Why would big stars like the Glee cast do a half-naked shoot like they did for GQ? Doesn't that hurt their image?
—Quala, via the inbox
If the Glee kids were not the Glee kids, and instead worked as wage slaves at Walmart or Chase or Ralphs, yes, your pearl-clutching observation would make sense. But the Glee kids live in Hollywood, where up is down, skeletal is sex-ay and naked equals jobs.
Don't believe me? Here:
Let me step aside and let a real Hollywood publicist explain a few things to you.
"We have seen this before with other actors on youthful shows," veteran publicist Howard Bragman explains. "They want to show that although they play a kid, they are a full fledged, sexy adult."
In other words, they are available for any and all roles, not just those involving cheerleading outfits and spontaneous outbursts into Jay-Z covers.
Watch this space: Within a year or two, you'll see Lea Michele or Cory Monteith or Dianna Agron on a big screen in a small, but very grown-up role, and they will, in part, have their GQ jailbait photo shoot to thank for that.
"It's great faux controversy," Bragman says, "and they have expanded the way casting people might look at them. Everyone is happy."
Actors have done gratuitous shoots for decades, son!
Or were you not born when Jennifer Aniston went naked on the cover of Rolling Stone, and Cameron Diaz flashed her ass-crack in Vanity Fair?
Still don't buy it? Do I need to bring out a still photo of Harry Potter's ass?
"Daniel Radcliffe did this strategy the best by going nude in Equus," the play, Bragman says.
"It was controversial; it generated lots of publicity; and it cast the actor in a new light to the industry. It's very parallel."
Indeed; it probably helped Radcliffe land the lead in a very not-kiddie-picture: All Quiet on the Western Front.