From G: on Rachel McAdams and Vanity Fair
February 26, 2006 12:00:00 Posted at February 26, 2006 12:00:00
i say kudos to rachel for not dropping trou for tom ford. first of all, i don"t see how it can help her career. will it really help scarlett"s and keira"s? (what is the fascination with keira and that smirk of hers?) anyway, i am proud of rachel for deciding getting nekkid wasn"t her thing. hey just getting naked for ryan gosling would be enough for me. Dear G, I"ve heard from many others echoing the same sentiments. But the thing is - I didn"t find the cover shot particularly tasteless. And while Keira Knightley"s gargantuan jaw almost ruined the whole thing, I quite liked Tom"s sexy bite, and I"ll never complain about Scarlett"s lush body either. Will it help their careers? Let"s just say I don"t think it hurts. Not participating in the project was entirely Rachel"s prerogative and if that"s her decision, so be it. I"m not going to support or attack her on either side. However, what I will say is that if you"re going to have standards, at least have them all the way. Refusing to pose nude on principle for Vanity Fair is one thing but what about going topless for apparently no reason in a low budget flick at the beginning of your career? Do values mysteriously materialise when you become rich and famous??? Is it excusable to rip your top off when you are a struggling actress but less so when you"re suddenly Hollywood"s It Girl? And do I need to post the photos to prove them to you??? The bottom line is this: Everyone in Hollywood sells out by virtue of aspiring to that kind of career in the first place. And while Rachel certainly wouldn’t stoop to the levels of Eva Longoria and the like, let"s not forget she"s still a celebrity, a Hollywood player. So as much as I like her, as much as I find her head and shoulders above the rest, I still wouldn"t paint her with an angel brush and pretend she"s "just like us."