It's a grand but unspoken Hollywood tradition: the child star grows up and becomes sexualized. Occasionally the initiative is seen to be taken by the actor— as in the case of Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe, when he scandalized the entertainment world (or the hand-wringing parents of underaged Potter fans, in any case) by appearing nude (and buff) in the theatrical psycho-drama Equus. In his case this was seen as a healthy thing, a smart step by a serious actor trying to avoid being typecast in infantile roles. But Radcliffe is, was, a boy. It's a depressing fact that if you happen to be a girl, Hollywood will take care of the whole "growing up" thing for you. Except the name of the game here is not sexuality per se, but sexual objectification, and it seems to be an ironclad pre-requisite for all starlets hoping for mainstream glory.
The latest victim of this old script is Radcliffe's costar Emma Watson, a young girl we have watched grow into a young woman through the course of the Potter films. I did a doubletake at a Manhattan magazine stand today when I glimpsed the cover of hipster rag Interview (above) out of the corner of my eye. Staring back at me with a dispassionate gaze was Ms. Watson, looking for all the world like a plastic blow-up doll. My immediate reaction was queasiness, similar to that reported by subjects of the infamous "Uncanny Valley" study, wherein it was discovered that an increase in the human likeliness of a doll or robot causes an increase in the apprehension and distress of the human viewer.
My second reaction was a sense of déja vu: I remember being nearly as creeped out when I read Roger Ebert's review of the second Harry Potter movie, wherein he described Watson as being in "the early stages of babehood"; at the time she was all of 11 or 12 years old. When a normally well-behaved and thoughtful writer like Ebert tosses such a disturbing bon mot, you know that the meme is almost hopelessly ingrained in moviemaking, and male movie-viewing, culture. Over and over the ritual is reenacted: Lisa Bonet, Drew Barrymore, Alyssa Milano, Scarlett Johansson. Early raves for a child's or precociously young actor's emotional range or resonance, then the steady drumbeat of questionable roles and/or increasingly suggestive magazine covers. Occasionally an actor navigates her sexuality with depth and an almost tactical creativity, as did Christina Ricci; she made smart choices so that her sexualized image always functioned as a shorthand for her unusual and challenging roles. But more typically, an uncompromising talent (i.e. Parker Posey) will fall by the wayside to be appreciated by ever smaller audiences for her efforts if she doesn't "fall into line."
It's not too late for Watson, though. Interview is offbeat enough to be a blip in an actor's career, and this issue is early enough in the season to be a vague memory by the time the next Potter is released. But the choices she makes now and in the immediate wake of the Potter series may very well determine whether she will be ultimately be known for her body of work, or just, well, her (toned/decrepit/buffed/doubled/ Photoshopped/objectified) body.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Man Talk Now
jay leffew
Jerry DeNuccio
Somyr Perry
Donna Sandstrom
Redstocking Grandma
Salon.com
Comments
It seems like most of these poor little Hollywood girls can't wait to 'slut it up' for all those fashion pimps with their clothing lines and magazines and then eagerly fall into the Lindsay Lohan cigarette/booze/coke/club lifestyle. If they've got the talent, they've got the choice.
I, too, hope that Emma has the wherewithall to navigate her future with intelligence, and not to be swallowed up like Shirley, Judy, Jodie, Drew, Britney, Lindsay, Lisa, etc, etc... Is it coincidence that the objectification (and the extreme scrutiny associated with it) of these girls drives them to drink and drugs?
Point being, anyone who lusts after Emma Watson is of course also lusting after the character she plays (since she hasn't done anything else of note that I'm aware of). So while we may shake our head at a young actress dealing with the 'sexual coming out' that often accompanies child actresses, we can take heart that she is a sex symbol BECAUSE she represents intelligence, wit, and sophistication, as well as a refusal to hide those attributes or dumb herself down for the sake of romance/acceptance. The character of Hermoine is just the sort of inner beauty/outer beauty combo that we should be championing.
Ms. Watson will be going on to Brown University, one of the Ivies, so I think everyone's concern about her fragility is a bit misplaced.
Slightly off topic, but has anyone else noticed how much prettier Carrie Prejean was before they put her up on the lift?
Christina Ricci was permitted to be sexual and serious b/c of her unconventional looks. She's gone through some rather tortured physical transformations that suggest to me she is vulnerable to the 'falling into line' pressure.
Ebert's remark about a pre-adolescent girl - that's not benign, really, not coming from the guy who always seems to laud extreme nudity and sexuality in any actress - he ALWAYS gives thumbs up to women who take on very sexualized roles.
I hope Emma Watson can navigate the pressure, but also not fall into toothless "America's sweetheart' roles made for starmaking more so than an actress with chops.
Nice essay.
I guess that sort of image is more appealing than what would be coming out of the mouth of a woman who defies objectification, Man's worst fear: The woman with biting teeth, a la William
de Kooning's series, "Woman I": [De Kooning took an unusually long time to create Woman, I, making numerous preliminary studies and repainting the work repeatedly. The hulking, wild–eyed subject draws upon an amalgam of female archetypes, from Paleolithic fertility goddesses to contemporary pin–up girls. Her threatening stare and ferocious grin are heightened by de Kooning's aggressive brushwork and frantic paint application. Combining voluptuousness and menace, Woman, I reflects the age–old cultural ambivalence between reverence for and fear of the power of the feminine http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=79810].
Ms Watson is a professional and it is her responsibility to control her image. She's 19 and hardly a child, and it's pretty definite that she doesn't want you to think of her that way anymore - just look at her website: www.emmawatsonofficial.com/#media
Another poster brought up an interesting point: she's known really for playing one role--Hermione Granger in the "Harry Potter" franchise. That's a pretty buttoned-up role, as well as one that's running out, as there are only seven films to be made, and she risks getting stereotyped as Hermione and only getting Hermione-type roles, which may not be what she wants to do. These types of covers may be a way to break out of that mold (whether it will work or not remains to be seen.)
I also thought that Scarlett Johanson really catapulted onto people's radar with her performance in "Lost in Translation." After that, if she HADN'T wanted to do naked Vanity Fair covers, she could have said no and still gotten work.
I also wonder if you read the interview with Ms. Watson. Although she is undoubtedly 19 years old, she holds herself quite well and talks about her intuition, dreams, traveling, working, school and what she bought with her first big Potter paycheck: a laptop, a Prius and a fancy dinner for her dad, who "works so hard." Sounds pretty level-headed to me. Let's give her a little credit for having a good hold on her own destiny!
Nevertheless, rated post for good dialogue.
Recently when a bunch of hot comic actors (Paul Rudd and the rest of Judd Apatow's coven) wanted to mock that practice during their own VF cover shoot, they didn't actually get naked, they wore obvious "nude" bodysuits, showing the limits of their courage. Or VF's. Or both.
The day the double standard dies is still far far in the future, AFAICT.
Anyway, why the assumption that Emma Watson didn't agree to this particular photo, that she's a child and incapable of deciding to pose in a sexually provocative manner, or to say NO to such a photo shoot?
If Daniel Radcliffe can reach adulthood and go onstage nude in Equus and we assume that it's entirely his choice to do so, he's expanding his range as an actor, he doesn't want to get stereotyped as the Boy Wizard, blah blah blah, why do we assume that his same-age female co-star is incapable of making the same decisions herself?
I haven't heard of Emma Watson getting into any Britney/Lindsay type shenanigans, so I think a lot of the outrage over this poor-taste but pretty tame picture is NOT because she's being "sexualized by the media" but because we have an image of her as an 11-year-old goody-two-shoes and she's not fitting herself into that image.
But I guess that's how men really feel about women, otherwise Playboy, Penthouse and a billion porn websites would all be failures. Thank goodness I like women and don't have to grapple with that...
acquiescence, but they also serve as a pop icon/role model for young women who don't have the money and fame to protect or cushion themselves from their own foolishness. Parker Posey is a good example of someone who refuses to compromise herself. I wish I saw more of her and her role choices.
This is, again, an example of Americans and our love of being outraged, as well as are phobia of sex. Young men and women are sexual beings. The fact is unavoidable. It's our denial of it that leads to exploitation.
I was bugged, from the very beginning, by Emma Watson being cast in the role of Hermione in the first place. Hermione is, for at least the first few volumes of the story, a buck-toothed, frizzy-haired, homely little girl. Her charm lies in her intelligence, courage, loyalty and humour. I didn't read Ebert's review, but I, perhaps tastelessly, characterized Watson much the same way in my classroom one day: "Why is Hermione being portrayed as this budding little sexpot?" Casting a pretty little girl in that role showed a great lack of courage on the part of the producers.
Hostility + Sex = Something just plain frightening.
Others are falling into it right before our eyes: Miranda Cosgrove and Miley Cyrus (although daddy seems to be holding her back from falling into the abyss).
and maybe this is b/c i'm a college student, but this cover doesnt disturb me that much at all. this girl is 19 and has grown up as an actress in hollywood. this cover shouldnt be all that shocking, really. on the other hand, i didnt know ebert had made such a comment and if found that to be pretty unsettling. eh, i dunno.
what about "the professional"?
I don't know whether Emma Watson had final say on which picture graced the magazine cover, but if she didn't and the blow-up doll one was the one they picked...yeah, you have a point about the media.
i've seen the original (european) version of the film which is apparently juuust a little bit different from the us release ...
Creepy sure... but not the kind of creepy y'all sick puppies are seeing.
kidding ...
First off, I think Carolyn Roberts hits the nail on the head. I was reacting to, and posting about, the unsubtle "countdown to legal age" which a hypocritical media engages in, a disingenuous game in which innocence and naughtiness are played off each other to titillating effect. To Scott Mendelson's point, Watson has been pretty much dedicated to her role as Hermione Granger since childhood, and she still has two movies left in the franchise; she is certainly within her rights as an adult to broaden her scope as an actor or even as a media personality (a brand, if you will— what Cindy Crawford calls "that thing," according to whitenoise); but I personally don't think she earned the right to be on that cover in that way. Hear me out— this may seem like an odd concept but I believe some stars earn their media sexuality honestly. Christina Ricci, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Laura Dern did it through hard work: daring choices and intelligent material, each at their own pace and at different points in their respective careers. No surprise that their sexuality seems authentic, not a fashion statement or industry cheesecake. Natalie Portman and Jodie Foster even had breakout roles as sexualized children (in The Professional and Taxi Driver, respectively) and yet they managed to effectively re-stage their personas and approach sexuality again much later in their careers, again, on their own terms.
Incidentally, to get back to whitenoise's comments: I don't believe Emma Watson is being exploited by the industry.... I believe she (and Interview Magazine) made some unfortunate choices vis-a-vis her credibility as an artist. I think empowerment can take many forms— I have tremendous respect, for instance for the choices Christina Aguilera made back when she released her second album "Stripped." Despite the heavy criticism she received for "slutting out," it seems apparent that she was, for the first time in her career, in complete control of her image and true to herself; she was much more straightforward in her raunchiness than when she was in her industry-driven "bubblegum" phase ("bubblegum" being another manifestation of the innocent/naughty crap). An aggressively sexual pop singer can be authentic and credible; a blow-up doll is, by definition, not. Yet Watson, at nineteen, wealthy, well-provided for and with a seemingly well-planned higher education ahead of her, is definitely in a position to continue making a good life for herself. Aguilera continued making smart choices and crafting/evolving her image, much as Madonna did in her heyday as one of the most successful self-promoters in human history.
So for those who have somehow misread my post as a prudish, anti-sex diatribe.... uh, no. I champion anyone mature enough to call their own shots as sexual beings and professionals. And, to Adam Miller' point, yes, young people are sexual beings as well. I think Rowling acknowledges this to an extent, although Philip Pullman goes one better in his excellent fantasy trilogy for tweens "His Dark Materials." He treats awakening adolescent sexuality in a respectful, almost spiritual manner, though well outside mainstream conventions (SPOILER: his young teen heroes have pre-marital sex in a literal and literary climax to a chronicle of the overthrow of God and the Church. Must be read to be appreciated).
Somyr: yes, she does seem pretty level-headed. And for the record, I found the feature photos to be beautiful and artfully done. The queasiness was a reaction to the cover's narrative, it's content, not its aesthetics. It is undeniably beautifully shot, and its antecedents in art and design are pretty plain to me: Scot D. Ryersson's illustration for "Silence of the Lambs" (yes, Angelique!), the surrealist images of filmmakers Luis Buñuel and Maya Deren... Like the art of another follower of the surrealists, David Lynch, this image was meant to disturb. I love David Lynch— but sometimes being artfully disturbing isn't enough justification.
I think this cover was a fluke, but a telling one. Watson seems to be basically have her s*** together.... then again, Madonna said that about Britney Spears, once upon a time...
Dorsey— thank you. Funny about Portman— she almost *had* to play a stripper (in "Closer") after, what, close to a decade playing Queen Amidala in the Star Wars movies? Some things require strong antidotes.
Scott— I dunno about lusting after Hermione Granger. I refer you to the interesting comment by Siobahn. I do think Hollywood was up to its old prejudices when they cast Watson as Hermione.
Sandra— great comments. Forgot about Paquin... and yes, Ricci has disappointed me with some of choices lately. You're right, of course, about Ebert... I still can't believe he gave Tomb Raider a good review. But he often champions sex over violence in the face of what he calls Hollywood's dysfunctional rating system.
Angelique— took me a sec to decipher but your contrast of the image with De Kooning is great. Thanks for the reference lead!
Mary— great to hear from you, as ever. What I couldn't believe was when a tweener socks-and-hose shop in my local mall was selling pink furry handcuffs for Valentine's Day. Nothing against cuffs in the right company but that was just wrong.
Dana, Yuselof—
for the record, I kinda went "Gah!" when I saw that the OS editors put "Blow-up Doll" in the title. I sorta woulda preferred the image itself do the talking; but Yuselof, I don't think it takes a sick puppy to see the blow-up doll. All it takes is a few decades of media conditioning.
Leeandra—
My point about Scarlett, exactly. She didn't exactly start out as a kid (well, she played a young pimply teen in "Ghost World") but she was on the point of launching a serious career based on her acting and on her unconventional presence... until she became the latest Vanity Fair naked glam goddess.
Incidentally, Trudge164— speaking of Vanity Fair, Annie Leibowitz shoots some of their most provocative covers, and I have to say I lost a lot of respect for her after the Miley Cyrus fiasco. Again, there may be an artful way to play innocence and sexuality off one another, but that was just cynical. And there was no way Cyrus' father was unaware how the shot was going to look.
Adam—
I appreciate the comment, but honestly, there's a big difference between an uncle calling his niece "babe" and a noted film reviewer speaking of "babehood" and all that implies in the context of the contemporary American entertainment industry.
Silkstone—
to be fair, the Apatow crew are adamant about full-frontal male nudity in each one of their films. Which in their case really isn't God's answer to anything in particular.
Watson was the most accomplished actor of the trio in the first two films, the only one capable of finding her role and acting it under the "direction" of Christopher Columbus. Radcliffe and Grint benefitted tremendously from Alfonso Cuaron's turn at the wheel. But I think Radcliffe almost "had" to take on a brutally difficult stage role to cut his own thespian teeth, as the Potter boy is a true tragic hero, driven by fate and not his own choices, responding rather than acting. (I feel sorrier for Grint, though, based on what he's shown this far, meaty roles will take some work to get.)
As for that cover pic of Watson, something strange going on in the mind of the fiolks who put it together and those who made the ditorial decision to go with it. Scary thing is, that cover is one with the zeitgeist on more levels than not.
Yes: this whole area is gray: no art is pure in the context of money and glands. I'm absolutely sure there was a cynical/pragmatic component to Radcliffe's appearance in Equus. When sexuality and media (news, entertainment, communication, performance) meet, someone somewhere is doing some objectifying. But Radcliffe got to expand his range, and turn in a substantial performance which can be judged on other levels besides sexuality. Sex sells, yes. But sometimes there is substance in the transaction. Sometimes not.
thx for the sentiment, but I noticed that the post got a link on Salon's front page for a while, and that's always good enough for me :): very much appreciated. As for what was in the minds of the Interview magazine crowd: the guiding spirit there is probably still the ghost of founder Andy Warhol. Irony is king, and they will always get a kick out of freaking out the plebes and squares who actually NEVER EVEN PICK UP THE DAMN MAGAZINE.
Glamour and beauty isn't enough because sex sells.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQH3vAbDBwY
And not nearly as anal retentive as her character.
I remember leaving the theater after the 1st HP movie, and asking my friend (jokingly) if it was wrong to look forward to seeing her at 18 in Maxim. I knew that it was only a matter of time...
To Miss Watson's credit, she's nineteen and Interview is at least one or two steps classier than Maxim will ever be. She seems bright (although that may just be Hermione), so I expect she'll invest the $$$ wisely.
In regards to Equus, though, I know grown up people that went to that show for the express purpose of seeing Radcliffe's danglegender. I'm sure that this was in the mind of whomever cast him in the roll. I don't think it's any different for young male actors turning into men, just a slightly older target audience.
Cheers!
Andy A