Scattered Shots

[Dan Stiffler]

On 7/16/03 4:57 PM, "Donna Tavoso" <dtavoso@earthlink.net> wrote:
 
> I have always hated the notion of graduating from Maxim to Playboy --
> and I don't think it's should be Playboy's goal.  To me, they are two
> very different magazines, Maxim is a quick fun mindless read -- you
> can enjoy it and still read Playboy because it is more informative and
> gives you more information.

I think Kaminsky has used this phrase or something akin to it,
possibly because he himself "graduated" from Maxim to PLAYBOY.  I
picked it up from one of the media commentators.  For me, it makes
sense because PLAYBOY should be (sometimes it's hard to argue that it
is) a more sophisticated and challenging magazine than the lad mags.
It is, after all, entertainment for men, not boys.

I do see the point about reading both concurrently.  Apparently many
of the posters on the PML do.  For myself, since I began reading
PLAYBOY when I was in high school, reading Maxim today would be like
regressing from the classics to the children's library.
 
> At the risk of repeating myself, I have to say that this is not just a
> Playboy phenomenon but one that is shared by our country as a whole.
> My god, almost every news show (both regular and entertainment)
> carried the story about the old naked photographs of Carmen Diaz that
> were being offered for sale and how she had an injunction against him
> selling it.
> 
> I applaud you guys for saying you are beyond it and aren't interested
> but as a single woman who spends a lot of time with guys I have to say
> you are in the minority.  No guy I know would not run to the newsstand
> to see a picture of Anna Kournikova nude -- I think we are a celebrity
> obsessed nation and until that changes I don't think that Playboy can
> survive without celebrities on the cover.

OK.  Here's the fundamental problem as I see it.  Donna says that this
celebrity phenomenon is one "shared by our country as a whole."  No
argument on that point.  But PLAYBOY used to be a leader, not a
follower.  Furthermore, the cult of celebrity in America, while it was
percolating in the 19th century, really got its start in the early
20th century with the advent of the motion picture industry.
Certainly by the 50s, when PLAYBOY began publishing, celebrity was a
major aspect of American culture.

It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that PLAYBOY has not always
had some interest in celebrity.  After all, Marilyn Monroe's famous
nude sold the first issue.  However, PLAYBOY did survive, indeed
thrived, without celebrities on the cover for its first 25 years.
That is because PLAYBOY had an identity that it controlled, that it
fashioned through its editorial choices.  Now, unfortunately, PLAYBOY
just waits to see who's hot for the moment.  In fact, the question now
seems to be, when a new girl hits celebrity status, "Will She Pose For
PLAYBOY?"  It's an acquiescence on the part of a once-proud magazine
to the larger media when this is how PLAYBOY gets its "buzz."

The real problem with PLAYBOY's addiction to celebrity is that the
magazine is willing to take anyone with the faintest hint of celebrity
status and promote her on the cover.  Today, with a plethora of cable
channels, celebrities are everywhere.  So, instead of the occasional
A-list celebrity pictorial that PLAYBOY used to run (nothing wrong
with Cindy Crawford by Herb Ritts, for example), PLAYBOY needs to get
its monthly fix by signing the latest reality girl, who--let's face
it--is only an accidental and incidental celebrity.

Surely the celebrity "phenomenon" of today is more pervasive than it
was in the fifties, but that very pervasiveness makes it more diluted
and, to my way of thinking, less viable.  With celebrities on every
street corner, what's the big deal about seeing one of them without
her clothes?  And give this just a moment's thought: why should an
A-list celebrity strip for PLAYBOY when the magazine has been
cavorting with C-listers?  At one time, to pose for a PLAYBOY
celebrity pictorial was to pose in the tradition of Monroe, Mansfield,
Van Doren, Novak, Andress, Welch.  Today, that tradition has been
diminished.

PLAYBOY should kick its habit.  Go cold turkey.  Sure, there would be
withdrawal.  But let the word out that, when PLAYBOY once again starts
running celebrity pictorials, the models will be established
A-listers.  No more pick-ups at the corner of Tabloid and Cable.
  
On running to the newsstand to see Anna Kournikova nude: well, she was
supposed to be nude in a recent Penthouse and that debacle was
probably a dying gasp.  It should also serve as a cautionary tale for
PLAYBOY.  But, more to the point, I really don't get this
preoccupation with seeing celebrities nude.  As Steve Sloca points
out, it certainly isn't very mature.  I mean, with Anna, yes, she is
cute as hell.  But I subscribe to Sports Illustrated, so I have seen
her bare ass and I have seen her nipples projecting against her
athletic top.  As if I can't imagine what's underneath her tennis
outfit?  Maybe if I were 13 or 14 I would need some kind of
affirmation, some kind of proof that my imagination is close to the
mark.  But men who read PLAYBOY should have a pretty good idea of how
all those parts play out.  If Anna were nude in PLAYBOY, I would be
interested mostly in the way the pictures were shot and, to pick up on
a point that Donna has made elsewhere, if the photos connected with
Anna's profession as a tennis player.

Again, PLAYBOY is supposed to be entertainment for men, not for
adolescents who have yet to experience the real world.  Unfortunately,
most of the recent celebrity pictorials are appealing to an adolescent
fantasy.  As many of you know, feminists have for a long time
criticized PLAYBOY on just this point.  I never thought the argument
held water with respect to the playmates, but PLAYBOY is filling the
bucket by its addiction to celebrity.
  
regards,

Dan Stiffler