Miley Cyrus aka Hannah Montana in Vanity Fair... Has it gone too far?

[MA-Caver]

Apparently the controversy is just beginning or has begun over 15 yr old super star Miley Cyrus daughter of country music star Billy Ray Cyrus, in a shoot done by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-05-04-miley-pictures_N.htm?csp=arnold&no_cj_c=1
There's also controversy over her "sleep-over" photos as well... kissing one of her friends while lounging on the floor of a hall way and wearing what looks like nothing but overlarge t-shirts.
http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2007/12/miley-cyrus-sleepover-photos.html

The USA TODAY article had a few statements that caught my attention and raised my ire a notch and made me go HUH? WHAT?
First one was this...

"When she turns 17, the Disney machine will essentially throw Miley away, replacing her with another great young singer who is waiting in the wings," says Erik DeSando, president of BE Productions and a talent agent for children and teens. "She's got to think about that transition to the next phase."

Now I understand that the bold statement is both literal and figuratively. That Disney makes billions off these young, talented stars of their making until they reach a certain age and then moves on to the next. Annette Funicello was one, Haley Mills another, then more recently Lindsey Lohan, Raven-Symone, Hillary Duff to name a few... But the statement of "throwing them away"... you'd think they'd be a bit more tactful like saying something along the lines of retirement. Yeah a money making machine no doubt but kids are still kids they shouldn't be thought of as a marketable commodity no? Least of all by Disney corporation.

Another statement...

Cyrus is a billion-dollar enterprise for Disney. The company's executives couldn't have approved of the results of the shoot, says Peter Sealey, former marketing chief of Columbia Pictures and now adjunct professor at Claremont (Calif.) Graduate University's Drucker School of Management.

"Hannah Montana is a lucrative brand, and this violated that brand in the same way that dressing James Bond in raggedy clothes would violate that one," he says. "This Cyrus shoot clearly fell between the cracks."
That crack has led to a dim place. Some bloggers have tarred Cyrus, and others have stewed over portraits of father and daughter looking deeply into each other's eyes and Miley reclining in her father's lap. "At its worst, these images almost hint at child porn and incest," says David Halle, professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles. "There's something weird here."
Make that hypocritical, says talent agent DeSando. "This whole incident was blown out of proportion," he says. "Anyone with a 15-year-old daughter knows that this is when they start to feel their sexuality, not 18. Miley was likely just being expressive. It's clear from everything up until now that her parents are doing an excellent job with her and her career."

Age appropriateness I'm guessing is the controversy here. Rightly so IMO. at 15 yes a girl (even boys) may be starting FEELING their sexuality but it's for them to deal with under the advice and supervision of caring parents who'll help them make the right choices during this period of their lives. Having a photographer say strip down and drape this sheet but don't cover your back (as was done in the Vanity Fair shoot), look unkempt and have that sultry look in your eyes... umm no, not good not appropriate and why Dad didn't say anything makes me wonder. Even little sister was present during the shoot as evident from these behind the scenes photos http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/f...lideshow200806?printable=true&currentPage=all

While many of the child stars seem to come out alright, others have either crashed and burned (some literally right before our eyes) and others have flamed out but partially or in some cases fully recovered, i.e. Drew Barrymore.
The use of children in films/television helps of course tells the story but they need also reflect upon the impact the acting of certain scenes will have upon a child. Dakota Fanning is supposed to be enacting a rape scene in one movie coming soon and she's not even 12 (the ratings board are still struggling with the release of this film).
Some of you may remember Brooke Shields' first film Pretty Baby about a prostitute that was around 11 or 12 yrs. old. Then later she went to Blue Lagoon which had partial nudity and was about teen sexuality and she hadn't even gotten past 17 on that one. True, she grew out of it and is a happy mother today. Still ... I think she got lucky.

Point is what is the message that Hollywood wants to project with these type of films and scenes? What are the effects to the children having to portray them?
Problem is the attitude of those involved with the Cyrus shoot. They didn't see anything wrong with it or even had the foresight to the implications of it.

Are we as a society becoming more lax or are we attempting to be more lax with permissiveness and try to cover it up by calling it art?

 

[Sukerkin]

It's a complex issue for sure, Caver.

Part of me is going "Oh for pity's sake American Bible Belt, grow up - or at least go spend a month in France or Holland!" and part of me is going "Well, yes, it is wrong to present an undoubtably beautiful but underage girl in a sexualised way, however tastefully executed".

It's too late in the day for me to string together a cogent position on this tonig ... er, this morning but I hope to join in tomorrow :tup:.

 

[terryl965]

I am tired of her, period.

 

[Sukerkin]

I only know who she is because of this (the 4th Reich of Disney doesn't have such a grip over here thankfully).

 

[Steel Tiger]

I have to say when I first saw the photo of Miley Cyrus I thought, "That's not so bad but a 15 year old shouldn't be doing it."

It is, however, doing exactly what the Cyrus family wants. It is keeping Miley in the spotlight. She only has a year or so left as part of the Disney Teen Machine and they need to translate that success into non-Disney success.

The problem is that nobody associated with her seems to think there is something wrong with the imagery.

The situation with Dakota Fanning is much more disturbing though. Ned Beatty went through years of therapy after his portrayal of a rape in Deliverance, and he was an adult. How will a child fare? It is less a question, though, of why have children involved in these scenes than why have these scenes at all?

There is a growing element in the movie industry that is seeking to graphically portray the lascivious and debased. Where once we had the slasher flick that was bloody and made you squirm in a few scenes, now we have abominations like Saw and Hostel which serve up a continual nightmare of mutilation and torture. How has this come to be defined as entertainment? Somewhere along the line something has gone very wrong.


Maybe I'll just start watching Bollywood films. Strong action characters, beautiful women, complex plots, singing, dancing. What more could you want? And its all in every film.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Maybe I'll just start watching Bollywood films. Strong action characters, beautiful women, complex plots, singing, dancing. What more could you want? And its all in every film.

I've seen some good Korean movies recently but most of my taste runs to Sci-Fi and Japanese and Hong King action (and anime). Tends to avoid the commercial pretentiousness of Hollywood to be pretending to be 'art'

 

[FearlessFreep]

says talent agent DeSando. "This whole incident was blown out of proportion," he says. "Anyone with a 15-year-old daughter knows that this is when they start to feel their sexuality, not 18. Miley was likely just being expressive.

Ummm...my thirteen your old daughter may start "feeling her sexuality" by age fifteen but that doesn't mean I'm going to invite the world to watch

 

[CoryKS]

Are we as a society becoming more lax or are we attempting to be more lax with permissiveness and try to cover it up by calling it art?

Depends. Is it more permissive to let a fifteen-year-old do a slightly nudish photo for a magazine that no straight man ever reads, or is it more permissive to let a fifteen-year-old get married and pump out a bunch of kids? Because we used to let them do that. Nowadays, not so much.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Oh boy, where to start on this? First off, as for Disney claiming that the Vanity Fair picture "violating Hanna Montana"...unless there's terms in the contract saying that Miley Cyrus as Miley Cyrus can't pose in a magazine, they really have no leg to stand on. Frankly, people have been dropping the Hanna Montana identification of her for a while now. And yes, the Disney Corporation does treat these young stars as commodities; it's a waste of talent, it's dehumanizing, it's two-faced, but it's just that, commodification. Let's call apples apples here.

As for the Vanity Fair photograph itself, while I agree it probably was, on the margin, a little uncalled for with a fifteen year old, the pose in itself wasn't too racy. We saw her back, with a bedsheet covering the rest of her...bikinis show more than this. Additionally, while she is still 15, she's been raised by a country-music star (has-been perhaps, but still), and is quite self-aware of herself as a teen talent. If this picture is the most controversial thing out of Cyrus, in comparison to the likes of Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears, then I think she's doing fine.

 

[jim777]

She could disappear as fast as Amanda Bynes did, but who knows? I think there's more dust here from people waiting for indignation to surface than acual indignation from fans.

She's already been completely, totally, and wholly eclipsed by 'The Jonas Brothers' anyway, if my 3 daughters are any barometer

 

[Wild Bill]

I think the pictures were a little racy for her age put it isn't like she is engaging in full on kiddie porn. I found that the pictures she took with her father was more inappropriate and suggestive. Those arn't your normal father daughter pictures. Just creepy.:jaw-dropping:

 

[Steel Tiger]

As to the artistic portrayal of minors. Last night in Sydney an photo exhibition was closed down by police because its feature model was a 13 year old girl.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23744360-5013571,00.html

The gallery has been exhibiting the artist, Bill Henson's, work since 1990 and it has always been of a similar nature, though never with anyone this young, and there has never been a problem before.

 

[Empty Hands]

...unless there's terms in the contract saying that Miley Cyrus as Miley Cyrus can't pose in a magazine, they really have no leg to stand on.

I'm afraid they probably do have a leg. Several of them. Even non-famous employees of companies have been disciplined and/or fired for "making the company look bad" even when they are on their own time. If Bob from accounting can be fired even if no one in particular would associate him with Company X, then it's a cinch that Cyrus can be fired because she is ultra-famous and everyone associates her with Hannah Montana and Disney.

Now, I don't defend and I don't like this sort of control that companies can exert over their employees' private time, but there is unfortunately ample precedent.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Looking at this from a photographers perspective here....

The couple shots I saw, were unremarkable to me. I haven't seen all of them so can't reall comment fully. What I did see, didn't set off any "wrong" meters.

Photos of an artistic sense, are age-independant. Just because someone is naked, doesn't mean it's wrong. Do I think a 15 yr old should pose nude? It depends on the intent. If the intent is sexual arousal, no. If it's a sensitive use of the human form, sure.
Would I shoot a nude, obvious or implied of someone under 18? No. Why? Because it's too much headache for someone like me who does it more for enjoyment than a living.

One important point to consider here is, this shoot was planned well in advance, her guardians and handlers and legal advisors were very likely involved heavily, and her own opinions considered as well as the long term fall out effects. One doesn't just call up someone of Annie's caliber and say "hey, got this 15 yr old, wanna shoot her buck nekid in a sheer this afternoon?".

 

[Mr G]

Good Point, Mr. Hubbard. I'm sure this was planned out. Including the controversy. She had an album called meet Miley. Now the new music coming from her is branded "Miley Cyrus". It worked too, see we're keeping her name current right here!

Thanks for taking my 2 cents

 

[SageGhost83]

I don't think that it is so much the fact that they did it as what it will snowball into eventually. What disturbs me is that she will be little more than a piece of meat in a few years' time and what is that going to do to the psyche of the kids who grew up watching her? What kind of message is that going to send - it is cool to become a nice piece of meat because look at what Miley did? Can you say "future propaganda for the whores out there?" Perhaps it is more of an indication of just where our society has gone over the years? Or maybe it just shows how far people are willing to go just to hang on to stardom? Japan is known for its sexuality, but you don't see Pikachu growing up and banging a middle aged Ash in Shonen Jump (well, I hope not, at least. its Japan, you never know). I am not saying that what Miley did is this extreme, but when you let a little bit slide hear and there, then you will be tempted to let a little more slide...then a little more...then a little more. Christina didn't go from being a genie in a bottle to dancing all sweaty and nearly nude surrounded by men in a pit overnight. It happens over time and it follows a pattern that, sadly, is more prevalent these days.

 

[crushing]

Wow! I am surprised people are getting so hot and bothered about the Liebovitz pictures of Miss Cyrus. I'm not sure if it says more about Cyrus, or about the people "snowball" it into her becoming little more than a piece of meat in a few years. I have found many of the reactions to the photos much more disturbing than the pictures.

If you think the amount of skin in the Annie Liebovitz/Miley Cyrus photo shoot is bad, do a google image search on Anne Geddes for some real startling photos!

 

[Steel Tiger]

Wow! I am surprised people are getting so hot and bothered about the Liebovitz pictures of Miss Cyrus. I'm not sure if it says more about Cyrus, or about the people "snowball" it into her becoming little more than a piece of meat in a few years. I have found many of the reactions to the photos much more disturbing than the pictures.

If you think the amount of skin in the Annie Liebovitz/Miley Cyrus photo shoot is bad, do a google image search on Anne Geddes for some real startling photos!

You're right the pictures are not distasteful, but they could have been done in six months when she has turned 16 (that's really a legal point).

I do think that she will not go the way of a few other Disney stars of late because she seems to have a much stronger network around her. I also think they let her down slightly in this case.

As I wrote in an earlier post I am more concerned with Dakota Fanning's portrayal of a rape victim at 12 than Miley Cyrus posing for Annie Liebovitz at 15. That is indicative of something really unpleasant.



I wonder if Miley will take up Heff's offer to pose for Playboy in 3 or 4 years?

 

[Senjojutsu]

People, my brothers and sisters!

Miley Cyrus’ fate has been preordained - she is doomed.

The societal & cultural reasons were explained to all of us in the recent South Park’s Episode #1202 - "Britney's New Look" which first aired on March 19, 2008

As with Britney Spears – Miley is to be sacrificed.

Below is the ending clip of this episode - prophetic, eh?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/164634/

It will be a good harvest.
:wink1:

 

[The Last Legionary]

Most child stars end up trashed by early adulthood. Hopefully she avoids the fate of Britney (crazed mom unable to cope with life) or Dana Plato (suicided after falling into a porn career)