April 28, 2008
Miley Cyrus "Embarrassed" Over Vanity Fair Photos
Oh, to be 15, to be the powerhouse behind a $1 billion franchise, and to have your "artistic" portrait--taken by Annie Leibovitz--be criticized! Teen star Miley Cyrus's photographs for the June issue of Vanity Fair have prompted a war of the words between the teen star, Disney (which produces her wildly popular "Hannah Montana" show) and the magazine.
The photograph shows Cyrus, seemingly topless, covered by a sheet, and when Entertainment Tonight promo'd it over the weekend, one parent and blogger suggested that people burn their children's Hannah Montana items in a bonfire. Cyrus issued a statement to People magazine, saying:
"My goal in my music and my acting is always to make people happy. For Vanity Fair, I was so honored and thrilled to work with Annie [Leibovitz]. I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed."Disney added, "Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines."
Vanity Fair claims Cyrus's parents were on set the entire time: "Miley's parents and/or minders were on the set all day. Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley." However, according to a source, her parents left before the final shoot, and Cyrus was asked to take off her "flesh-colored tank top."
Last year, Leibovitz's portrait of Queen Elizabeth was revealed to mixed reactions. Still, not since Suri Cruise have Leibovitz's photos of a minor been so scrutinized.
|
This is classier than what she normally wears. I don't see what the big deal is.
Leibovitz's work is so consistently bad. This is no exception.
What matty said. Not being in her target audience, my familiarity with her is limited to what I saw on the morning shows today. Her ‘teeny’ outfits are fairly inappropriate. But this photo shoot? The big shot in question really isn’t very sexualized. OMG, a back. So what?
It's not the most flattering photo. It makes her look pasty and sad. It seems like this was something Miley wanted to do at the time (perhaps wants out of a Disney contract?), but now she's realizing it wasn't a great decision. We've all made decisions we'd like to take back; we just don't all have it documented in public. She's 15. Fifteen year olds often make poor decisions...just like 25 year olds and 35 year olds and so on and so on.
And as an aside, I really like the Queen's portrait.
bestview, I don't really thing it is about her decisions, as her success is apparently a family industry. This was probably a poor business decision for Cyrus Inc., not because the photo is sexualized, as it isn't - but because it has an urban, cosmopolitan feel - which will be alienating to her folkum yokum fanbase. Or maybe it is a smart business decision as Cyrus Inc. beginning phase II of the "brand." I'm no business man.
I don't understand why people are angry. She's slutty and she makes little girls slutty. Those little girls grow up to be adult sluts. Adult sluts = easy sex for you and me later on. You know how much ass you can get on myspace for not doing anything now? It's all thanks to Britney, paris, and lindsay for showing little girls the way.
Guest guest:
I'm sure you're correct. By "her" I really meant the Miley Machine. I saw some clip that I think was Miley Cyrus singing, and she was shaking her hair all over the place as though she'd had too much Red Bull.
Is she blonde sometimes? Or is that someone else?
This wasn't an accident.
Obviously staged to market her as just risque enough to appeal to a slightly older crowd of girls without alienating the parents.
http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/7364/Nice-Girl.jpg
First thing I thought of.
She should be embarassed. She looks like a pale chipmunk in that photo.
It will be a good corn harvest next year.
She's a dirty little whore and I for one, wouldn't be surprised in the least if her next "photo shoot" involved her getting ass-fucked by a German Shepard."Hannah Montana" is just another 'nom de porn' for aspiring little twats.
inoyourider FTW
I heard Vanity Fair could not get copies of her at age 3 in a bathtub with a few of her friends.
It's not overtly sexual, it's certainly not terribly attractive, and I really don't see this photo screaming "OMG SEX SYMBOL" anymore than her outfits on stage do.
I think it's a remarkably well composed, lit, etc photo. As for Miley bitching about this not being 'artistic' in nature... I really must question what she was expecting. It's Vanity Fair. And I'm sure the moneys dished out for being a cover model weren't half bad, either.
with that face, she's been very lucky so far
This is the worst scandal since that Harry Potter auto-fellatio row of about three years ago. My thoughts and prayers go out to them both.
Hasn't Vanity Fair done that same exact bed sheet pose like 50 times already? It seems all too familiar.
I realized just how overrated Leibovitz's work was when I saw her "exhibit" at the Brooklyn museum last summer. Anybody can take a thousand pictures and end up with 5 great ones.
This shot just confirms that she gets more work from her name/rep than the actual quality of her work. So over rated. this shot is weak.
Miley does have the sleepy just laid look which is probably why some people are all up in arms.
Leibovitz's main photography talent is convincing people to make stupid decisions while appearing in her photos.
Sure she has had some great shots in the past. That is why she has the power to coerce controversial shots from gullible subjects who should know better.
Burn stuff in a bonfire? How retro!
If I read one more story about Miley Cyrus, I'm going to crack her over her Achy Breaky skull with my Achy Breaky bat.
What a bunch of CRAP! she is choosing to be a profesional biimbo and now she is upset about images clearly she will use to promote her career?!
BULL shiat
she normally dresses worse, good picture or not, whatever...
to say it isn't suggestive is bizarre. barely 15 year old girl, nude, in bed...
if it's OK with you fine but not sexualized?
Could Miley be the next Britney or Linsday?
PronG, I don't see a bed. Nor do I see any indication of nudity... other than a bare back. There is absolutely no visual reference to the female form (a.k.a. no curves or bumps), making this photograph arguably less suggestive than average teenager wear. This photograph is far less revealing than what is worn by olympic gymnasts, swimmers and figure skaters. I find the composition about as suggestive as a painting of a cherub. Don't get me wrong, I hear what you are saying. Do I find the photo appropriate? No. But I think it is many times more appropriate than other types of clothing, which, for some unknown reason, are considered culturally acceptable. Namely, her stage outfits, or for another example... figure skater outfits, which completely creep me out... and are totally suggestive.
looks like she has a kool-aid mustache.
Somewhere in Annie Lebovitz's computer, is a picture of the queen in the same outfit.
It's an awful looking photograph. As others wrote, she looks like a very pale, puffy little girl trying to be sexy.
Ok, if this were Jennifer Anniston, sitting there with a bare back, clutching what looks like a sheet to her front, would anyone coubt that it was implied that this is a sexual photo?
So, if this kid is 15, she's a minor. I think she must have parents around? Why didn't they look at this photo-were they even at the shoot? Why didn't they nix this idea before the photo was even set up?
Sounds to me, as if Billy and whoever he's running with this week, see Miley as thier cash cow, to be milked.