Second Post Today….Lohan Nude, Thoughts?
At this point, unless you do not own/turn on a television, radio, or internet capable computer (and, if you don’t have that last, what ARE you doing reading this) you have no doubt, at the very least, heard that Lindsey Lohan posed nude for a photo shoot in this week’s New York Magazine…
and here’s your link…and yes you are welcome….
My initial reaction was, mostly, apathy. I mean, I like seeing naked girls as much as the next guy (unless that next guy happens to be gay, in which case I like seeing naked girls way more than him…), but other than that I really didn’t have a reaction.
Then I start reading stuff like this, an entire article devoted to a bunch of PR people saying what a bad career move it was. And then this, which I’d rather just excerpt…
Yes, it’s the height of taste for a young, reckless actress to imitate the patron saint of young, reckless actresses in a copy of that iconic last photo shoot before Monroe died of a drug overdose.
Now let us back up for just a moment.
The photo shoot in question, according to what I’ve read was actually Bert Stern’s idea. Bert Stern, by the way, was the man who took the original pictures (of Marilyn Monroe) that this new set is a recreation of. Stern was the one who approached Lohan.
And as she admits in the accompanying New York article, Lohan’s response was, basically, when will I ever get a chance like this again?
Never.
OK, so now we have the factors surrounding the shoot, what about the pictures themselves? If you read that Radar article, you might think she’d posed for Hustler. First off, any quasi-savy interwebz search will reveal both boob and crotch shots of Lohan, so it isn’t as if people all over the world didn’t already know Lohan’s anatomy in an intimate way.
Secondly, it’s a photo shoot with a well known and respected photographer appearing in a well known and respected publication. Why would that be a bad career move in any context? Oh, right, you can see her nipples. I forgot that, in this country, nakedness automatically equals bad.
The quality of the photos is another conversation. The originals are, without a doubt, amazing. These ones…maybe not so much. There is, I think, one good shot from those posted by NYM, and the best is actually one of the “behind the scenes” shots….
The Deciever post that I excerpted basically said, well, what it says. It was poor taste for a reckless celeb to “rehash” something already done by a reckless celeb. Well, I’d say that makes it more poignant, myself. Look, it would have been tasteless if, say, Mandy Moore (or some other, more squeaky clean celebrity) had done the shoot to “show off her Marilyn” side. Lohan, being who she is, was a much more inspired choice because of what she could bring to the shoot from her own experiences….didn’t really pan out that way, I don’t think, but hey they tried.
Basically, my point here is, can’t we just separate the tabloidy crap from the equation and really consider what is (I think) the important question; are the pictures good?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
February 21st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Interesting thoughts. As the blogger who wrote the Deceiver piece you quoted, I wanted to contribute to your site in turn.
I agree with you that the original Bert Stern photos were pretty amazing. And I don’t have a problem with nudity. In art, more nudity, I say.
My reaction to the shoot is that Lindsay is trying to glorify herself to the Monroe level, but she is frankly a weak imitation. Monroe is an icon and a tragic figure (I recommend the book Blonde by Joyce Carol Oates for a true portrait of her background), whereas LiLo is a failed pop star who made a few Disney films before letting fame get the best of her.
Mandy Moore doing the same shoot would have no substance; we wouldn’t even be talking about it. How many actresses have posed as Monroe? It’s basically become a parody without any recognition of what it means to be Monroe.
LiLo doing Monroe, however, has the potential to be something real. It could be evidence of Lindsay’s deep self-awareness that she, too, might be on a path to a similarly tragic fate (and it’s possible that’s what Bert Stern was striving for).
But that’s not the sense I’m getting through the interview with Dina Lohan that I was commenting on yesterday. To me, it smacks of fame-whoring — a way to shock people and have some kind of cultural relevance, now that it’s becoming increasingly clear that she’s box-office poison.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I don’t think it’s a bad career move on Lohan’s part. As long as she’s not boozing it up in public for the paparazzi to catch, anything else she does is a good career move. Are the pictures good? Yeah, they’re good. Not spectacular. Just good. Now, the original Marilyn pictures, those are spectacular.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Holly
First off, thanks for the comment.
I am in total agreement that Dina Lohan is a media whore.
But I think you made one of my points…that Lindsey’s inclusion in this project (if you will) gave it some artistic potential (though, not merit), and I wish more of what I was reading about the whole thing reflected that. Maybe my hope is pointless, given our media and what not.
I would say, however, that Lindsey Lohan is a tragic figure. As tragic as Marilyn? God no! But she was a fairly young child star, and I know that’s an easy thing to point to, but she started going the crazy before she was even 18. She did (or maybe still does) have a decent amount of acting talent, Freaky Friday was good for what it was and Mean Girls was flat out solid from top to bottom.
I hope, as you said, that the experience may have been some sort of clue that she’s at lease aware of the path she’s on. I wouldn’t call myself a fan of hers, but it is sad to see someone that young throwing away talent and opportunity that many people would kill for…
February 21st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Oh it absolutely has artistic potential. But the artist who can take credit for that is Bert Stein, not Lindsay Lohan. I truly don’t believe she saw it as a commentary on the tragedy of fame, I think her motives were more along the lines of “I’ll show my tits and hide behind the ‘art’ label and collect my first paycheck in a while.” In the accompanying article in NYM, she even says of Marilyn Monroe and Heath Ledger, “They are both prime examples of what this industry can do to someone… I don’t know. I’m not them. But I sure as hell wouldn’t let it happen to me.” Naive.
The thing that was genius about the Marilyn Monroe shoots is that she was on equal footing with Stein — it was her creativity and her comfort in her sexualized Marilyn role that made the shots so arresting. Part of this might be age and maturity, as Monroe was 36 when she met Stein in that hotel room.
However, LiLo is a 21-year-old who, for all her experience, has never come off as truly mature. This is why she looks so… directed. And I think you agree with me on this point, as you noted earlier that this recent shoot is not as inspired as the original.
Anyway, I think there’s some overlap between our opinions — thanks for the discussion, I love to get intellectual about this kind of frivolous bull.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 am
I’ll disagree on the pictures. They’re bad. Lohan is not and can never be a blond, and doesn’t pull off the look well even in black and white. She also doesn’t have Marilyn’s hourglass figure or creamy skin, and should by all means stop pretending she does. I think the shoot would’ve gone a lot better if she’d just ditched the hair bleaching (or wig, it looked awful) and done the basic poses but as herself. She has gorgeous red hair and a nice figure, and she should flaunt it. She used to be one of the recognizable redheads in Hollywood. I liked that.
Good career move, bad career move? I think it just was a career move. Compared to seeing her drunk and half naked in public places, it was great, but then, anything not involving booze or inappropriate clothing malfunctions would be super for her at this point. I agree that with Lindsay it could’ve been more than it was, but that somewhere something lacked and we got what we got. I wasn’t impressed. When you’re going to go up against a shoot like that, with an icon and historical significance like that, you better be ten levels above incredible. She was not.
I think that any project Lohan takes, be it photoshoot, film, tv, will come under fire, no matter what it is. Just because she’s had all the problems she has. That and because her name sells tabloids and magazines. Seeing what she’s screwed up next. If they don’t find anything they nitpick. Like crashing down on Miley Cyrus for not wearing a seat belt in her movie. Seriously. Do they dis Bond when he’s not strapped into his Astin Martin?
I admire Lohan for trying to clean herself up, and I fully believe the real culprits in trouble children like her are still not paying for what they do. Namely the people who serve underaged kids alcohol. Lohan had a drinking problem at 19. Come on! Who’s giving this stuff to her? Why aren’t they getting in trouble? Because she’s a celebrity, yes, but still. It’s disgusting.
Hm. Someone I think could pull off the Marilyn shoot? Christina Aguilera.