Watch this slide show of some of 2009's most skilled and talented male and female actors:
The 7th Annual Great Performers in Film - Oscars - Slide Show - NYTimes.com
Before you comment read the following question very carefully and direct your comment in a specific way to this question:
What is the difference between the way the New York Times magazine depicts women and men in the photos? Be specific with your descriptions, and you need not refer to all 60 slides, just the "great performers" set.
Once you've answered this questions, you may add other comments.
I think a lot of what is being depicted in the photos goes back to the movies that they were in & the relationships that they had. I do not think that it matters too much that the women are the ones that are naked. I personally think that all 60 of the photos are beautifully shot. The only females that are naked are the first two pictures. In the last section entitled “The Run-Up” Jeff Bridges is shown getting dressed for a magazine shoot. The picture of Daniel Day-Lewis & Penelope Cruz from “Nine” I am actually surprised that she is not naked in the photo because of the relationship that they had in the movie. If the men were the ones that were naked in the photos I don’t think I would feel to shocked or even different about the pictures. I think that if they were as artfully portrayed it would have been just as beautiful. When first looking at the photos it took me a minute to realize that the women were naked because of the pictures being in black & white.
ReplyDelete~Rebecca Dudzinski
I noticed that all the women were displayed as sexual objects. Even though only the first 2 slides were with naked actresses, the others showed women being sexual,but in a tasteful way. It shows they are proud of their bodies.I also think they are treating the women's bodies as a form of art. The first slide with Zoe Saldana and the one with Penelope Cruz to me looks artistic.
ReplyDeleteAs for the men, they are mostly head shots. they do not focus on the body of the men but the face. the only shot with a man showing some sort of skin is the one with Woody Harrelson. Most of them do not have a seductive look to them like the women did. The pics without the women, seem to actually need women in them. it seems as if the women made the shot look better. those images were more appealing. (Erica Jones)
I agree with Erica's assessment of how the women are the ones being portrayed in a sexual or seductive way while the men for the most part are fully clothed. The pictures of the men look more like portraits and they look more serious while the one's with the women places lots of emphasis on parts of her body. In these photos the women create the ultimate aesthetic while the men are only an after thought, they are merely a part of the background. In the photos that have both men and women all of the attention is focused on the woman. In the first picture with Zoe Saldana she seems to pop off the page while the man passively sits there. She instantly cathches the viewers eyes with her exposed skin and the colorful art work on her body. The women are the dominant focus in the pictures. I also noticed that in some of the pictures that the men almost appeared like a father fugure to the women. For example the picture with George clooney.
ReplyDelete- Krystal James
I noticed that all of the men in the pictures were portrayed in very simple and straightforward poses. They were usually just looking into the camera. The women, on the other hand, were always in an "action-type" pose. Zoe Saldana and Penelope Cruz both had their bodies wrapped around the male actors in the picture. Sandra Bullock was throwing her hair back in her picture.
ReplyDeleteAs Kris and Erica have both noted, the women are all portrayed in a sexual way. They seem to be all over the men, or at least trying to attract the men looking at their photos. To me, it is a very stereotypical portrayal of both the male and female actors/actresses.
I agree with Rebecca and Erica. New York Time magazine depicts the men and women in very opposing ways. The women are more openly sexual in the pictures, some may call them portrayed as sex objects; I don't think they look like some full blown sex objects that I've seen in the media. They look more classic and beautiful with a twist of sexiness. All of the women except for Vera Farmiga appear powerful in the pictures, like they have the upper hand in the relationship they are in. They may have more skin showing, but its sexy, not skanky. As for the men, the men obviously have more clothes on and they aren't exactly in "sexy" positions. The men do, however, look like they are happy and content with where they are. George Clooney and Colin Firth appear to be more protective of their partners, as where the other men appear to be relaxed and open to their women being in charge. Overall, I think NYT did a great job with the photographs, they are all beautiful.
ReplyDelete-Courtney Dennis
Seeing these images remind me of when we looked at the Rolling Stone covers in class. What we saw in those pictures we also see in the slide show.
ReplyDeleteOn the magazine covers we saw men pose with just their head or if we saw their body it they would be fully clothed. I see that in these photographs too. The very first picture of Sam Worthington show just his head. Woody Harrelson, Christoph Waltz, Tobey Mauire and Jake Gyllenhaal all just show their shoulders and above.
I agree with Heather that out of all the women they are all assuming a "action" pose and are the more dominate ones. But the thing that draws back from that is the fact that some of the are completely naked or showing a lot of skin while the men are not.
-Cara DeMarlie
I agree with the above comments, looking through these photos reminds me of a lot of the covers from Rolling Stones. Men are positioned forward, fully clothed and their facial expression is very bold or strong.
ReplyDeleteMany of the women that are photographed alone are looking down at the ground, laying on the ground, undressed or completely nude. Representing a completely different message. They are portrayed as valuable and as a prop in many of the photographs that have men in them as well.
They are all breath taking photos, but when you look deeply into them all there is a lot that is being said from them.
Kara Flower
I agree with what we discussed in class today that all the women are either naked or in low cut sexy tops. Most of the men are in dark clothing and are sitting very still just looking into the camera. Any pictures of the men alone it is just mainly their faces and the women alone, it shows more of their bodies because the media doesn't just look at a woman's face its about her figure too. Most of the women are moving in the pictures or in action poses this could signify that the women have to try more than men to get into these types of pictures then men. Men just have to sit their and their presence is known but women have to movie around to get peoples attention and be half naked. I think they are good pictures but they don't portray women in a very good way.
ReplyDelete-Kristin Frondal
Yes--I do think there's a lot being said in the photos. I wonder if there might be some positive things we could say about the way the photos portray female actors? This is a true question in the sense that I don't have an answer to it myself.
ReplyDeleteFrom looking and see the pictures, it seem that women are portraying themselves in a sexual manner with either no top on or with little cut tops. All the men are well dressed and well covered and the camera has their full attention but it seems like the woman's focus is displaying a sexy and very intimate look. The pictures are very nice and attractive but i feel that most of the woman are just there looking naked in a sexual manner and the men are just there because they don't need to do little things that women have to do to get attention from the audience or media. This is not how all women would want to be represented as. But overall the pictures look nice and looks like the cover of the Rolling Stone magazine but i feel the message from the pictures represent women all wrong.
ReplyDelete--------> Denisha L. Price
The most obvious way women are different from men in these photos is the clothing. A couple women are wearing cleavage showing shirts, while a couple dont have clothes on at all, such as Zoe and the woman with George Clooney. Another major difference is the way they are posed. The men look very intelligent like, and serious, while the women are either in a romantic, soothing pose, or a sexual pose towards the men they are with. These pictures show how people think of men and women differently. Men, as the strong, rough types, and women as the sexual providers who use their bodies.
ReplyDelete-Brianna Hund
The most obvious thing of course about the photos is the fact that all of the women in the pictures are taking an acting or active role and the men in the pictures are more subtle and laid back. It's sort of an contrast to life normally though because in society it seems as if men play the active more aggresive role and women are always suppose to obey the social norms of society like to be quiet and to always "Act like a lady". One very intresting thing is the fact that The New York Times put paint on the African American woman body, it sorta suprised me at first because what was the paint suppose to serve as.
ReplyDelete-Monica Mickel
I think the women and men look fabulous. The women's poses are fierce and eye catching, while the mens are more timid and conservative. Their clothes are dull and boring, while the women look wild and exciting with their clothin and movements. Maybe this is because society sees women as more "beautiful" than men are, when in fact, I think they are equal. But hey, these women do look great, whether they have clothes on or not, and there's nothing wrong with showing it right? =)
ReplyDeleteJackie Hund
The women in these slides definitely have a more active role compared to the Rolling Stone covers we looked at in class. The women almost have a dominating stance and they definitely take the main focus in almost every picture. I think the pictures are actually somewhat emporing towards women, but I can also see how people think that the women are still being sexually exploited. They are still showing a lot of skin and are a little hypersexualized.
ReplyDelete-Lindsay Hummel
I agree with most of the previous posts and everything that we discussed in class the other day. The men in the pictures mainly seem protective and have sort of blank faces. The women however seem sexual and almost as the aggressor in most of the photos. Both Sandra Bullock and Julianne Moore have free flowing and wild hair showing some sort of liberation. I agree with Lindsey in the fact that all of the women appear a lot more active in comparison to the Rolling Stones covers. The women are the attention getters and the men are in the background for a change.
ReplyDelete-Victoria Wilkin
Most of the women are wearing sexy outfits or nothing at all. Some are in dominant positions or sexy positions. Then the men are wearing nice clothes and most of them you can only see their faces. For example, Zoe Saldana is naked and in a dominant position over Sam Worthington. All you can see of Sam Worthington is his face and he is wearing black so he doesn't stand out. Then Sandra Bullock is by herself but she is wearing a sexy outfit and flipping her hair everywhere. Then in the picture of Colin Firth and Julianne Moore, Colin is just standing in the back wearing a black suite and Julianne is standing in the front wear a dress showing clevage and she is flipping her hair and takin up most of the picture. Lastly in the picture of Danial Day-Lewis ad Penelope Cruz Danial is just sittig in a chair while penelope is all over him in a dominant way.
ReplyDelete~Jaleesa Burton
The New York Times seems to portray the women as accessories to the men - they are there to enhance the men's appearance of power. I don't mean oppressive power; it's more like these men are so intellectual, so hardworking, so creative that they deserve to be adorn with women. This is also proven by the men always be in the center of the photo. They look right at, they are willing for the fact that you will judge them. The women do not look directly, straight on, at the camera. They either look at the man in the photo or the floor or the ceiling or even if they stare at the camera, it is at an angle. Their bodies are not facing the camera.
ReplyDeleteI just feel like the women are decorations in these photos. I think they are handbags. Not to even mention the fact of how they are all hunched over (showing also a lack of power) but grabbing with a sexual lust at the men.
Sandra Bullock's photo is still very sexual. Her body's contrapposto stance to accentuate her curves and the crazy sex-hair and the pursed lips. All showing her sex appeal.
Also, did you notice the lingerie like outfits for the women while the men are in sweaters and suits?
-Kelly Keating-
I think all of these photos are beautiful. The most obvious difference is the clothing and the poses. The women are naked or have clothing that is low cut and sexy, while the men are very well covered. Also the women are in poses that are action like and intriguing, while the men are more reserved. It puts a spin on what we have talked about in class before; the fact that women should be reserved and in a sorts stay in the shadows. On the other hand men are the ones who should be out going and in the spotlight. These photos switch that around and portray women as the outgoing ones and the men as more reserved. All in all I think they are very nice photos!! Ashley Kimbro
ReplyDeleteZoe Saldara from Avatar and Sandra Bullock from the Blind Side to me both look hypersexualized in these two photos, especially Sandra's big poofy hair and her lips. And Sandra Bullock in no way was like this in her movie the Blind Side. The culture is inscribing its meaning on both of their bodies and we lose the historical context of the photo because only one side is shown. Whereas the men are more distinguished and proper, which symbolizes their power. I agree with Ashley that the most obvious difference is that the men are well covered up and the women have little clothing on. But I believe that we are use to this in our society: with women having less clothing, this is evident in most of the television commercials and in magazines. We as women need to except that this is likely not going to change in the near future because it all comes down to power and whats going to make a sale at the end, even though their are more women than men in this world!
ReplyDelete-Alexa Stel
The difference between the way the New York Times magazine depicts women and men in the photos is: Women are doing more of the active posing. I think the pictures are more interesting with the women in them because, to me, it seems like there is an even deeper meaning to the pictures with the males and females together. Also, there is nothing wrong with women being active in the pictures because it showed that they bring life to it. Yes, I know the women are partially naked but they were conservative. New York’s magazine didn’t make the women seem degrading at all and I like that. As far as the pictures with the males by themselves, they are just boring. Like usual, they are covered up and have blank face expressions. No one is interested in that. The pictures show that we are the other half of men in order for them to be fully complete. Women rule!
ReplyDelete-Katherine Hallmon
I agree with what others have posted about women being more active, but I agree with Katherine also. I really like the way she thinks about how women are the other half of men in order for them to be fully complete.
ReplyDeleteThe women are wearing revealing clothes or naked, but I do not think it is the way we usually see women portrayed all over the front of magazines or in the news. The clothes or outfits they are wearing are not as revealing. I guess they seem less "skanky" than what I'm used to seeing. Julianne Moore and Sandra Bullock's photo's are very out of the norm because their hair is going crazy and it is all over the place. It is different and I like it, almost like it may show their personality which we do not see often.
As for the men, we only see headshots of them and as Katherine stated they are somewhat boring. Some of the men seem puzzled or confused. They are all very well clothed, except for Woody harrelson. His jacket is unzipped and we see a some of his chest.
I thought the photo's were very good and how they were portrayed different than what we see everyday.
-Mary Buss
I agree with the comments that stated that the New York Times depicted women as sexual objects. The women are all showing a lot of skin, and are posing in sexual ways. Although this is the case, on the other hand I believe that it shows the confidence that they have in themselves and that they are proud women in their own skin. The photo of Vera Farmiga and George Clooney I found interesting. It shows that she isn't wearing anything clothing on her upper body, but she is turned to George Clooney to "cover her up." As for the men in this slide show, they are all clothed except for Woody Harrelson, who shows alittle chest skin. The other actors such as Tobey McGuire, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Morgan Freeman are just face shots. The men all have serious expressions on their face and look very well put together. I thought that all the photos were beautiful and showed an elegance in both men and women. Although the women are wearing less clothing and are showing more skin then the men, I do not think that New York Times represented women in a negative way.
ReplyDelete- Christine Lowe
Like we discussed in class, with the exception of Vera Farmiga, the women are in the "power" positions, while the men are are more statuesque. Also, the women are all wearing revealing or tight-fighting clothing, or, in Vera Farmiga's shot nothing at all. The men are covered completely up, with the exception of Woody Harrelson who is baring some of his chest.The photo shoot seems to send the message that the women are in control, however the way they are dressed seems to suggest that the REASON they are in control is because of the clothing or lack thereof. Dr. Stovall had mentioned that Vera Farmiga, in her role in Up in the Air was was the dominant character, so showing her as vulnerable in this shoot, is a bit perplexing. Unfortunately I have not seen any of the movies that are profiled here, so I cannot say for sure, but I am wondering if the roles the other women played were as the submissive? And if so, may be that is why ther are shown in a more aggressive light. I do like all of the photos though, and I don't think I would have picked up on the differences in poses and clothing had it not been pointed out. Or the message it is sending either. Women have a hard time being taken seriously, but when there is sexual innuendo they some how become more powerful. Which is ironic, because if men were to dress that way, they would not be taken seriously at all. As I wrote earlier, the photo shoot is very good, and I am not offended at all.
ReplyDeleteAngie Petersen
The thing I notice first is that the women are either naked or just barely covered. The women are also in the more active role than the men. It seems like the women have the control, that they are the "powerful" one. The pictures are also showing the opposite of our social norm. The women are in the more active role and are being more aggressive when we are told to be quiet and act like a lady. The men are the ones being quiet and serious. It seems to me that the New York Times is trying to show women in a very positive way, that women are powerful and strong and can be comfortable in their own skin. It does send a message to people, that we don't have to fit the "norm" and that we can still be successful being "different".
ReplyDeleteSamantha Cale
The women in the photos are all shown with most of their body showing. The men, on the other hand, are shown from the shoulder up adn usually focusing on their face. Women are put in sexual and provacative positions in this peice and are even shown naked in a couple of the ads. Although they are partially naked, I think most of the ads show women as being powerful. For example, the first ad shows a naked african american who seems to be in control of the man in the picture. The women do not look angry, and they keep their faces gental and relaxed for the most part. The men all have a very serious face and do not show any action, where all the women shots are of action poses. I dont think these ads put down women or show them in a negative way.
ReplyDelete-Jesica Perrone
The New York Times magazine depicts the men and women in very different ways in these photos. I noticed that most of the women are not wearing anything or wearing very little and the men are fully clothed. The women in the pictures are the ones that caught my attention. I didn't notice the men in the pictures at first because I feel like the women are more dominate in the photos. Many of the pictures of the women are posed towards or on the man. The picture of Sandra Bullock is just her alone but it is very bold and out there, I think it is a good thing because it shows how strong and independent women are and can be. I think many of the women in the pictures are displayed as sex objects but I don't think it is meant to be not in a bad way,I look at it as a more empowering sort of way. I see where everyone is coming from and agree with a lot of what everyone has said. - Taylor McDonald
ReplyDeleteOne main thing that i noticed about these pictures and especially in the greatest performers section is how the women are depicted as sex objects. In all of these pictures the women are wearing little clothing and there is alot of emphasis on their bodies. In the photo with the stars from avatar the man is fully clothed and the woman appears to be clothed but really there is just designs on her skin. Though there are pictures of just men's face there is not a single photo of just a woman's face. In every picture of a woman her whole body is in it.
ReplyDelete~Rosie Oberth~
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with everyone in a sense that they are depicted as sex objects, though it is not in a way that is linked directly to taste. In my opinion it has more to do with women being proud of their sexiness. I got this idea with a lot of those pictures, though maybe not all. And yes, I do notice how the men seem to gaze straight. The pictures of men are very simplistic, yet direct and have a different effect then what the women have. The pictures of women are more complex in their meaning, or at least that's what I get out of it. The best way to describe it is that there is more active modeling/posing, which looks like a difference. I mean they probably put more work/effort into creating pictures like these.
ReplyDelete- Nick King
When looking at these photos from the new york times I think they are amazing. I think in a way each one tell some sort of story. When looking at the pictures there are very obivous difference in how the male is portrayed and how the women is portrayed. As we discussed in class the women is more active than the man. The man in these photos are more timid or stiff not showing alot of emotion whereas the women is active, shes always show some sort of emotion. I think this is funny in a way because, men are sterotyped as the strong masculine figuture that doesnt show feeling whereas the women is emotional and feminine and it shows alot in these photos.
ReplyDelete---- Jenny Nicol----
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the photos from the New York Times are artistic and beautiful. The women are portrayed as sexual and mysterious and the men look contemplative and mysterious as well. Even though the men look like they have control in every picture, I think the women actually do because they have the main focus of the pictures. My eyes go straight to them. Also a lot of the times, the men look serious but the women look carefree and are either naked or jumping or moving in some way. My favorite slide is the one with Julianne Moore with Colin Firth in the background. The way she flips her hair back is a unique way to take a picture. Also, the men look stagnant and the women are always moving around them. For example the picture with Penelope Cruz, she is sitting on her male counterpart. I think the New York Times did depict the women in these photos as sex objects although most of the focus and credit for these wonderful pictures goes to them.
ReplyDelete-Elizabeth Leonard
I think the women controled the set of pictures. They are more vibrant and doing something active with the exception of one. And they are shown as powerful and free to be themselves. I think the men were more in a "be seen and not heard" sort of image.
ReplyDelete- Chasity Sandidge
i beleve that all though all of the pictures are beautiful in a artisitic point of view that they are very gender based. Not saying that the women are to sexual as many others have stated, i feel the oppisite as in there celebrating the way they look and are the main focus of the picture as chasity stated above me. In the avatar one i think that the female is in total control and that the piture is beatuiful because of her, if anything the man is just a prop so that we can focus on her.
ReplyDelete-Ashley Merchant
All of the men in this picture are very simply posed and have a kind of mysterious look to them. They are all kind of dark pictures and none of them look very happy. The women however and are in different poses and suggesting different things. Some of them are colorful, some are bright, some of elegant. They are all kind of different.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Nichols
Most of the men in the pictures do look mysterious and in some of them it looks like they have control in the picture. For example the one George Clooney is in it looks like he has control in the picture and that he is like the protector. Also most of the mens poses are very simple where as some of the women have different types of poses. I think its honestly just because the women are beautiful and so they are just kind of showing of these gorgeous women. I do not think they are very sexual though, i think thinks its just all about the looks.
ReplyDelete-Ben Schneider