
Daniel Radcliffe was nude in Equus… did it screw up the Harry Potter fans? The photo of the girl is nothing. She shows a little bit skin and that’s it. People who get excited about that ought to seek some professional help.
a multitude of double-standards there, not to mention the cultural hangups. frankly, americans don’t care what some uk actor does on stage. yet you’ll rarely see male nudity in hollywood cinema.
Annie Leibovitz Rocks!
I absolutely share your outrage at this potential dilution of the topless genre.
The things you learn by reading the news can be interesting.
First, it is the responsibility of a real human being to protect the image of a fictional character.
Second, some parents let their young children read Vanity Fair.
Third, Entertainment Tonight is still around!?
Pretty interesting how emotional people get over this either way. We’re in a culture pushing borders every day, and maybe someday my grandkids will see public masturbation during Super Bowl halftime. Don’t act shocked. And don’t tell me VF wasn’t trying to sell sex here because it wasn’t “just a bathing suit”. So in terms of magazine profit, where’s the current border for suggestive sexuality… 18 years old, 15yo, 12yo, 9yo?
Back in our tribal days we had more peer pressure to keep us “in line”. In another contemporanious culture, the Taliban enforces female skin cover so much you’d think those macho men must be afraid of *privately* masturbating.
Ha, things can get weird with all this “cognitive surplus”, and people feeling a need to pass judgement one way or the other without really understanding the origins of animal/human nature well enough, and how it led to men writing moralist dogma. (Yes, some people had cognitive surplus even way back then. A few slaves helped with that.)