In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Today's News: Our Take
Jessica Biel, Ivanka Trump Lay Down the Bare Facts
Jessica Biel by Steve Granitz/WireImage.com
Though still haunted by her super-racy circa-2000 Gear spread, Jessica Biel is prepared to reveal what makes a onetime Sexiest Woman Alive most qualified for her role as a stripper in the upcoming Powder Blue — within limits. "[Jessica] signed a contract that explicitly details the bare minimum fans will see, including shots of her breasts and butt," a source tells Us.
Similarly, current Stuff cover gal Ivanka Trump — who this time gave the Donald a heads-up about her second pictorial for the lad mag — set clear parameters about what she would bare. "I told them, 'No midriff, no bikini bottoms,'" she shares with the New York Post. And no unsightly hairpieces, either, I imagine.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2007 8:10 AM
|
"I told them, 'No midriff, no bikini bottoms,'"
How about a comb-over?
|
|
Aug 16, 2007 12:32 PM
|
|
(rolls eyes) It's Natalie Portman in The Closer all over again. If you're going to play a stripper in a theatrical movie, either do the nudity without minus the real estate contracts or don't do the part. It just makes you come off as insincere, dishonest and immature as an actor.
|
|
Aug 16, 2007 2:03 PM
|
|
ShutUpRob, I think you need to re-read the story again. It says "the bare minimum fans will see, including shots of her breasts and butt." You want a full frontal? I would, but the fact is you don't see that in too many manstream movies. For example you never saw that in Demi's comedy Striptease, at least as far as I can remember.
|
|
Aug 16, 2007 2:34 PM
|
"manstream movies"
wildbill - Is this a typo or a Freudian slip?
|
|
Aug 16, 2007 2:50 PM
|
wildbill: I think the wording of the report was awkward (or else a pun that didn't work) and the contract really stipulates that what Biel will agree to show is *not* the (Freudian slip of a) bare minimum -- it's really the maximum of what they'll be able to show. Side shots, shots from the back, above the waist. You know, all the usual tricks to make it *look* like you're seeing something, like you don't have a no-nudity clause when you actually do (see also: Keira Knightly in Domino, where, admittedly, she also copped out by using a body double).
And regarding full-frontal nudity in mainstream films -- I don't expect to see it (or even look for it, I just regard FFN as a bonus) -- but IMO, if you're taking a stripper role, you either do it or you're not right for the part, period.
BTW, like most moviegoers with even an ounce of taste, I didn't (and haven't) seen Striptease. Breast implants are horrifying.
-- Rob
|
|
Aug 16, 2007 3:26 PM
|
BTW, like most moviegoers with even an ounce of taste, I didn't (and haven't) seen Striptease.
You mean to tell me I have no taste? Oh my!
Breast implants are horrifying.
So is a train wreck but we all have to look! Seriously this is a ridiculous statement. Just like anything else - breast implants can be done with or without class, or taste - oh yeah, I have none of that!
|
|
Aug 16, 2007 4:18 PM
|
|
People just like to see some real T&A in a movie every now and then.
|
|
Aug 16, 2007 5:28 PM
|
ShutUpRob, I don't know what you've been taking but it must be some seriously good stuff. The quote is pretty much straight forward. I don't see how you can twist around words that much to come up with a completely different meaning. Go to google and do a search on "Powder Blue" "Jessica Biel". You will find several links that mention her stripping down and doing nudity for the role, just like Matt reported. There's nothing remotely awkward or misleading in that quote, it's pretty straight forward unless you happen to be mentally impaired for some reason.
BTW I saw Striptease on HBO or Showtime at some point several years ago, so it wasn't like I spent money on it. It wasn't why I was subscribed. I didn't see in a theater and actually I rarely ever go see a comedy in a movie theater. While not a great movie it wasn't awful. Anyway who made you the overlord of determining what is good or bad taste? Whether intentional or not you really sound like a pompous rear-end with that statement.
|
|
Aug 17, 2007 3:21 PM
|
Dude, if she's contractually negotiating what will be seen and what won't be seen, it means in showbiz terms that it's not nudity anymore than a topless Salma Hayek making out with Pierce Brosnan on the beach in After the Sunset was nudity. It's the illusion of nudity.
There *are* times that contractual cowardice like the one that Mitovitch notes gets waived when the actor sees rough cuts of the film and realizes that the to be true to the character the movie has to be allowed to go further with it, but IMO news reports like these never, *ever* indicate actual nudity, only the illusion of nudity.
And I'll tell you why I resent such blatant cop outs like these: I stage managed a run of Hair in summer stock about a decade ago -- *everyone* in the cast except one actress who was pregnant did the nude scene at the end of Act 1. No ifs or ands but a lot of butts (and other naughty bits.) It takes a lot of courage to do an *actual* nude scene, so IMO, contract negotiations for how much will or won't be seen are IMO patently silly cowardice -- you either allow the director to stage the play or film as s/he needs (yes, essentially giving your body over to the play/work as a blank canvas for the director to work on) or you don't do the show. What you're left with in such silly contractual games are compromised performances such as Portman's in The Closer.
One thing I'll say about Meg Ryan -- In the Cut was an awful movie (due to amateurish writing and unclear directing), but at least she committed wholeheartedly to it, unlike, at this stage, Biel has conditionally committed to this new movie of hers.
OTOH, it's US Weakly that's the original source for the item, so it's possible that they're just Making Stuff Up about Biel's committment to the movie beyond being cast in the role.
-- Rob
|
|
Aug 21, 2007 1:05 PM
|
|
|
