Vanity: fair?
So, a 15-year old starlet from America called Miley Cyrus, star of the Disney Channel's Hannah Montana (which has crossed my radar in name only but I think I get the picture), has had her photograph taken by Annie Leibeovitz for Vanity Fair magazine and uproar has resulted, due to the inappropriately sexual nature of the shot, in which, to quote the sober, unsensational Guardian coverage, "Leibovitz has her draped in a satin sheet, most of her back exposed, in a pose that gives the impression she is topless. The actor looks straight at the camera over her bare right shoulder, her hair across her face" (this drooling description despite the fact that, as with every other paper accidentally advertising Vanity Fair for free, the picture was printed in full).
Those who expect "family values" from the Disney Channel have reacted negatively to the picture. Some reactionary moral guardian has already called for Hannah Montana merchandise to be placed on a communal bonfire (ah yes, book-burning, that has a savoury history), and I wouldn't want to get my hands dirty there. But it does, sadly, point to a larger problem, and that's the early sexualisation of children in our crazy, mixed-up, media-saturated world. I actually don't share the tabloids' paranoid conviction that there's a paedophile lurking on every street corner (if they lurk anywhere, it's generally within the family, isn't it?), but for as long as parents who believe their young offspring to be their "friends" allow childhood to be incrementally bought off (and Cyrus's parents - one of whom is indeed Billy Ray - were apparently at their daughter's photo shoot, so they should share the responsibility for the tastefulness or otherwise of having their young daughter depicted in a sexualised manner in a mass-market magazine), it's little wonder certain individuals find it harder to ascertain where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable. You'll have already noted the saucy slogans on toddlers' t-shirts and the Playboy bunny pencil cases in WHSmith.
I know ages of consent are arguably random (different people mature at different times - some adults are little more than kids with cars and credit cards), but the phrase "barely legal" is now a recognised subsection of pornography, and remember all that unbecoming laddish fuss about Charlotte Church's 16th birthday (step forward, if it's not too much of a strain, Chris Moyles), so we should at least allow kids to be kids until responsibility takes over. Having said all that - and I'm nothing if not a fence-sitter/liberal goody-two-shoes, as you know - this is a kid who's already famous, and is being fast-tracked through the usual stages of growing up. It's not a representative case. (For her part, Miley Cyrus said she found the picture "artistic" and said she was wrapped in "a blanket", and officially regrets having it taken that way. Different people see different things in the same image.)
At least Vanity Fair can add a few more readers this month. That's the most important thing.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 1:06 PM
14 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
14 Comments:
Hasn't it been reported that Miley C and her parents had approved the shots at the shoot? Seems a classic case of bolting the stable door...
On the subject of (arguably) sexualised stuff depending on parental approval, I wish to point out: Fred West. (surfing the pod-geist, there).
Someone should try and write a description of the photo that doesn't get accused of being 'drooling'. It could be difficult, given that the Guardian's dispassionate, matter-of-fact description is apparently drenched in saliva.
My point about the description is that it was unnecessarily salacious, and also unnecessary, as the picture was clearly printed, in full colour, with the piece of journalism.
I don't get the reference to Fred West, though.
I only worked out the pun in the 'barely' part of 'Barely Legal' the other day. The fact that the legal girls are bare. And also have just turned 'legal'.
I am thick.
So now she's proved she's not just a child star - she's a woman now - and can move onto doing more 'serious' adult roles.
If that was the plan, it's probably worked.
You've mentioned something there which I've wondered about for ages; Playboy stationary - why?! It seems to be aimed at 10 year old girls, but I don't see their attraction to it. I think they must like the logo and know it's something "grown-up", but the girls in Playboy are hardly good role models. Having said that, why should anybody be a 'good role model'? I wasn't looking for one when I was 10.
It tells you something about the world though when the fourth most-viewed video on YouTube today is entitled "Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair Photoshoot Behing the Scenes". It has 210540 views TODAY at time of writing, I'd assume not all from amateur photography enthusiasts looking to pick up lighting tips.
In some countries, the age of consent is 14, does that mean these pictures are accepted as OK there? Also, she's 15 but looks over the age of consent, whereas there are 20 year olds who look about 14. It's all a bit of a grey area. Best just go and buy some Lolita furniture from Woolworths I think
Isn't it in the eye of the beholder? To me she just looks like a young woman with a bare back, I don't see it as a sexualised image.
It's like the Victorians covering up piano legs because they thought they were naughty, to some people everything brings sex to mind, there are scarier things in the world to worry about...
PS - Any thoughts on the mayoral election, AC?
Swines: it's still hard for me to express a political preference, having spent five long years under contract at BBC radio where such views are forbidden, but I'd do anything to keep that clown Boris Johnson out of City Hall (which is in London, as opposed to Henley On Thames, where he actually lives, or where he's supposed to be elected representative at any rate). For all his faults, and for all of Labour's (far greater - I wish he was still an Independent), Ken at least understands London. And he uses public transport, which means a great deal to me. I'd have Sian Berry in, if that was a realistic possibility. Now, all I have to do is work out how the voting papers work before I go into the church hall tomorrow morning. Hmmmm.
I'm in general agreement, but I'm still not sure who is manipulating who in this story - VF; Disney; Miley herself; her parents (who were present at the photo-shoot because the behind-the-scene's feature on VF's website shows them there).
Plus having looked at the "making of" shots on VF's website I think the photographer is staring to believe her own hype. They're simply not very good.
On the more important issue of the sexualisation of children, it is starting younger and the fact that Hannah Montana's fanbase includes a huge proportion of children under 10 seems to be the reason so many have been critical.
I also found VF's decision to put a shot of Madonna, sprawled naked on a bed draped in a sheet, as a trailer alongside the interview and photographs of Miley Cyrus on its website a little less than subtle.
But I haven't been too surprising to find that, having blogged on this a couple of days ago and gathered quite a few hits, people seem to have moved on already - apparently, the big story in the US today is Pop Idol and the fact the wannabes are doing Neil Diamond tributes.
Bethnoir - I was going to say the same thing but shied away and held my tongue - and now I've gone and mixed my metaphors again. It seems quite an innocent shot compared to what it could've been.
AC - Makes sense, as the BBC has to be considered an ongoing concern I guess. I agree with your take on it though. Unbelievably I'm unable to vote because I've just moved house and despite telephone calls and form-filling, the council haven't sent me my polling card.
The Andrew Gilligan interview in G2 today made me furious (in terms of AG's complete inability to justify his recent actions).
The one thing that annoys me about this whole thing is that for Miley to try and get herself accepted as a proper adult she has to pose for rather salacious pictures.
Would this have happened if she'd been a boy? I doubt it.
I actually think it's a good photo though.
"Ok Miley. Remember what we rehearsed. After the photos come out and get splashed across every newspaper in the world we'll have to win back the Christian demographic. So what do you say?"
"I say that I'm sorry and that my family and faith will guide me through."
"Yeah, that's good. Family and faith. Gotta hit those two right? Hey, when you're being interviewed, could you place your palm to your chest when you say faith? That'll look good. Like you mean it."
"Whatever. I wanna solid gold Lexus."
One of the things that annoyed me most about this was the the person who had to give the now-compulsory contrite apology to the media was Miley Cyrus! As if any of this, the creative direction of the photoshoot, the paranoid outrage of some parents of Disney Channel viewers, and the lustful thoughts of million of young men potentially cracking one off over her naked back, as if any of it was him responsibility/fault! One again a woman is forced t oapologise for being sexually attractive. Still at least she didn't claim taking her clothes off was 'empowering'.
Post a Comment
<< Home