Tag Archives: nudity

Miley Unwrecked

Miley Cyrus has released a director’s cut version of Wrecking Ball.

People have responded with confusion and forgiveness for her earlier footage.

This is confusing on a number of levels.

“Oh, well if that’s what she really meant to do, then it’s not as bad.”

Ok, but why would she do it if she had direct control over her image, as so many people (including Cyrus, herself) have suggested? Why would she and the label spend so much on that other weird concrete stuff if it was not really in the original vision?

“Ah, now I see how it was meant to be like Sinead’s Nothing Compares to You. Just a face! Aha!”

Except, the original video was the one Cyrus was comparing to that clip. She’s dulled it down to support her argument about the video.

I think that the most disappointing part of this is that Cyrus tried to defend the video and eventually caved. Why? Wouldn’t her point be more easily made if she stuck to her guns?

I don’t know. Does it matter? What’s the point?


Feminism and Nakedness

An excellent article by Peter Robinson at the Guardian about naked women in pop music videos and where this all might lead. 

“Robin Thicke, Justin Timberlake and Calvin Harris have all used topless women in their videos. But is it art or are record labels exploiting women and cashing in on YouTube revenues?” writes Robinson.

The author talks about music videos and their explicit representation of women in the public forum and how it affects society. He argues that the biggest problem in these horny, white-boy hits is cynicism and laziness. How do we get more youtube views? Put some tits in it! 

He also points out the difference in view between Thicke’s idea of the film-clip of Blurred Lines and Diane Martel’s (the director), is alarmingly broad. 

The video’s experienced and well-respected director, Diane Martel, defended the promo against instant accusations of misogyny, explaining that the performance of model Emily Ratajkowski is “very funny and subtly ridiculing” – which is true – and that the models were directed to look into the camera, putting them “in the power position”.

Thicke, however, spoke at length about exactly why he thought it was ok to degrade women in his song. Robinson writes:

“People say: ‘Hey, do you think this is degrading to women?’ I’m like: ‘Of course it is. What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman. I’ve never gotten to do that before. I’ve always respected women.'” This was news to Martel. “That’s crazy,” she fired back. “Maybe he wasn’t thinking when he said that.”

Maybe he wasn’t thinking. But maybe he should have been. With so much energy spent on scrutinizing Thicke’s clip, one might imagine he could put some thought into his response. The only problem with that idea is that, when he did think about it, he decided that he was actually starting a feminist movement

This article, written by Elizabeth Plank, reports on Thicke’s extremely misguided idea of feminism and his backward view of how he claims to be helping. 

After saying that he went out of their way to do “everything that is completely derogatory towards women” in the video, he’s now purporting that the song is actually (and I quote) a “feminist movement in itself.”

And if that’s not an alarming prospect, I just don’t know what is.