Wednesday, March 01, 2006

If you don't want people to think it...

Jessica Alba, who appears in a bikini on the cover of the March issue of Playboy, threatening to sue the magazine, claiming that Hugh Hefner and the magazine's editors are trying to make it seem that she appears in a "nude or semi-nude pictorial," the SmokingGun.com reports.

(from E! Online)


Come on. You're on the cover of PLAYBOY. What do you think people are buying it for?!?!? You should have picked a different magazine if you didn't want people thinking that. Moron.

16 comments:

Lisa said...

That is pretty stupid. If you want to be on the cover of a skin mag without having to take off your clothes, pose for "Stuff" or "Maxim" not "Playboy." Sheesh!

mare said...

uh yeah. well, she's not exactly known for her brains, though, is she. jubblies, sure. brains, not so much.

mare said...

aha! found the complete article. apparently playboy used a publicity still from "into the blue", after she had refused authorisation for her photo. well, that makes a bit more sense. but come on. it's not like we're talking meryl streep here.

John said...

She also is recently reported as having said she would reconsider the no nudity clause in her contract if the "role was right."

Coincidence that the next month she appears on the cover of Playboy?

Heh, "jubblies."

Scott M. said...

I'm surprised those of you who are actors are so harsh and judgemental about this woman trying to control how photos of her are promoted. It is well known that in Hollywood, the terms of how an actor's body can be shown on screen are expressed in painstaking legal detail, because like it or not, their bodies are commodities, and there is considerable money to be made from photographing them. Her acting ability is not the point; she has every right to try to protect her image and its value, because that is what will determine her ability to make a living for the forseeable future.

mare said...

and i would completely agree, were it not that this particular actress seems to choose highly sexualized roles - while she does not appear nude, she does appear frequently in extremely sexual (i would even use the word objectified) fashions. yes, her image is a commodity... one that she has already chosen to market in a highly sexualized fashion.

while i am not defending playboy's actions in this issue, because i think she has the right to take ownership of her own image, i think that she - or her management team - should re-examine how she is marketing herself, if it counters her own personal values.

liz said...

If she had any fear about how her image may be portrayed, and that she might mistakenly be presenting herself as "naked", then she should have strongly considered another magazine in which to appear. Even if Playboy management weren't trying to manipulate the situation (as she claims), there are still going to be people who pick up the mag, see her on the cover, and buy it because she's probably naked in it.

The bottom line is that she/her management invited this possibility when they agreed she would appear - no matter what was promised by Playboy as part of the deal. You can't stop the general public's association of Playboy = nude centerfold. Even if the words "not nude" appeared on the cover.

Scott M. said...

You obviously don't read Playboy, or you would know that people at the peak of their careers rarely pose nude there, and anyone who is already famous is almost never the centerfold. Playboy has a pretty set structure: a bunch of articles about fashion and sports, a couple of humour columns, some fiction, a "20 Questions" interview, and 2 or 3 pictorials. One of the pictorials is usually a celebrity, the other two are the models that they recruit. The models are almost invariably nude, the celebrity is usually not completely nude, but it depends on what kind of career move they want to make. When Drew Barrymore did a nude set about 10 years ago, she was trying to get her career back, and I'm sure it helped get her some publicity. It's also common for an actress who is in her late 30s or early 40s to do a nude set to show that she is still looking good in Hollywood terms, and that may also generate some publicity for her.

In any case, I find this argument that someone deserves to suffer because of how they dress or promote themselves quite disturbing. It's not ok to blame the victim in more serious crimes, why is it ok here?

mare said...

liz, from the article i read, she didn't choose to appear in playboy at all - in fact, she denied them permission to use her image for the article they were planning, they contacted the studio and got it without her management's knowledge. that's not right.

liz said...

Agreed. In that case, no, it's not right for them to have obtained her picture and used it without her consent.

Shawn said...

My cat's breath smells like cat food. ;)

Lisa said...

Okay, if it was used without consent, that's a little different. I had taken it to mean she posed for an article in Playboy and then complained.

Didn't she play a stripper in "Sin City?" ~_^

Scott Thomas said...

I had the same problem when I appeared in the June 04 issue of Penthouse Letters. That picture of me knitting while buck naked, wearing only a fedora was completely taken out of context.

Chris W. said...

Suzy here. You are very discreet, Scott T, but you haunt my dreams...

mare said...

wait a second, that's not actually suzy. admit it chris, it was you...

scum said...

She was more of an "exotic dancer", Lisa. At least in the movie, she was not naked. She had a reisque leatherish outfit on when you see here on stage.