-
Announcing... The 2nd Annual theFashionSpot Awards. Vote NOW via the links below:
Designer of the Year
Ready-to-Wear Collection of the Year
Haute Couture Collection of the Year
Model of the Year
Magazine Cover of the Year
Ad Campaign of the Year
Thank you for participating!
VOTING WILL CLOSE 27/12/2024 EOD!
Rachel McAdams storms out of Vanity Fair shoot
- Thread starter canucksfan22
- Start date
fouroclock
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2005
- Messages
- 4,170
- Reaction score
- 2
Segue, this kinda makes my impression of Tom Ford go sour. Why do all the 'great' contemporary designers have to be such crackpots?
And Rachel deserves to be on the spotlight since a) She's Canadian, b) She has indie cred and gets involved in more 'real' Canadian stuff c) She's pretty and doesn't dress like a hoey or really tacky or off d) She's a better actress than Lindsay Lohan.
p.s. York sucks. Go UofT!
And Rachel deserves to be on the spotlight since a) She's Canadian, b) She has indie cred and gets involved in more 'real' Canadian stuff c) She's pretty and doesn't dress like a hoey or really tacky or off d) She's a better actress than Lindsay Lohan.
p.s. York sucks. Go UofT!
Last edited by a moderator:
susie_bubble
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,001
- Reaction score
- 2
^^Agreed.
It's her prerogative whether she wants to bare all on a magazine. Even if she has done it before, perhaps on that occasion she didn't want to and it's still HER choice.
It's her prerogative whether she wants to bare all on a magazine. Even if she has done it before, perhaps on that occasion she didn't want to and it's still HER choice.
D
Deleted member 49693
Guest
The_Ida said:
geezz!
It's like we have to be nude to prove that we (women) are sexy in the entertainment industry.travis_nw8
mmmmmm...fashion....
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,507
- Reaction score
- 0
even more a fan of her now.....
Good for Rachel! She's my favorite actress currently, and this just makes me love her more
To echo what some have said, she doesn't need a reason to not want to pose nude, and it doesn't make her a prude. Nudity can be sexy, but so can leaving something to the imagination. And just because a woman has done nudity in the past does not mean her body is now public property to be exposed and put on display whenever someone demands. Just because you kiss a guy, doesn't mean you're obligated to keep on kissing him. Just because you've had sex with someone in the past doesn't mean they have the right to have it again if you don't want to. Nudity and the choice to be nude, whether in front of one person or an audience of many, is a personal, private choice that should never be expected or demanded. Years ago, in Hollywood, she would have shown up and been told to have sex with the man in charge or there'd be no shoot. Katherine Hepburn was labeled a "prude" for stalking out and refusing because that was the way things were done, and what's wrong with sex? I'm grateful for Hepburn's stand (and Jean Arthur's, who was openly, harshly mocked by the industry for her "prudishness") and I'm grateful for Rachel's. Would the hot male actor of the moment have had "you're going to be photographed nude" sprung on him with the expectance of compliance?
I think the unexpectedness of it was a big factor too. There a difference between knowing before hand what's going to happen, how you'll be shot, who will be there, what the photographer's vision is, etc, and showing up thinking you'll be clothed the whole time and being told to strip like you're some ho in an ameteur p*rn flick. It has to be degrading and embarrassing. She may have done the nudity if they'd talked to her before hand, she may have refused. But her publicist seemingly took away her choice in the matter and I am so proud of her that she realized she still did have one.
To echo what some have said, she doesn't need a reason to not want to pose nude, and it doesn't make her a prude. Nudity can be sexy, but so can leaving something to the imagination. And just because a woman has done nudity in the past does not mean her body is now public property to be exposed and put on display whenever someone demands. Just because you kiss a guy, doesn't mean you're obligated to keep on kissing him. Just because you've had sex with someone in the past doesn't mean they have the right to have it again if you don't want to. Nudity and the choice to be nude, whether in front of one person or an audience of many, is a personal, private choice that should never be expected or demanded. Years ago, in Hollywood, she would have shown up and been told to have sex with the man in charge or there'd be no shoot. Katherine Hepburn was labeled a "prude" for stalking out and refusing because that was the way things were done, and what's wrong with sex? I'm grateful for Hepburn's stand (and Jean Arthur's, who was openly, harshly mocked by the industry for her "prudishness") and I'm grateful for Rachel's. Would the hot male actor of the moment have had "you're going to be photographed nude" sprung on him with the expectance of compliance?
I think the unexpectedness of it was a big factor too. There a difference between knowing before hand what's going to happen, how you'll be shot, who will be there, what the photographer's vision is, etc, and showing up thinking you'll be clothed the whole time and being told to strip like you're some ho in an ameteur p*rn flick. It has to be degrading and embarrassing. She may have done the nudity if they'd talked to her before hand, she may have refused. But her publicist seemingly took away her choice in the matter and I am so proud of her that she realized she still did have one.
Last edited by a moderator:
oolie coco
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2005
- Messages
- 6,407
- Reaction score
- 0
The_Ida said:
Ever notice that men never have to do it to get ahead?
That's what the f--- is wrong with nudity.
Some women want to do it - GOOD FOR THEM. Some women don't - AND THEY SHOULD NEVER BE FORCED.
Anastacia, great response, every word. I so agree.
Last edited by a moderator:
FrockRadar8
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,756
- Reaction score
- 0
oolie coco said:
no kidding. Nudity is one thing, but mixed with sexism in disguise really disgusts me.
fashionicon
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,620
- Reaction score
- 1
^
Yeah. She was pratically nude in The Notebook, so it had to be something else that made her refuse the shoot.
Yeah. She was pratically nude in The Notebook, so it had to be something else that made her refuse the shoot.
I'm glad she has a backbone....I agree with what others have said...it seems that in this industry, it's always the gals who are asked to take it off.
I wanna see Keanu Reeves naked on the cover of Vanity Fair--yummy
Wondering though---this is Vanity Fair, how 'nude' could it possibly be? I doubt they were asking her to do a spread eagle
If I had her body I'd be prancing around the streets in my birthday suit
I wanna see Keanu Reeves naked on the cover of Vanity Fair--yummy
Wondering though---this is Vanity Fair, how 'nude' could it possibly be? I doubt they were asking her to do a spread eagle
If I had her body I'd be prancing around the streets in my birthday suit
FashionFriendly
Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 0
masquerade said:
As a fellow canadian i am proud of her and all..but yeah frankly i dont get her appeal either...i dont think anyone would be too eager to see her naked anywayz...i mean shes pretty in a julia roberts kind of way....but not sexy enough to be looked at without her clothes on.
LeonieAlexandria
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 2,619
- Reaction score
- 0
im so proud of her!
Mr. Fabulous
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2005
- Messages
- 1,192
- Reaction score
- 1
maybe she has dignity (sp?). I for once would have done it in a matter of a sec, well i wouldn't do full frontal ofcourse just a teaser thing but then again I dont have it.
Though it's great that she stood up for her beliefs and feelings toward it, the whole "storming out" made me picture her running out in a huff, all high school-style. And wouldn't her publicist KNOW that Rachel wouldn't do that type of shoot? 
SiennaInLondon
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 3,914
- Reaction score
- 1
The_Ida said:
I completely agree with you but I think we are coming from a European perspective. Americans take this whole 'body as temple' approach or something. The more people stop caring about nakedness and difference, then the less it would be an issue. All the Americans I know are shocked at the amount of nudity on British tv but I don't even think about it. It's all religious/cultural nonsense (and I am a religious person). Bubblegum and cupcakes and a little bit of shoot-me-now too.
However, if Rachel McAdams didn't want to do the shoot she didn't have to... her choice. As someone said she has done nudity before, we know she isn't a prude. Still the cynic in me suspects that she is trying to create headlines more than anything because why would a vanity fair shoot be any more gratituous that nudity in any of the fluffy notebook-crap films she does.
Last edited by a moderator:
