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.
13 comments:
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!
uh yeah. well, she's not exactly known for her brains, though, is she. jubblies, sure. brains, not so much.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Agreed. In that case, no, it's not right for them to have obtained her picture and used it without her consent.
My cat's breath smells like cat food. ;)
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?" ~_^
Suzy here. You are very discreet, Scott T, but you haunt my dreams...
wait a second, that's not actually suzy. admit it chris, it was you...
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.
Post a Comment