Spring Break
Lindsay Lohan, indecent exposure
Jake Corbin
Issue date: 3/5/08 Section: Opinion
|
After resurfacing from her longest rehab stint to date, Lohan decided to pose nude in a series of photographs for New York Magazine.
The shots - which have made a big splash on the Web - were a faithful recreation of Marilyn Monroe's last photo shoot. Not only that, but original photographer Bert Stern was the one taking the explicit shots all over again.
Stern told New York Magazine in the article that accompanied the photos that, "he was interested in Lohan because he suspected 'she had a lot more depth to her' than one might assume from 'those teenage movies.'"
If by "depth" Stern meant "cleavage," then he might have an argument.
What level of sophistication and emotional depth can possibly be expressed from posing nude in a mass-distributed magazine?
Where are the public relations people telling Lohan - scratch that, screaming - this isn't a good idea?
"Obviously you can see her breasts are real," said Leslie Sloane Zelnik, Lohan's longtime publicist, to Radar magazine.
Really? This is the response from her publicist? Guess Lohan's not getting any help from her "people" on this one.
"It was very tastefully done," said Dina Lohan to People magazine. "I respect the photographer as an artist ... for him to call Lindsay 46 years later and to say can you recreate these photos is an honor."
Seriously? It's no wonder Lohan continues to make one mistake after another when her own mother is calling the exploitation of her body "an honor."
Lohan herself also makes an odd comment at the end of the New York Magazine article, saying that Monroe, after "giving herself to the public," took "control back" by taking the series of naked pictures.
Does Lohan really see this as a power grab? After being harassed in the media for her much-publicized drinking binges, I don't see how posing nude will help her gain any control.
"It really appears like a cry for attention," said Molly Dugan, assistant professor of communications and journalism. "Posing nude as an actress of her caliber - she really has had some good roles - it's a step down for her. It could be a symbol of her downfall, not her empowerment."
Dugan did point out, however, that posing nude isn't necessarily a bad thing - Demi Moore pulled it off spectacularly while being pregnant.
The big difference here is that Moore posed while at the peak of her career with a ton of credibility to back her up, something Lohan can't claim.
"She's basically a teenager coming out of rehab," said Dugan.
So what is the solution?
Maybe it's time for Lohan to start focusing on her movie career instead of the spotlight (especially after tying HERSELF for worst actress at this year's Razzie Awards).
Drop the bad girl act and bring back the young woman we grew to like in "Mean Girls," the woman critics predicted would turn out good movies, not get turned out on booze and drugs.
Jake Corbin can be reached at jcorbin@statehornet.com
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Rene
posted 3/05/08 @ 3:18 AM PST
You either love it or hate it or you're gay for this infamous Lohan photoshoot.
Does It Jeopardize her career? answer is not at all
put all of her problems aside If Bert Stern asked her to do this photoshoot 2-3 years ago she'll do it in a heart beat. (Continued…)
natalyesaurus
Natalye
posted 3/05/08 @ 8:18 AM PST
To be honest, I didn't really care one way or another about the pictures - I just wish we could get the old Lindsay Lohan back, like you mentioned, the "Mean Girls" Lindsay. (Continued…)
jstaab360
posted 3/12/08 @ 6:41 AM PST
I have to agree with the N-saurus on this one. I couldn't care less what reason a celebrity has for deciding to pose nude or not. To me it couldn't matter less if she's at the top of her game or at the lowest of lows. (Continued…)
Post a Comment