New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Brooke Shields´ Calvin´s - What was all the controversy about? I´ve heard about these ads and I just came across them on youtube and I was wondering what was so controversial about these ads. I think they´re great and she was really beautiful back than.
"When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
She had no panties on, back then old women got jealous when hot women turned on their men. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 those were awesome![...i think i can, i think i can, i think i can...] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
teenage white girl + suggestive phrasing (for the 80's anyway)=controversy
in retrospect, a song about masturbating isn't that big of a deal.. now, but back then it was like whoooaaa... 
PG movies in the 70's were a lot more graphic in language and depictions..hell most of them would be pg-13 or r by today's standards (see: Poltergeist).i think that whole brooke thing was the ronald reagan era trying to get back to wholesome american values..or sumthin like that... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Factor into it that Brooke was a former child star in a slightly risqué jeans ad... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
klein knew brooke's unnaturally mature look and the ad's deliberately risque tone and provocative language would cause a stir anyway, considering that brooke had scarcely turned 15 when she appeared in that particular ad campaign. but klein also realized that brooke was still strongly associated with the controversy generated two years prior by her portrayal of a child prostitute in the film 'pretty baby', and these ads just took advantage of that pre-existing hoopla and the accelerated sexuality and mystique surrounding her. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cuz it was frowned upon at the time to sexualize young girls. Now, of course, it's perfectly acceptable to damage them that way for monetary and corporate gain.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It was controversial because at the time, she an was adolescent girl somewhere between 13-15 years old, being paid to make sexually suggestive comments in a national tv campaign... in an era where open sexuality wasn't as rampant on American tv (unless it was during the daytime soaps). It had very Nabacov/Lolita-esque overtones with a child playing the part of precocious temptress, employing the use of sexual "double entendre" ...therin lies your scandal  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator
|
I think it was the phrase, "nothing comes between me and my Calvins... nothing." Which of course suggested she wasn't wearing any panties. I remember those ads very clearly.  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderatorit was because she was underage and acting too sexual.
although, after watching those commercials, only two of them seemed too much for a 15 year old to be doing. [Edited 1/20/08 17:16pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
WillyWonka said: klein knew brooke's unnaturally mature look and the ad's deliberately risque tone and provocative language would cause a stir anyway, considering that brooke had scarcely turned 15 when she appeared in that particular ad campaign. but klein also realized that brooke was still strongly associated with the controversy generated two years prior by her portrayal of a child prostitute in the film 'pretty baby', and these ads just took advantage of that pre-existing hoopla and the accelerated sexuality and mystique surrounding her.
Ottensen said: It was controversial because at the time, she an was adolescent girl somewhere between 13-15 years old, being paid to make sexually suggestive comments in a national tv campaign... in an era where open sexuality wasn't as rampant on American tv (unless it was during the daytime soaps). It had very Nabacov/Lolita-esque overtones with a child playing the part of precocious temptress, employing the use of sexual "double entendre" ...therin lies your scandal
Yes, and I'd also add the "Spiritual America" photograph scandal. In 1976, when Brooke was 10 her mother gave a photographer named Gary Gross permission to photograph Brooke nude for a book Sugar & Spice: Surprising & Sensuous Images of Women (published by Playboy Press).* The photo is really creepy because it's this pre-pubescent, almost androgynous body standing provocatively in a hottub, but her face is made up to make her look much older/mature. And Gross oiled up her body too. Brooke had already established herself as a child model at the time Gross took that photo. By 1982, Brooke was becoming more well-known as an actress and wasn't too keen on Gross having unlimited publishing rights to the photo (signed away by her mother for $450). She tried to get the courts to issue an injunction against Gross to prevent him from further publishing of the photo, but lost because the courts ruled that a child cannot break a contract signed by their legal guardian.* Intrigued by this 'scandal' the contemporary artist, Richard Prince, 'appropriated' this photo by rephotographing it, (thus giving Prince the copyright to his photo of Gross' photo). Prince renamed it Spiritual America (referring to a Steiglitz photo) and displayed it in a window front 'gallery' in downtown NYC.* Click here to see the photograph by Prince of Gross' photograph. NSFW. *Info on this taken from the Nancy Spector essay in the Richard Prince exhibition catalogue, published by the Guggenheim Museum. I think it's totally skeevy that Brooke's mom would 'pimp' out her daughter like that, but as she got old enough "to know better" Brooke herself was doing movies like Pretty Baby, swimming around nude in Blue Lagoon, and telling people about her Calvin Kleins so it's not like she was Little Miss Innocent either.  (For some reason I've never been a fan of Brooke, even before I knew all this stuff.)
. [Edited 1/20/08 21:22pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DevotedPuppy said: WillyWonka said: klein knew brooke's unnaturally mature look and the ad's deliberately risque tone and provocative language would cause a stir anyway, considering that brooke had scarcely turned 15 when she appeared in that particular ad campaign. but klein also realized that brooke was still strongly associated with the controversy generated two years prior by her portrayal of a child prostitute in the film 'pretty baby', and these ads just took advantage of that pre-existing hoopla and the accelerated sexuality and mystique surrounding her.
Ottensen said: It was controversial because at the time, she an was adolescent girl somewhere between 13-15 years old, being paid to make sexually suggestive comments in a national tv campaign... in an era where open sexuality wasn't as rampant on American tv (unless it was during the daytime soaps). It had very Nabacov/Lolita-esque overtones with a child playing the part of precocious temptress, employing the use of sexual "double entendre" ...therin lies your scandal
Yes, and I'd also add the "Spiritual America" photograph scandal. In 1976, when Brooke was 10 her mother gave a photographer named Gary Gross permission to photograph Brooke nude for a book Sugar & Spice: Surprising & Sensuous Images of Women (published by Playboy Press).* The photo is really creepy because it's this pre-pubescent, almost androgynous body standing provocatively in a hottub, but her face is made up to make her look much older/mature. And Gross oiled up her body too. Brooke had already established herself as a child model at the time Gross took that photo. By 1982, Brooke was becoming more well-known as an actress and wasn't too keen on Gross having unlimited publishing rights to the photo (signed away by her mother for $450). She tried to get the courts to issue an injunction against Gross to prevent him from further publishing of the photo, but lost because the courts ruled that a child cannot break a contract signed by their legal guardian.* Intrigued by this 'scandal' the contemporary artist, Richard Prince, 'appropriated' this photo by rephotographing it, (thus giving Prince the copyright to his photo of Gross' photo). Prince renamed it Spiritual America (referring to a Steiglitz photo) and displayed it in a window front 'gallery' in downtown NYC.* Click here to see the photograph by Prince of Gross' photograph. NSFW. *Info on this taken from the Nancy Spector essay in the Richard Prince exhibition catalogue, published by the Guggenheim Museum. I think it's totally skeevy that Brooke's mom would 'pimp' out her daughter like that, but as she got old enough "to know better" Brooke herself was doing movies like Pretty Baby, swimming around nude in Blue Lagoon, and telling people about her Calvin Kleins so it's not like she was Little Miss Innocent either. (For some reason I've never been a fan of Brooke, even before I knew all this stuff.)
Holy hell  ...I clicked on the photo. No parent should ever consent to their 10 year old being portrayed that way in a photograph. Good lord... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Byron said: DevotedPuppy said: Yes, and I'd also add the "Spiritual America" photograph scandal. In 1976, when Brooke was 10 her mother gave a photographer named Gary Gross permission to photograph Brooke nude for a book Sugar & Spice: Surprising & Sensuous Images of Women (published by Playboy Press).* The photo is really creepy because it's this pre-pubescent, almost androgynous body standing provocatively in a hottub, but her face is made up to make her look much older/mature. And Gross oiled up her body too. Brooke had already established herself as a child model at the time Gross took that photo. By 1982, Brooke was becoming more well-known as an actress and wasn't too keen on Gross having unlimited publishing rights to the photo (signed away by her mother for $450). She tried to get the courts to issue an injunction against Gross to prevent him from further publishing of the photo, but lost because the courts ruled that a child cannot break a contract signed by their legal guardian.* Intrigued by this 'scandal' the contemporary artist, Richard Prince, 'appropriated' this photo by rephotographing it, (thus giving Prince the copyright to his photo of Gross' photo). Prince renamed it Spiritual America (referring to a Steiglitz photo) and displayed it in a window front 'gallery' in downtown NYC.* Click here to see the photograph by Prince of Gross' photograph. NSFW. *Info on this taken from the Nancy Spector essay in the Richard Prince exhibition catalogue, published by the Guggenheim Museum. I think it's totally skeevy that Brooke's mom would 'pimp' out her daughter like that, but as she got old enough "to know better" Brooke herself was doing movies like Pretty Baby, swimming around nude in Blue Lagoon, and telling people about her Calvin Kleins so it's not like she was Little Miss Innocent either. (For some reason I've never been a fan of Brooke, even before I knew all this stuff.)
Holy hell ...I clicked on the photo. No parent should ever consent to their 10 year old being portrayed that way in a photograph. Good lord...UN.BE.LIEVE.ABLE. 
I've worked on editorial and ad campaigns with some really "questionable" themes over the years. ...but with adults. For the first time in my life I am completely shocked and unsettled by an image... What on earth was her mother THINKING when she agreed to this...? A good portion of my career has been working with child models...I don't know ANY parent that would consent to do this
I'm stunned. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DevotedPuppy said: WillyWonka said: klein knew brooke's unnaturally mature look and the ad's deliberately risque tone and provocative language would cause a stir anyway, considering that brooke had scarcely turned 15 when she appeared in that particular ad campaign. but klein also realized that brooke was still strongly associated with the controversy generated two years prior by her portrayal of a child prostitute in the film 'pretty baby', and these ads just took advantage of that pre-existing hoopla and the accelerated sexuality and mystique surrounding her.
Ottensen said: It was controversial because at the time, she an was adolescent girl somewhere between 13-15 years old, being paid to make sexually suggestive comments in a national tv campaign... in an era where open sexuality wasn't as rampant on American tv (unless it was during the daytime soaps). It had very Nabacov/Lolita-esque overtones with a child playing the part of precocious temptress, employing the use of sexual "double entendre" ...therin lies your scandal
Yes, and I'd also add the "Spiritual America" photograph scandal. In 1976, when Brooke was 10 her mother gave a photographer named Gary Gross permission to photograph Brooke nude for a book Sugar & Spice: Surprising & Sensuous Images of Women (published by Playboy Press).* The photo is really creepy because it's this pre-pubescent, almost androgynous body standing provocatively in a hottub, but her face is made up to make her look much older/mature. And Gross oiled up her body too. Brooke had already established herself as a child model at the time Gross took that photo. By 1982, Brooke was becoming more well-known as an actress and wasn't too keen on Gross having unlimited publishing rights to the photo (signed away by her mother for $450). She tried to get the courts to issue an injunction against Gross to prevent him from further publishing of the photo, but lost because the courts ruled that a child cannot break a contract signed by their legal guardian.* Intrigued by this 'scandal' the contemporary artist, Richard Prince, 'appropriated' this photo by rephotographing it, (thus giving Prince the copyright to his photo of Gross' photo). Prince renamed it Spiritual America (referring to a Steiglitz photo) and displayed it in a window front 'gallery' in downtown NYC.* Click here to see the photograph by Prince of Gross' photograph. NSFW. *Info on this taken from the Nancy Spector essay in the Richard Prince exhibition catalogue, published by the Guggenheim Museum. I think it's totally skeevy that Brooke's mom would 'pimp' out her daughter like that, but as she got old enough "to know better" Brooke herself was doing movies like Pretty Baby, swimming around nude in Blue Lagoon, and telling people about her Calvin Kleins so it's not like she was Little Miss Innocent either. (For some reason I've never been a fan of Brooke, even before I knew all this stuff.)
. [Edited 1/20/08 21:22pm] That´s sad. Does anyone know if Brooke is on good terms with her mother? It´s sad that she has been used like that by her mother. I don´t know if we can blame Brooke whatsoever for that cause it seems that as an adult she hasn´t done this type of things. So it looks like the controversy was rather about Brooke than the ad itself even though they were not completely "innocent", but i don´t think they were that bad. By today´s standarts definately not. Actually I think they´re smart. "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Here´s one more ad.
"When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
double-post [Edited 1/21/08 4:17am] "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DevotedPuppy said: WillyWonka said: klein knew brooke's unnaturally mature look and the ad's deliberately risque tone and provocative language would cause a stir anyway, considering that brooke had scarcely turned 15 when she appeared in that particular ad campaign. but klein also realized that brooke was still strongly associated with the controversy generated two years prior by her portrayal of a child prostitute in the film 'pretty baby', and these ads just took advantage of that pre-existing hoopla and the accelerated sexuality and mystique surrounding her.
Ottensen said: It was controversial because at the time, she an was adolescent girl somewhere between 13-15 years old, being paid to make sexually suggestive comments in a national tv campaign... in an era where open sexuality wasn't as rampant on American tv (unless it was during the daytime soaps). It had very Nabacov/Lolita-esque overtones with a child playing the part of precocious temptress, employing the use of sexual "double entendre" ...therin lies your scandal
Yes, and I'd also add the "Spiritual America" photograph scandal. In 1976, when Brooke was 10 her mother gave a photographer named Gary Gross permission to photograph Brooke nude for a book Sugar & Spice: Surprising & Sensuous Images of Women (published by Playboy Press).* The photo is really creepy because it's this pre-pubescent, almost androgynous body standing provocatively in a hottub, but her face is made up to make her look much older/mature. And Gross oiled up her body too. Brooke had already established herself as a child model at the time Gross took that photo. By 1982, Brooke was becoming more well-known as an actress and wasn't too keen on Gross having unlimited publishing rights to the photo (signed away by her mother for $450). She tried to get the courts to issue an injunction against Gross to prevent him from further publishing of the photo, but lost because the courts ruled that a child cannot break a contract signed by their legal guardian.* Intrigued by this 'scandal' the contemporary artist, Richard Prince, 'appropriated' this photo by rephotographing it, (thus giving Prince the copyright to his photo of Gross' photo). Prince renamed it Spiritual America (referring to a Steiglitz photo) and displayed it in a window front 'gallery' in downtown NYC.* Click here to see the photograph by Prince of Gross' photograph. NSFW. *Info on this taken from the Nancy Spector essay in the Richard Prince exhibition catalogue, published by the Guggenheim Museum. I think it's totally skeevy that Brooke's mom would 'pimp' out her daughter like that, but as she got old enough "to know better" Brooke herself was doing movies like Pretty Baby, swimming around nude in Blue Lagoon, and telling people about her Calvin Kleins so it's not like she was Little Miss Innocent either. (For some reason I've never been a fan of Brooke, even before I knew all this stuff.)
. [Edited 1/20/08 21:22pm] That was the creepiest photo I've ever seen. Where was Brooke's dad in all this? If her mother didn't have enough sense to realize that it's wrong for your 10 year old daughter to pose naked in a hot tub with a full fac of very adult and seductive makeup on, why didn't her father step in and stop it? Reading about all of this and then seeing that picture just makes me sad. It seems like Brooke didn't have any protection from her parents and that they were too preoccupied with making money off of her to really care about her welfare. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JasmineFire said: DevotedPuppy said: Yes, and I'd also add the "Spiritual America" photograph scandal. In 1976, when Brooke was 10 her mother gave a photographer named Gary Gross permission to photograph Brooke nude for a book Sugar & Spice: Surprising & Sensuous Images of Women (published by Playboy Press).* The photo is really creepy because it's this pre-pubescent, almost androgynous body standing provocatively in a hottub, but her face is made up to make her look much older/mature. And Gross oiled up her body too. Brooke had already established herself as a child model at the time Gross took that photo. By 1982, Brooke was becoming more well-known as an actress and wasn't too keen on Gross having unlimited publishing rights to the photo (signed away by her mother for $450). She tried to get the courts to issue an injunction against Gross to prevent him from further publishing of the photo, but lost because the courts ruled that a child cannot break a contract signed by their legal guardian.* Intrigued by this 'scandal' the contemporary artist, Richard Prince, 'appropriated' this photo by rephotographing it, (thus giving Prince the copyright to his photo of Gross' photo). Prince renamed it Spiritual America (referring to a Steiglitz photo) and displayed it in a window front 'gallery' in downtown NYC.* Click here to see the photograph by Prince of Gross' photograph. NSFW. *Info on this taken from the Nancy Spector essay in the Richard Prince exhibition catalogue, published by the Guggenheim Museum. I think it's totally skeevy that Brooke's mom would 'pimp' out her daughter like that, but as she got old enough "to know better" Brooke herself was doing movies like Pretty Baby, swimming around nude in Blue Lagoon, and telling people about her Calvin Kleins so it's not like she was Little Miss Innocent either. (For some reason I've never been a fan of Brooke, even before I knew all this stuff.)
. [Edited 1/20/08 21:22pm] That was the creepiest photo I've ever seen. Where was Brooke's dad in all this? If her mother didn't have enough sense to realize that it's wrong for your 10 year old daughter to pose naked in a hot tub with a full fac of very adult and seductive makeup on, why didn't her father step in and stop it? Reading about all of this and then seeing that picture just makes me sad. It seems like Brooke didn't have any protection from her parents and that they were too preoccupied with making money off of her to really care about her welfare. Aren´t her parent´s divorced? "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
June7 said: I think it was the phrase, "nothing comes between me and my Calvins... nothing." Which of course suggested she wasn't wearing any panties. I remember those ads very clearly.
DING DING DING Besides how young Brooke Shields was at the time. American Apparel ads today make me squirm. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cinnie said: June7 said: I think it was the phrase, "nothing comes between me and my Calvins... nothing." Which of course suggested she wasn't wearing any panties. I remember those ads very clearly.
DING DING DING Besides how young Brooke Shields was at the time. American Apparel ads today make me squirm. Also how young she was when she starred in Pretty Baby and Blue Lagoon. Her mother was a totally insane stage mother; a legend in the industry, and her comments about her daughter's "titties" REALLY drew some fire back in the late 70's. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I am feeling so old, remembering clearly when those came out, she was gorgeous!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Cinnie said: DING DING DING Besides how young Brooke Shields was at the time. American Apparel ads today make me squirm. Also how young she was when she starred in Pretty Baby and Blue Lagoon. Her mother was a totally insane stage mother; a legend in the industry, and her comments about her daughter's "titties" REALLY drew some fire back in the late 70's. What did she say exactly?"When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Goddamn I would bang Brooke Shields so hard.  Maybe we can go to the movies and cry together | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
