Miley, Miley, Miley … Vanity Fair has done you wrong
This all plays like a bad country western song.
As a fan of Miley Cyrus I have been rooting for the young Tennessean. My prayers to the Goddesses have issued forth offering hope that her father, Billy Ray Cyrus — with lots of Hollywood, Nashville and music experience under his big belt buckle — would guide her. Protect her.
No one wants to see another child star turned train wreck and with her great smile and husky voice, there was great hope for this particular child. When I read she had embraced Christianity, had found Jesus, I sent up a singular halleluiah.
Maybe it would give her the bit of extra strength she needed to not succumb to the whole “I make a million dollars a week” fame debacle.
Then along comes the media. In this instance, Ms. Annie Leibovitch and Vanity Fair.
It seems that Hollywood media is, once again, hell bent on destroying that which they create.
Attending the Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus “Best of Both Worlds” 3-D movie, I was awed by the marketing brilliance and the deft division of the young star from her “Disney” persona allowing her to emerge and be recognized not as Hannah, but as Miley.
Now the big Vanity Fair Coverage. A chance for Miley to shine her star as a young performer, instead of a young Dinsey performer.
The draw of working with photographer Annie Leibovitch was, most likely, impossible to resist.
Now, Ms. Leibovitch has a certain look for rock stars photos. A look she has been capitalizing on since her early days shooting personas such as Mick Jagger and Iggy Pop.
Those photos were a bit gritty. Meant to show an inner soul to the outer person. However they were adults and their inner soul exposed was one plagued by the drug and sexual addictions that came with the “rock n’ roll” lifestyle.
Ms. Leibovitch’s subject for this session however is a child and the inner soul exposed is her emerging sexuality as a young woman.
However, Miley does not need Vanity Fair, or Ms. Leibovitch or stylist Michael Roberts to out her sexuality at fifteen. I don’t care how much money she makes, or how savvy she seems to be she is still fifteen.
In the photo Ms. Leibovitch, or actually her stylist Michael Roberts, has positioned Ms. Cyrus, a very young girl, as though just awoke, hair tousled, lips swollen, classic come-hither look and obviously very naked beneath the satin sheet.
Vanity Fair is hiding behind the fact that Ms. Cyrus has stated “No, I mean I had a big blanket on. And I thought, this looks pretty, and really natural. I think it’s really artsy.”
For a fifteen-year old girl, yes she probably does like her “grown-up” look in the photo. However, the intent of the Cyrus photo is plain. And as no one else seems to have your naked back Miley, let me make it clear.
It was sheet, not a blanket. A satin sheet. Like waterbeds, which are used for sleeping, it has a double-entendre meaning. But it is more than just the sheet. It is everything about the photo. The exposure that makes the young singer so very white, fresh, clean against the darkness of her hair and intensity of her eyes.
I know sense and sensibilities being what they are in Hollywood, people there look at things differently. I am sure pedophiles around the world are looking at this photo differently as well.
Miley you got some bad advice. You need to protect yourself a bit more
Vanity Fair, Annie Leibovitch and Michael Roberts. Just let me say that you should be beyond exploitation of children and women by now.
Billy Ray Cyrus please tell us you didn’t approve this photo of your little girl.
For whatever it may be worth, when I asked my son, who is eight, what he thought of the photo he said: “I don’t like it.”
I asked, isn’t she pretty, and he said: “No.”
I said isn’t she sexy (yes, 8 year old children understand sexy pictures, even if they don’t completely understand sex) and he said: “No, she is creepy looking.”
Before leaving he stated “twenty-eight year old girl should look like that, not a fifteen year old girl.”
I think I agree.
What I don’t understand is why all those people looking out for “Miley” could not plainly see what an 8 year old could?