1.1 Back to reality with Trainreq
Starting out let's get into the 'underwear shots' that were taken in Miley's home. Shots intended for private use, and only supposed to be shown to perhaps one person. Her then boyfriend, Nick Jonas.
Yes Miley has dated a Jonas brother. And some I think wish she still did. More on that will appear as this report continues on. But back on topic Miley's computer was reportedly hacked, and the photos were reported to be leaked out onto the internet by a hacker that answered to the name 'trainreq'. Why? Reportedly, because he could.
Taking a look at this I guess trainreq was Miley's 'Milton James'. A troll that caused trouble. Later articles on Yahoo revealed trainreq's name to be that of Joshua Holly. Last known age, 20.
When he was caught, no charges were reportedly filed. He only got a small byline while Miley was basically crucified. Maybe his computer was taken, I don't know.
But Miley paid the higher price. And continued to pay after that.
1.2 Vanity Fair
Some time later Miley was chosen to take part in a photo shoot for Vanity Fair, a magazine that takes some unique artistic stands, yet within the letter of the law. She took part a shot where two pictures drew ire from parents. One in which she was being held by her father in a way parents felt was 'uncomfortable'. The other, and the one that drew the most criticism, was where Miley had a sheet wrapped around her exposing her bare back and shoulders. Photographer Annie Leibovitz said she was 'photographing Miley's soul' for pictures that were intended to be 'artistic' and 'beautiful'.
Others didn't see it that way. Accusations of sexual exploitation were floated around. Critics called the shot 'topless', 'almost topless', 'semi-nude' at best. At worst they were called 'slutty', 'skanky', 'sinful' and 'dirty' at worst. Other individuals even went after Miley's character calling her 'slut' and 'skank' as well. Perhaps other names as well that I won't go into. Lighter accusations said Miley was "a terrible role model" for agreeing to do the shot saying, "How do I explain to my child that her hero took part in something dirty?" or a question that sounded similar.
Again Miley is the one crucified. Only a few mentions of Annie Leibovitz(who was said to have gone out of her way to defend her work), the magazine's practices, or the parents and handlers. Vanity Fair said that her minders were on the set all day. And while it was reported that her parents were called away, her grandmother was there to take note.
After writing this part I do wonder if Billy Ray and Tish leaving wasn't a mistake on their part. Perhaps Billy Ray should have said "No, I can't go. I have to be there for my daughter. Make sure she's being treated right." Later I would find out that Billy Ray and Tish approved of the shot before they left. So whether they were there or not seems to be a moot point now I guess.
I take a look at this and I find myself asking the question Miley and her parents must have asked. "What else could we have done?" The answer of the outraged? "Say 'no'".
Well let's change perspectives here for a second. Let's have the 'outraged parents' faced with this question. "We saw something that concerned us. What else could we have done?" The answer? "Say nothing."
"Say nothing? We can't do that."
"And why not?"
"Because we have a legitimate concern here. Can you not say that you are not concerned?"
"Yes I can. But the problem I have is that your 'words of concern' are being spun into making her seem like someone she's not, or may not be. And that is empowering malicious individuals into attacking her verbally, on the net, in the media, and perhaps other places as well."
"Well that's not our problem. We can't control what others make of our words."
"Just as Miley couldn't control your perceptions of events, and your reactions to them."
"She could if she said 'no'."
"And you could by saying nothing."
Sounds like a catch 22 doesn't it?
I take a look at the argument for a 'legitimate concern' and I do empathize a little with that. I was faced with....similar issues in the past and I felt compelled to speak out on them. They may not have been as serious as the welfare of a 15/16 year old girl caught in a troublesome situation, but people were involved in these issues. People that worked to attain a desired outcome and were left.....with words unheeded.
I like to think Miley has heeded the words of others, and taken them to heart.
And I think now if parents have young stars deal with Annie Leibovitz, they will make sure that around her that they are the first to enter and the last to leave. To make sure their interests, their child's interests, and the interests of the audience are protected. To make sure the photographer does not go into buisness for themselves, as others have done.
1.3 Letter vs. spirit with Babylon 5
Okay, here's where we take our first sci fi foray. With an emphasis I learned about on a show called Babylon 5.
It was a second season episode where station Captain John Sheridan was holding a prisoner by the name of Morden, who may have information on what happened to his wife, lost on a mission Morden was on. When Psi Corps representative Talia Winters refused to do a psi scan Sheridan's argument was that Morden was listed to be 'dead'. "Can a dead man object?"
Winters' counter argument was "Captain you're trying to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law."
Taking a look at the picture Miley was technically wearing a garment. A sheet. Well within the child protection laws. No different than a towel worn by Cole Sprouse on an episode of 'Suite Life of Zack and Cody' which had his character of Cody coming out of the shower later to be pranked by Zack (played by Dylan Sprouse) where he threw his brother out into the hall of the Tipton, sans towel. No nudity was shown incidently.
In matters of the opposite sex wearing a towel check out the movie 'Clockstoppers'. In that film there was a scene where the character of Francesca, played by Paula Garces, had come out of the shower dressed in a towel for two seconds, due to being trapped inside a garbage truck. Was a federal case made here? Any sexuality emphasis here? No one I heard had said anything. Also this movie was made by Paramount Pictures, geared to the Nickelodeon crowd.
I can think of two other examples as well. One is the Secret Life of Alex Mack where Alex is coming into her powers, and when she liquifies for the first time it is sans clothes. When she reforms she is nude, and hiding behind an obstruction. Again, no nudity is shown. Child protection laws followed. The second example is the show 'So Weird' where the lead character of that is turned into a dog, again sans clothes. When the girl is changed back she is nude, but we only see her head and shoulders.
Again, child protection laws followed. The implied nudity is used to show a sense of 'realism' in transformation.
When I mention 'realism in transformation' in the past with shows like 'Bewitched' or 'Star Trek' when someone is turned into something they are transformed with their clothes on. Their clothes do not fall around them like the case apparently is here in this day and age. I guess someone decided that when someone does a 'turn someone into something' stint it's more realistic to not change the clothes around them as well. To let the clothes drape around the new form, and when they are changed back, they are nude. And only the limited amount of skin is shown.
It is meant to show a sense of realism. No sexuality is implied.
But in the case of Miley's Vanity Fair article is sexuality implied? Possibly, despite the letter of the law being followed. But then again possibly not, for reasons I'll get into later.
In getting back to the darker perspectives, I had seen that type of shot once before, or thought I had. It was in a cop show called 21 Jump Street. An episode called '16 blown to 35'.
In the episode in question the Jumpstreet cops were looking to expose a teenage porno ring that operated out of a modeling studio. And before the cops came in to bust the porographer they were getting ready to shoot the subject's big scene. The subject in question, a teenaged girl, was dressed in a robe (for a while I thought it was a sheet until I rewatched the episode), and was about to unveil when the cameras started rolling. Before those cameras could roll however the cops came in and made arrests. The girl however escaped with the film, yet was cornered in a back alley by officer Judy Hoffs, played by Holly Robinson. Once cornered Hoffs asked the film be turned over to her so the pornographer could be prosecuted.
The girl however could not stop crying, and Hoffs knew why, as she saw the girl's life being destroyed by the film even if it was needed as evidence. To that end Hoffs destroyed the film herself, much to the dismay of Captain Adam Fuller, played by Steven Williams. Like Hoffs he knew the importance of the film, and without it there was no case. It would only be through the testemony of an aide with second thoughts that the case against the pornographer would be made.
Another question that I believe needs to be asked is 'If it was not Miley would it have been someone else? And if it was, would they have fared better?'
Other examples of the 'sheet shot' that have appeared are in the season 8 Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic where Buffy is dressed in a sheet after having a night with one of her lesbian slayers. On TV's Smallville Lois Lane wore a sheet after having a night with Clark Kent. So while sexuality, or previous sexuality, is implied, the letter of the law is still followed. And in the case of Lois and Clark the beauty of the moment is reflected.
Some could say that a moment of beauty was also reflected in Buffy's moment, and Lois's moment. And there would be those that wouldn't too as it would offend their sensibilities. But usually sexuality implies two people be involved wouldn't it? Where was Miley's 'second person'? Or did the outraged come to the 'Jump Street' conclusion? A conclusion based on fear and worse case scenario?
Regardless, the letter of the law was followed. Whether the spirit of the law was followed is another matter.
1.4 Art in college
As I found myself thinking about this I was later reminded of a college level art class I had taken part of. An art class where nude models were used. Yes, I said nude models. I also said 'college level'
In this class we were supposed to draw men and women nude as they stood on a podium. The podium was the only time however that they were nude. Once they got off the podium the models draped themselves in a sheet that served as a temporary garment until they made their way to a changing room to where they got fully dressed.
A sheet as a garment? Used to conceal that which wasn't ready to be concealed until such a time that called for the garment to be removed? A time that had not yet come for Miley? It made me think that in an art studio perhaps there are a set of rules that are followed. And perhaps were followed. As as far as I can tell Miley was not 'topless' as some would like to accuse her of being. She was wearing a garment, and had wore it during the shoot. If she was ever topless it was only in the changing room where no cameras were.
So I think the 'topless' accusations can be considered....unwarrented.
Also I remember a scene on a show called 'S Club 7 in L.A.' called 'L.A. 7' in the U.K. in which cast member Bradley MacIntosh was looking for a job to pay bills, what every starving artist does from time to time. One of those jobs called for him to be a nude model in an art class.
And this was on a family show people. It aired on FOX Family, which later became ABC Family.
And again the letter of the law was followed. Nothing was revealed that shouldn't have been. Of course an argument could be made that he was 20 and Miley was still 15 at the time. Still the counter argument could also be made that nothing was revealed that shouldn't have been. And the rules in the art studio were followed, as was the letter of the law.
As I thought about my time in the art class I took in college I found myself remembering that the notions of sexuality did not apply there. The only things that mattered were matters of the interpretive, the analytical and the expressive. Basically we had to look at the models before us and draw what we saw, and how we saw it without notions of sexuality clouding our minds. Those had to be kept separate and had no place there. This was probably meant to be a means of enforcing discipline in the artist. Sometimes they do have to be detatched from those images in order to create their masterpieces. Or works, depending on how good you are. Or bad, whichever.
But when this art goes out into the real world the rules change and other interpretations come into play. Interpretations that can be based on sexuality, which.....can lead to two factors the interpretations are most likely based on: fear and worst case scenario.
Giving the benefit of the doubt here Miley, Annie Leibovitz, Miley's parents and her handlers probably expected the audience to come to the same conclusions they did in the art studio. Sadly that was not the case. The audience had....other ideas in mind. I'd like to think Miley and everyone there thought the intentions were good. But the outside world is different outside the four walls of the studio. The same rules and attitudes inside will/may not apply outside. Perhaps this little bit of knowledge will help Miley the next time. Despite the doubts and snickers of others reading this.
The sad part of this is is that all of this could have been avoided if one word had been used by Miley, her parents, her handlers or someone. 'No!' Regardless of any consequences that might have been brought forth. Not only saying 'no' but also realizing why the word 'no' needed to be said.
But that word was not said. And Miley paid a heavy price. A price I'll discuss further, as well as the importance of why the word needs to be said in some areas.
1.5 Media, rivals, perfection and alternate takes
Often the media, and some You Tube posters, mention Selena Gomez as a potential rival to Miley's pop princess status. To the point that they use Selena's name as a figurative bat to hit Miley's good name with, if not her personally. Esentially they carry on with a philosophy I found myself on the receiving end of with a series of internet clones. Tear down one to build up the other. When Selena was mentioned dating Nick Jonas, Miley's former boyfriend, people had a field day.
I won't go into examples now. Although it looks like the rumors of Selena and Nick have started up again.
Selena also has a best friend in Demi Lovato, who has had her own share of media scrutiny. In tabloids she had been rumored to be a 'cutter', to where she inflicted self harm on her body. Some paparazzi are also trying to start some rumors about her beeing a teenaged lesbian as well apparently. Rumors not proven as far as I know. And there is also Debby Ryan of Suite Life on Deck. An up and coming talent.
Would any of them have fared any better on the Vanity Fair shoot? Would the media have given them the same amount of scrutiny. Or would they have looked the other way in terms of Selena as she can be considered the 'darling' to beat Miley's reputation over the head with. Would the outraged parents have been concerned? Or maybe the 'outraged' are not speaking from a place of concern. Maybe they are trying to keep a certain ideal 'maintained'.
One example I can think of is 'Dora the Explorer'.
There was a story a couple months back where they were going to do a grown up, or pre teen, version of Dora. The design was something parents were not happy with. They believed Dora was fine as she was. Almost as if they were locking her in as a kid indicating a state of 'perfection' . 'Perfection' that shouldn't be changed.
Do these parents believe 'Hannah' was a state of 'perfection' and are parents angry that Miley deviated from that? Are they afraid that the slightest deviation from that ideal will put her on a road to being Brittney Spears and or Lindsey Lohan?
What is 'perfection' anyway? Well according to Webster's dictionary the definition of 'perfect' is:
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement
3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose
4. entirely without flaws, defects or shortcomings
5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail
6. thourough:complete:utter
7. pure or unmixed
8. unqualified, absolute
9. expert, accomplished, proficient
There are about eleven or so more definitions that I can go into here, but I think you the reader have the gist of it. 'Perfection' is an ideal state that is believed essental to maintain....to some, at all costs.
I also saw that type of picture once again years back, albeit with a different setting. It was on a CD cover with an actress I greatly admire. Her name is Claudia Christian. She performed in several movies like 'Hexed', 'Danielle Steele's Kalaidoscope', 'The Hidden', 'Clean and Sober', but she was best known for playing the role of Commander Susan Ivanova on the Sci Fi series Babylon 5.
The picture had shown Ms. Christian's back and left shoulder. The rest of her was covered with fur blankets and there was what looked to be a candleabra to accessorize the shot. She was naked in that shot, as well as another where she covered herself with her arms holding up a starfish in the middle, but she was also covering up her own private areas. Both shots were considered 'artistic'.
As I compare Ms. Christian's fur blanket picture with that of Miley's I see in a technical sense they are the same shot. Both have bare backs exposed, both reveal their right shoulders, and both were covered by garments. There are however glaring differences. For one Ms. Christian was 32 when she had her picture taken for her album cover. An album called 'Taboo'. Miley was 15. Another was the type of blankets and ornamentation used.
Ms. Christian appeared to be covered with a series of mink blankets draped over her and she seemed to be in a laying down position like one would read a book. There also was the apparent use of what looked to be a candleabra in the background for ornamentation. Her face and hair appeared as it usually did to the casual fan, or to anyone that saw her on Babylon 5, and there seemed to be a screen that gave the photo a tan haze.
Miley's photo was nowhere near as elegant, or ornate. It had her dark hair all frizzed up and a regular sheet covering her. Her lips seemed to be highlighted and there seemed to be a lot of dull grays. There was no ornamentation, no enhancements of the natural beauty, and she seemed to be sitting-not laying-in her pose. In retrospect the photo Annie Leibovitz took seemed to look cheap compared to Claudia Christian's, which probably was done with an even less budget but looked like it was done with more money.
Maybe Annie Leibovitz had some money problems then too. I should probably mention that it was only a few months ago that Annie Leibovitz has attained front page exposure. Due to debt problems. Apparently she owed a couple million. Since then that suit has been resolved, but the insight into Leibovitz the articles provided was facinating. One quote especially as an article seemed to mention Leibovitz's belief that 'nothing was too extreme in the search for the perfect picture'.
Apparently nothing WAS too extreme in the pursuit of the perfect picture. Even if the price was Miley's innocence and apparently the morale of the public who liked the wholesome image she presented....at that time. Is this another aspect of the Hollywood industry believing they are above the audiences they are supposed to provide for? Much like Ted Kennedy accused George W. Bush and his administration for acting above the law in matters of foreign policy? And possibly others?
As I take a look at the photography of Annie Leibovitz I find myself asking quite a few questions. Questions only Leibovitz can answer. Examples are: Who is it for? What audience does she want to reach? Or is she just doing it for an audience of one? Would Leibovitz ask a star to do anything she isn't willing to do herself? Why doesn't she do her own provocative poses? Does she even take responsibility for her actions or is the controversey she generates 'someone else's fault?'
Looking back it was said that the Vanity Fair shot was supposed to be 'artistic', but what is the definition of 'art' that was intended? Is it like Phillip Masters definition in the Ms. Marvel comic? Or even perhaps Hugh Hefners? Or is it something else?
Is there another definition for a girl in a sheet? Yes. What is that definition? A reflection of innocence. An innocence that became lost due to the accusations, outrage, hate and maliciousness of others. If I were to call that photo anything I would probably call it 'Innocence lost', for that is what happened. Whether she deliberately lost it, or it was taken from her I'll leave to others to determine.
Wait? Innocence? Could it possibly be that nudity has an ALTERNATE meaning? I think so, or at least the possibility should be allowed. For don't we come into the world naked? Innocent?
Yes we do. Clothing comes later. In this case in the form of a sheet used to convey a sense of modesty.
Perhaps THAT was what Annie Leibovitz was looking to capture. Remember the 'line' that was mentioned where Leibovitz said she wanted to 'capture her soul'? Tina Fey made mention of it for her Vanity Fair photo shoot. Well Annie Leibovitz did capture that innocence I guess.....
.......at the cost of it.
After that Miley's world had changed. She became aware of the darkness of the world. Aware of individuals like the self promoter, the one who wants their way with the world, and those that take pleasure of another's pain. At the end of the day I do wish SOMEONE had said 'no' to Annie Leibovitz at the Vanity Fair shoot. Because that was the day Miley lost her innocence in a way. Not in a sexual way, but in a way where she saw the dark side of people.
I think it's clear a lot of us did we not see what Leibovitz, and others, saw. So does this mean she has become queen of her own little world? Or has Hollywood become so elitist that the rest of the world didn't matter? Was all that mattered was what was in that room as pictures were being taken?
Was the audience and the morale of them a non issue? And if this is the case does that make Hollywood part of the problem?
I also found myself reminded of how one thing to one group could mean something else to another. One example is something else I saw on Babylon 5 (show's good for a lot of material), the first contact between an Earth ship and a Minbari cruiser. And how a sign of openness from one side could be determined as an act of aggression on another side.
In a first contact situation the Minbari have a tradition of opening the gun ports on their ships. This gesture is meant to convey a sense of openness to people. Indicating that the Minbari had nothing to hide. But to people of Earth, especially to a captain that panicked, it is seen as a sign of hostility. And as such the captain acted as his instincts told him to. Instincts that said 'get them before they get you.'
And that was what that captain sought to do. He opened fire on the Minbari ship killing its leader. Due to the death of the leader the Minbari voted for war. A war that almost led to the genocide of the human race.
How did that war end? I'm not going to spoil that for everybody. Just pick up the DVD's and watch the show.
1.6 Another example of the 'sheet shot'-WWE Wrestler Tori
Claudia and Miley weren't the only photos I saw of women in a sheet. There was also one other. A female wrestler named Terri Poch-who went by the name 'Tori' from the WWE. When she started out she appeared to be a fan that sat in the crowd marvelling at the then Women's Champion Rena 'Sable' Mero, to the point that she even interferred in matches on her behalf. But then Sable did a 'heel turn' (wrestling term for 'going bad') and then berated Tori as she took on a primadonna attitude.
All this was a lead in to a match at Wrestlemania 15, which Tori lost, but she made an impact with me. Mostly that impact came from her seemingly being a fan from the stands. I guess looking back I always found I had a soft spot for talent that seemed to appear from the crowd as if they were part of it. Some wrestlers mention that they started out as fans in the seats like the rest of us. And having wrestlers come in from the crowd tends to reinforce that belief with me. And probably others too.
As time went on I found out more about Tori. I learned that she was a fitness model, had previous wrestling experience, and that she was heavily involved in yoga and body painting. I saw a photo spread which not only had Tori dressed in a sheet, but also a body paint pattern that came off as 'cat like'. This paint pattern also seemed to be painted on her wrestling gear during her Wrestlemania match and her following match on RAW that night.
As I saw Tori's sheet pic I saw beauty in that, nothing trashy at all. Maybe because I still saw her as a fan from the stands and not a developmental talent. Also she was a very beautiful woman, and still is as far as I know. But if there was anything wrong with it I didn't see it.
But then again I guess the difference between Tori and Miley is the age thing. Tori was in her 30's at that time while Miley was still 15.
1.7 Tori's arch foil:Ivory
Another thing I want to mention about Tori is her other artistic exploration-body painting.
She once did a spread where she had words painted on her body like 'STRENGTH' on her arms, 'PASSION' close to her heart, 'VANITY' on her forearm as she held her chin, as well as the word 'ENIGMA' painted somewhere I don't remember. An artistic spread that didn't reveal anything that shouldn't have been revealed by order of the censors.
At this time Tori was having a feud with then WWE Women's Champion Ivory. Ivory came off like a primadonna herself and started verbally attacking fans saying how 'great' she was, and Tori took offence. One day Ivory attacked Tori after a match and did some body painting of her own on Tori's body. Body painting that was none too flattering. She basically painted the word 'SLUT' on Tori's chest, and 'SKANK' on Tori's back. Even called her that after her work was done.
What started as art with Tori turned into graffitti and a branding from Ivory. They had a series of matches where the supposedly superior wrestler Ivory resorted to under handed measures to win. Except perhaps a hardcore match where weapons were used.
1.8 The Right to Censor
Ivory's 'superior attitude' (eyeroll) led her to being part of a stable called 'the Right to Censor', a take on special interest groups that resort to intimidation and censorship to get what they want. Preaching morality yet going against it if it means getting what they want. Namely prestige and everyone thinking their way.
The RTC basically was a group that dressed the same (like Michael Douglass in the movie Falling Down [a powerful movie that I think reflects society to an extent]), thought the same, and said how what they were doing was for everyone's own good, even if it meant going against the very morality they were supposed to be preaching and believing in. Its leader, wrestler Steven Richards, carried on saying how people didn't know what was good for them, but he did as well as everyone in his group. Giving the impression that the RTC, and maybe other groups, were drinking a special blend of Kool Aid.
The RTC went about censoring everything that offended their sensibilities, no one else's just theirs. If the RTC thought something was wrong then it should have been censored. If others disagreed well they didn't know what was good for them. The RTC seemed to believe they were speaking form a moral standpoint, but it was 'moral' as they saw it, and they expected others to see it too. And think it right.
And going against the very morals they are supposed to preach? If they don't practice what they preach, what do they practice? What do they want? Power? Prestige? Do they believe the ends justify the means? A question I think will pop up quite a bit here. But I do wonder if the RTC really wanted what was best for the people, or did they want what was best for them?
I think that if people preach morality they should practice it too. Lead by example, not by dicating to them. Otherwise it gets to the point where wrestler Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson asked the RTC "Who are you to tell people what to think and not to think? Say and what not to say?" I can understand that I guess, but the question both sides needed to ask was "How far is too far?" How far do you take artistic expression so it doesn't offend or hurt? And how far do you take morality so that you don't compromise it?
A question I think a lot of us need to answer for ourselves. Among others.
1.9 You Tube video 'My Four inch Precious'
Recently I came across a series of clips that when they came together formed a movie. It was called 'My four inch Precious' and it was about a man who lived alone with his chihuahua and a plant. One day his plant opened up and a four inch naked woman came out. Bashful she put on a sheet as the man looked away. The man fell in love with the tiny girl as the dog got jealous. The girl had died as the dog seemed to attack her. From her grave another flower grew, but the dog ate that before it could bloom and another tiny naked girl could come to life.
I felt there was nothing sexual about this film at all. Especially as there was no way the guy could have sex with the girl as she was so small. Any nudity was designed to promote a sense of innocence as Precious came into the world, and a small sheet was used to promote a sense of modesty.
Which gives an explanation for the use of a sheet an alternate meaning. Not to mention that not everything has to involve sexuality. Nudity can mean innocence as well.
Yet it's the worst case definition that people focus on the most.
1.10 Annie Leibovitz
As I take a look at this long work I find I have made quite a few digs at Ms. Leibovitz. Does she deserve the digs? I don't know. I never met the woman.
I am upset though at the direction she took Miley with her shoot, and the actions that followed. I guess I'm also upset as to how it seems that Hollywood has put this woman photographer on a pedistal. That Leibovitz'a photographs are 'artistic' and that she's so 'world renown'. But until Miley's photograph....and Hollywood stars will probably freak at this....I'd never even HEARD of Annie Leibovitz until Miley's pictures.
And right away people will be saying "You never heard of Annie Leibovitz?" like the Muppets once told Kermit the Frog "You never heard of the bannana sketch?"
Well it's true. I'd never heard of Annie Leibovitz until Miley's pictures. She worked behind the scenes while stars were on the front line. Even Demi Moore's 'controversial' shot years back I still didn't hear of Annie Leibovitz. Maybe because Demi was more of an adult.
But now...there probably isn't anyone who hasn't heard of Annie Leibovitz. And not in the best of ways.
And also what saddens me, and maybe even angers me, is that Annie Leibovitz seemed to come before Miley's fans. People seem to gush all over Annie that the fans take a back seat to her, or the audience. I can probably understand that, as I've seen fans gush over their 'favorites' in their own respective genres. I myself fell guilty to that sort of thinking myself. Then I met one or two of my 'heroes', and I saw what jackasses they can be. Despite the good works they do.
So while I can respect a favorite artist's work I don't put them on a pedistal like I used to. And I guess.....oh hell I'll just say it. I wish the audience was put first and not Annie Leibovitz. Because it seem to me, and perhaps others, that compared to Annie Leibovitz we just didn't matter.
Annie Leibovitz came first. The fans didn't. Maybe if the fans came first the scandal could have been avoided. I don't know, but I like to think so.
1.11 Artistic expression vs. Public morale
I understand the need for artistic expression, and the freedom required to explore it. However I also believe that artistic expression should not be done at the cost of public morale. Members of the audience look to Hollywood and role models for more than just entertainment. They also look for education, inspiration, and at times heroes. Especially if the people in one's life cannot provide guidance and inspiration for a person to be the best they can be for whatever reason. Sometimes it's a matter of the 'real' person belittling them to where it effects emotional growth.
That does not however mean that both sides do not have their extreme elements. Sometimes in the pursuit of artistic expression the audience can be disregarded and dismissed as the pursuit of the artist's own gains is pursued. To that effect they wind up providing for an audience of one. The artist themselves, with the possible exception of those audience members that agree with the artist. Those that don't.....tend to be dismissed as irrelevant. And sometimes they are even told so. I speak from first hand experience when I say this.
That does not mean that those that side with public morale do not have their own extremists. There are those that believe that for the 'greater good' that creative expression needs to be stifled in order to maintain the good spirits and morals of the people. To points where they could wind up going against those morals they value.
Nowadays I look at controversey and it just seems to be self serving, or looking to make a profit off of people's outrage. And the people at the center of it pay most of the price. Miley has been that person at the center, and has done nothing but pay for it.
As I also look around at references and stories I came across one in a recent issue of Rolling Stone where it had Madonna looking back on her career. Her highs, her lows, her music, her own shocking moments. And there was almost one shoking moment where two worlds collided. The one on 'art' and the one on 'race'. The interviewer asked Madonna if there was an idea she hadn't gone through with. One that had seemed 'too extreme'. Madonna mentioned that there was one. And here is the quote from the interview.
"I had a photo shoot for Steven Klein where I painted my face black, except for red lips and white eyes. It was supposed to be a play on words. Ever hear of the Black Madonna? I thought it would be a good title for my next album then I thought for a minute '25% of the world is probably going to get this. Probably less. It's not worth it.' It happens all the time because my references are off the Richter Scale. That's why I have people like Guy [Oseary, her manager] in my life who look at me and go 'No, you're not doing that'."
Miley could have used someone like Guy Oseary in those rooms I think. Someone to tell her "It's not worth it."
Enough said here for now, I think.
1.12 The concept of Public Morale
I think it's safe to say that when it comes to the public people know what is being referred to. The public basically is a reference to the people themselves.
But what about the public's morale? Well wikipedia offers this definition of 'morale':
Morale, also known as 'esprit de corps' when discussing the morale of a group, is an intangible term used for the capacity of people to maintain belief in an institution or a goal, or even in oneself and others. The second term applies particularly to military personnel and to members of sports teams, but is also applicable in business and in any other organizational context, particularly in times of stress or controversy.
According to Alexander H. Leighton, "morale is the capacity of a group of people to pull together persistently and consistently in pursuit of a common purpose."
I find myself looking at this definition, and thinking about a lot of things. Especially in areas of the definition pertaining to the capacity of people to maintain belief in an institution, goal, one's self and others. As well as the capacity of a group of people to pull together persistently and consistently in pursuit of a common purpose. And I think it's safe to say that the belief in Miley has been shaken. Next question to ask is 'why'?
Well let's take a look at things. First, we take a look at Miley, a second generation star (and yes I can say that). Her father, Billy Ray, is still best known for Achy Brakey Heart even today. There have also been enough parodies made of it to keep it fresh in people's minds. One done by 'Weird Al' Yankovic called Achy Brakey Song. Another done on an episode of Animaniacs called 'Empty Hollow Head'. Don't ask me what they were thinking with that.
And Miley wowed people with her performances as Hannah. She was also the first Disney Channel star that could have been considered a serious multi talent in the eyes of some. She sang, danced, acted, and when her album 'Meet Miley Cyrus' came out we found she even song wrote.
I guess with that range of talent people expected a higher standard to be set for her. Especially with Billy Ray having some success of his own. We even found out her real name, 'Destiny Hope', which seemed to have a....spiritual grace to it, and may have also contributed to the higher standard people expected of her. Also while Disney did have some young stars sing, dance, and act in the past they seemed to be 'passing interests'. Nice to look at, but not taken too seriously as they would most likely be gone tomorrow, or doing other things.
But then Miley came along, and the young stars seemed to be noticed again. First Miley, then others followed. The Jonas Brothers, Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato, and maybe more to come.
Another thing to consider is Disney. A company known for wholesome family entertainment. Sure there may be some forays into other aspects of action and adventure but the mainstream Disney always remained family friendly. And Miley was under the main Disney umbrella, so the expectations to meet the wholesome guidelines might have been higher for her to meet. Especially when other companies were going all 'dark, gritty, and real'. Or what they consider to be 'real'.
With everyone else going 'dark' Disney seemed to be the only light left in the eyes of some. Perhaps even the eyes of many. A safe haven in a dark world. And Miley and the Cyrus' apparently were supposed to know this in those same eyes. How Miley 'should have known better'.
And yet as I write this I find myself thinking of the G.I. Joe cartoon where Cobra Commander blamed Destro for all his losses. Even when Destro wasn't in the battle himself. Basically a reflection on irrationality. Miley should know this and this (a reflection on how people expect a Hollywood star's sense of morality to be complete and ready to go-not have a sense of morality be a 'work in progress'), and whether Destro is in battle or not the loss is always his fault acording to Cobra Commander.
Irrational thinking on one end, and irrational thinking mixed with weird on the other. Hey...I like weird. Besides, I wanted to work a Cobra Commander bit into this somewhere, he's good for a laugh at times. Also I wonder if the outraged are not guilty of the same irrationality, but for a different reason.
When one watches, or reads, a G.I.Joe comic or show they know Cobra Commander is in it for himself. He takes the poor, disenfranchised, and hopeless and gives them a purpose. The purpose being 'You had been knocked down. You don't deserve that. Take back what is yours.' In practice Cobra Commander gives his followers a sense of hope, a feeling of belonging, and a sense of empowerment that the foot soldiers believe has been taken from them by the establishment. In reality however Cobra Commander is a vain man that is out for himself, and to get his own way. Lining his own pockets to do it as he goes.
While I think the reactions of the outraged are irrational as well, as I mentioned above, I think they believe they are doing what they do for a benign purpose. They believe they are saving Miley by pointing out their problems. The haters not so much. They are probably more like Cobra Commander than the outraged are, but no less irrational. And I'd also say, no less self serving.
But now back to buisness.
As I said before Disney has been a light in the eyes of parents while other companies tend to go for more dark and real. They expected Miley to have a dedication to those expectations and ideals Disney is supposed to represent. And I think they still do. As I said before they don't want a 'real girl finding out who she is.' They want a 'good girl who knows right from wrong, knows who she is and has known from day one. With the strength, courage and commitment to stay that way'.
I think they also want someone who doesn't make mistakes, but gets it right the first time. Have a zero tolerance policy to mistakes and making them, and always does the right thing.
Again this sounds like an old Filmation cartoon character from the 70's and 80's doesn't it? Is this what people want Miley to be? And why can she make no mistakes? I think I want to explore this question. Try to answer it.
I take a look at this 'no mistakes' view, and I think people look at that and see a higher sense of responsibility and moral standard, as compared to those that do make mistakes leading to the belief that the mistake makers are....those of lax morals. And any forgiveness to those mistakes leads only to lawlessness and disorder, which leads back to the belief as to why mistakes should be avoided so the supposed 'higher standard' can be maintained.
And right away I'm thinking of the irrationality of Cobra Commander again. Or if nothing else see what a slippery slope this really is.
Are there any other reasons why Miley should not make mistakes, or think it okay to do so? One or two.
Another is the realization that lives depend on a person's actions or decisions. There are times that people look to Hollywood for more than just entertainment. Although I'm sure that the entertainers would love it if people just did that. That any guidance come from 'real people'. But, as I mentioned before, sometimes the 'real people' can't be guides for others. A person may have to look elsewhere for role models, and guides to be better people. And if people look to you that can be added incentive, if not pressure, to avoid making mistakes.
A third reason to consider avoiding mistakes is one out of fear. That a person will be crucified for them. Even if a crucifiction for mistakes is done mostly, if not only, to promote one's own sense of self importance. However such crucifictions can be hurtful...if not embarassing. Especially if laughing at someone is involved.
One thing I've learned over the years, 'Never underestimate people's capacity for cruelty, or their ability to enjoy it.' Based on these reason above perhaps this is why they think there should only be one policy that Miley should have for mistakes and making them. That policy? Zero tolerance.
And it is for a belief that she'd be achieving a 'higher moral standard' she is apparently supposed to have. Not to mention keeping her from being seen as a failure. But I also wonder if there's not a deeper fear here. A deeper concern. 'What is it?' you may ask? Well here it is:
'No more good girl'. In fact I think they may be wondering if that fear isn't 'No more good girl....period'.
They're afraid that if Miley doesn't take responsibility seriously, and avoid mistakes at all costs, that she will become another 'Young Hollywood statistic'. Or another 'bad girl', which Brittney and Lindsey have apparently become. And that she sees being 'good' as an 'embarassment'. Some believe it could happen. And that is a basis for the fears a lot of people may have. Especially as there is another reason as to why they would want Miley to stay 'good'.
'It's safer. Good girls apparently are considered 'safe'.' And for some 'safe' is the only thing that matters. As 'safe' can also equate to 'good'.
I look at this and I can understand the demand for 'safe' and 'good' images in the entertainment industry. I can even agree with the demand to an extent. What I can't agree with however is how the demand is being carried out and who the methods really provide for. The haters.
Is it possible that the outraged will expand their sensibilities when the world is 'safer'? and the worst elements are driven back? Perhaps. But until then it seems like the outraged are either unable to, unaware of, or unwilling to address the notion that their accusations empower those worst elements they are so against.
In effect, the outraged keep the haters in buisness and give them material. And while some may blame Miley's actions is it really her actions they get ideas from or the accusations of the outraged?
Another good question.
1.13 Right and wrong?
In adressing the concern of public morale I want to focus on the diametrically opposite positions when it comes to making mistakes, especially in the public eye. The first is one that I believe has been ingrained into a lot of people in that when it comes to mistakes there is no room for them. Every 'i' must be dotted. Every 't' must be crossed. This way of thinking is considered 'right' by so many people. And I will admit this way has been hardwired into my brain itself, reinforced by a lot of imagery of the ideals of 'perfection' in magazines, broadcasting, as well as average people that one may come across. Especially in regards to what would happen if the apparent 'wrong' way of thinking is embraced, to the point where making mistakes means being defined by them and seen as a 'failure'.
This so-called 'wrong' way of thinking is apparently what Miley, her parents, and Disney seems to promote. A way of thinking where "Making mistakes is how we grow and learn." This way of thinking is considered 'wrong' by some because of the cost being too high, for reasons of one's own. And to prove their way of thinking they give examples. Those examples today are Brittney Spears and Lindsey Lohan.
With the attention they have been receiving, and all the mistakes they made (and in Lindsey's case continues to make), they have been the poster children of the philosophy of how it is all right to make mistakes is a 'wrong' philosophy. Where people say that "If you think it's all right to make mistakes you will end up like this". Thus making these two 'starlets' cards to play in the policies of fear.
Especially if those policies can promote the idea that if there is one mistake about them, one flaw, one error, then they are automatically seen as a failure. A reject that must be tossed away to make room for the ideal of perfection that is demanded. 'Ugh' I say as I write this.
Whether the entertainment industry likes it or not lives do depend on them. Not just for entertainment, but for learning and inspiration when and if people in the real world have failed them. And if mistakes are made the morale of the people they provide for suffers. There are those in the industry however that see the morale of the people as 'not their problem'. That all that matters is that their own artistic, or political agenda is promoted.
And if the audience is offended, well that is not the industry's problem. "Those audience members are only part of a 'small, insignificant, minority' anyway. They don't matter." At least that is the logic they follow. Not realizing that in making morale not their problem they become part of the problem. And when I say this I'm not making this up. I've seen it happen, one time in particular.
But that's another story.
One of the keys to accepting new ideas and new ways of thinking is to ensure that the morale is built up, and maintained. Something that I believe is everyone's responsibility. Not just the institutions of government, buisness, entertainment and the media, but the people as well. When the morale is down then people rush to protect the ideals and beliefs they so hold dear out of fear that those that seek to destroy them, or tear them down, will do so. Hense the reactions one feels when one of their ideals is threatened. And the need to embrace, and to get others to embrace, so called 'right thinking'.
I call it 'so called' because I want to ask another question. If one embraces 'right thinking' as I described above how do they learn and grow? The answer being they are told what to know and how to be. To the point where any sense of individuality and independent thought could become lost as they follow a way of thinking brought about by another. Should one embrace this way of thinking they may merely become clones of the teacher. Following the same line of thinking, learning nothing new as 'perfection seems to be maintained' and 'safety is seemingly assured'.
At the end of the day, and the start of a new one, we seem to be caught between the cost of mistakes and the demands of perfection it seems. And the only winners seem to be the cruel.
It could be worse though. At least Miley didn't say 'Deal with it' after what happened to her. Or cite wearing a sheet or making a face as 'our human prejudice'
No comments:
Post a Comment