Monday, December 8, 2008
Celeb For Art's Sake
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Emma Watson declares her intention to bravely go where Daniel Radcliffe has already gone:
The baby-faced teenager, who has garnered legions of fans for her role as innocent Hermione Granger, admitted this weekend she would go naked for her art. "Yes. For Bernardo Bertolucci. It ... depends," said the actress, referring to the Italian director. But she quickly rationalized, "I'm not getting my kit off any time soon, but it is part of my job."
Share via
1
I'm wondering why I feel there's a difference between my reaction to Dan posting this, and my probable reaction if Mudede had posted this.
YOU'RE SICK, DAN!!! SICK SICK SICK...
now, when is this happening?
YOU'RE SICK, DAN!!! SICK SICK SICK...
now, when is this happening?
2
For Bertolucci?! Oh come on. Cuz he's SOOOOOOO amAAAZINNNNG. Comes out with something marginal albeit worth talking about every half decade embedded in a pool of shit.
4
Looks like a lap dance in progress for young Daniel. Nice pic Dan. I give the disrobing 3 yrs post the final HP flick - not that there is anything wrong with adult nudity, right?
5
@4: Hope not... Young Danny's flaunting the wedding tackle nightly on Broadway (after doing so on the West End for 5 months give or take).
9
Jessica Alba said the same thing, she would go nude if it was right for the part. She then proceeded to play a stripper in Sin City, a stripper that was topless in the graphic novel. Did she go topless for that part? Of course not.
10
Hmm, interesting point, Dylan! @9. But Robin Sparkles has the most insight in this matter @3.
That said, it is kind of strange to think of someone you remember as a small child on the screen in the first Harry Potter movie starring in a more risque role.
That said, it is kind of strange to think of someone you remember as a small child on the screen in the first Harry Potter movie starring in a more risque role.
12
OH MY GAWD I'VE NEVER SEEN BOOBIES BEFORE
Don't get me wrong, they'll be quite nice, but they're not going to be much different than other 18 year old boobies. Make a post when she starts a contest to have a fan spend the night over at her place, that would be newsworthy.
Don't get me wrong, they'll be quite nice, but they're not going to be much different than other 18 year old boobies. Make a post when she starts a contest to have a fan spend the night over at her place, that would be newsworthy.
15
When you look at former child stars naked, in your mind you're looking at them as a child. That's the only reason you're interested in them over the thousands upon thousands of other mildly talented naked actors you could look at. Perverts.
18
Dan, I will continue to comment on your obsession with barely legal bois until you give it a rest. Aren't you suppose to be a role model??
19
Enchelos @ 15, you might be right for the wider audience, but I see this through the eyes of a total nerd of a younger generation:
Emma Wilson, like Alyson Hannigan and to a lesser degree Kari Byron, played intelligent, bookish, and dominant if slightly socially stunted female roles. Their characters are the girls us nerds wanted to hang out with before our hormones kicked in. After hormones kicked in, well... The Geek/Nerd/Net population has a lust for them that's unrivaled by other folks who've came of age in the last decade.
Mary Kate and Ashley, Brittney Spears, Lindsay Lohan (despite Mean Girls)... yeah. Not the same.
This doesn't make all the erotica and imagery on DeviantArt and LiveJournal any less pervy and creepy, but now you know.
And knowing is half the battle.
ps... the misogyny and anti-intellectual spirit in the Potter books makes me sad. That and the lazy deus-ex-machina plots.
Emma Wilson, like Alyson Hannigan and to a lesser degree Kari Byron, played intelligent, bookish, and dominant if slightly socially stunted female roles. Their characters are the girls us nerds wanted to hang out with before our hormones kicked in. After hormones kicked in, well... The Geek/Nerd/Net population has a lust for them that's unrivaled by other folks who've came of age in the last decade.
Mary Kate and Ashley, Brittney Spears, Lindsay Lohan (despite Mean Girls)... yeah. Not the same.
This doesn't make all the erotica and imagery on DeviantArt and LiveJournal any less pervy and creepy, but now you know.
And knowing is half the battle.
ps... the misogyny and anti-intellectual spirit in the Potter books makes me sad. That and the lazy deus-ex-machina plots.
21
@19 "misogyny and anti-intellectual spirit in the Potter books"
?
Yeah, because only the most powerful and respected character in the series (Dumbledore) is an intellectual, and only a couple of the strongest and most willful characters (Hermione, Professor McGonagall, Ginny, Mrs. Weasley, Bellatrix) happen to be female. No, come on. That's weak.
Deus-ex machina, on the other hand... yeah. It's children's fantasy. What do you expect?
?
Yeah, because only the most powerful and respected character in the series (Dumbledore) is an intellectual, and only a couple of the strongest and most willful characters (Hermione, Professor McGonagall, Ginny, Mrs. Weasley, Bellatrix) happen to be female. No, come on. That's weak.
Deus-ex machina, on the other hand... yeah. It's children's fantasy. What do you expect?
22
@19, Most every character you just listed (crones, hags, fuddy-duddies, and socially stunted girls) gets treated like a complete Tool by Harry, especially in the first few books. Our protagonist in chief sees schoolwork as annoying drudgery.
As for Deus-ex-machina - you expect it in a book about magic, but an author shouldn't need to pull Phoenix Tears and a Sword from a Hat for Harry to win. I'm sure you can brainstorm more examples.
Harry might as well play quiddich the whole book and press an "I Win" button in every final chapter. It makes all the rising tension seem utterly silly.
Roald Dahl and Daniel Pinkwater were never so lazy.
As for Deus-ex-machina - you expect it in a book about magic, but an author shouldn't need to pull Phoenix Tears and a Sword from a Hat for Harry to win. I'm sure you can brainstorm more examples.
Harry might as well play quiddich the whole book and press an "I Win" button in every final chapter. It makes all the rising tension seem utterly silly.
Roald Dahl and Daniel Pinkwater were never so lazy.
23
Yeah, Harry is a jock. I remember there's a scene in the first one where Hermione dismisses her own "books and cleverness" on the grounds that she doesn't have Harry's "heart" - which is kinda a "huh?" moment.
Quiddich never really made sense, since whichever "seeker" catches the "snitch" always wins due to the 150-point windfall (yes, I know the rules of Quiddich haha) - which makes the whole rest of the game mean nothing.
I do like the series regardless though.
Quiddich never really made sense, since whichever "seeker" catches the "snitch" always wins due to the 150-point windfall (yes, I know the rules of Quiddich haha) - which makes the whole rest of the game mean nothing.
I do like the series regardless though.
24
@22, the main character can dislike schoolwork without the book being anti-intellectual. There's a lot of admiration for the intellectual characters. It's just one of Harry's weak points. And he needs to have something imperfect about him (besides random teenage angst) to make his sparkling moral purity a little more relatable.
Calling characters like Mrs. Weasley, Professor McGonagall, and Hermione "crones, hags, fuddy-duddies, and socially stunted girls" I find more evidence of YOUR misogyny than J. K. Rowling's. Those are some kick-ass characters. And I'd like you to point out a single instance, in any of the books, where Harry ever treats Mrs. Weasley or McGonagall like a tool.
I agree that the earlier books are weaker than the later ones. They're written for younger children, contain more parodied character types, and more smiley-face happy endings.
Calling characters like Mrs. Weasley, Professor McGonagall, and Hermione "crones, hags, fuddy-duddies, and socially stunted girls" I find more evidence of YOUR misogyny than J. K. Rowling's. Those are some kick-ass characters. And I'd like you to point out a single instance, in any of the books, where Harry ever treats Mrs. Weasley or McGonagall like a tool.
I agree that the earlier books are weaker than the later ones. They're written for younger children, contain more parodied character types, and more smiley-face happy endings.
25
"Most every character you just listed (crones, hags, fuddy-duddies, and socially stunted girls) gets treated like a complete Tool by Harry"
Wow. You either read different books than I did, or had decided what your conclusions were going to be before you started.
Either way, good job.
Wow. You either read different books than I did, or had decided what your conclusions were going to be before you started.
Either way, good job.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS