This scene was the one thing that kept me from plucking my own eyeballs out during yet another viewing of Elmo in Grouchland that my daughter was insisting on.
I think the other woman was responding to the way Ms. Williams is backlit in this scene, especially at the beginning – it does give the viewer a pretty clear view of the entirety of her legs. To which I say, “so what?” but not everyone would agree.
I’m with you. Kids are not harmed by things like that.
So, for those of you who say that there is a sexual element, is it a strong enough element that it contributes to the objectification of women? Is this kind of subtle sexuality presented to little children softening their brains for the stronger messages of sexuality and attractiveness that are to come later?
Hmmm. I’m going to step lightly here, because I get a very strong feeling that this question is coming from a place with which I am largely unfamiliar.
My opinion is that the sexuality, such as it is, in the clip is of a sort that will go right over the heads of children. They won’t think a thing of it, it won’t even register as sexuality to them. Just a nice lady dancing.
Whether this can have some sort of subliminal brain-softening effect, I have absolutely no idea. I don’t think it’s a bad thing for a kid to learn that seeing a woman’s legs is not a cause for alarm.
I suspect our child rearing philosophies might be wildly divergent, though.
Not so much.
You want to see sexy in a Muppets epi?
Here’s Raquel Welch:
I’m pretty conservative so I’ll weigh in here. Firstly, I love the music I’m going to be humming that all day, but on to the suggestiveness. At first when she came up with the whole see though thing I was a little surprised. However, that could be a reaction I have due to being a adult male or for going in looking for sexiness, but another has mentioned that so perhaps not. I does not put me off the video however. The dancing is sexy, but I don’t see how you can have an attractive well shaped woman dancing to music and it not be. If it was some hyperactive children’s song maybe, but with the music chosen she is going to have to move her body. Actually I don’t want to use the word sexy here because it has the wrong connotations in our society. Its overly tied into lust and that is not what I mean, but I can’t think of a better word right now.
In sum I personally have no problem with it.
Plus the song is about how there can be beauty in anything, which is IMO a very good message for kids to internalize as they watch the blasted movie over and over and OVER AND OVER AND…
deep breath
(for your amusement)
I showed the clip to a coworker of mine, and the conversation went like this:
Me: “So what do you think?”
Her: “I don’t get it. What are they up in arms about?”
Me: “I think it’s because she’s backlit.”
Her: “So?”
Me: “So, you can practically see her junk.”
Her: “What do you mean, practically? She’s the QUEEN of Junk. Her junk is piled up EVERYWHERE.”
I’m also kinda concerned about the sexuality kids are exposed to today, especially young girls. But that clip is fine I feel. This, in my opinion, is much more disconcerting in regards to how the girls are dressed and dancing:
My gut reaction- the woman is either a fundist or a feminazi who has her own sexuality issues. Yeah, the backlit shot took me by surprise at bit but the rest of it defused any sexual aspect. Muppet reaction shots do that… I hope.
Vanessa could have been wearing a sack anyway, and she’d still be hot.
I find it odd that the “Queen of Trash” is dressed up sexy and doing a sensuous dance, given that it means the piled-up junk and debris definition of trash. Why wouldn’t she be covered in pieces of junk and trash, not form-fitting see-through clothes? That fact that they chose to present a character named that in this way might mean women are always portrayed this way regardless of character, and maybe that’s what the mom is talking about.
Huh? That was tame compared to what I expected!
John McLaughlin voice Next topic: the subtexts in HANNAH MONTANA!
Yeah, I’m thinking that shot was a gift to the Dads who would have to sit through the movie 600 times with their child. The Moms get the underwear shot on Mandy Patinkin. 
None of those questions reflect my views. I am asking from the perspective of the woman on the other board. I think she’s being a little silly, frankly.
Well maybe I’m just a prude then. But I didn’t think that showing 11-12 year old girls dressed like that and dancing like that was appropriate.
And yes, I hate Hannah Montana. Mostly because it’s marketed to girls much too young to be interested in that sort of thing. My nieces are 6 and 8 and LOVE that show. They also love all the ‘tween’ shows on Nick like iCarly and Drake and Josh. They’re totally into fashion and want to wear makeup and talk about getting boyfriends and stuff and it just dumbfounds me that their mother thinks this is ok. When I was their age I was watching cartoons and couldn’t care less if my shoes matched my top let alone what boy I wanted to date.
I just personally think girls are growing up MUCH too fast these days. And mostly because of the shows and trends that are being marketed towards them.
The strongest “sexual” element is in her backlit entrance. If I were designing the show for kids, I might have made other choices there…gone with more downlighting instead. That noted, I saw nothing that seemed over the line for a “G” rating.
I totally agree with her point in general, but no, this particular clip is benign, at least IMHO.
Joe
Kind of echoing what I said, though, if you were on a creative team and asking to envision what a Queen of Trash would look like, is that what would come to mind?
The backlighting entrance certainly makes an impression, but I don’t think I’d call it sexual, because there is nothing overtly sexual about it, unless we assume any image of an attractive woman is meant to be sexual. That point of view, IMHO, is far more sexist and damaging than kids seeing a pretty lady wearing a tank top and bell bottoms. Which is, in fact, essentially what she’s wearing.
Her dancing strikes me in no way as being Elvis-like and bears more of a resemblance to what I call the baby dance: you sway your hips from side to side (not cocking them or tilting them forward, which would be sexual) as though you’re swaying with a sleepy baby. Vanessa Williams may do many things, but gyrating at Elmo is not one of them.
I thought it was kind of cool, to create a dichotomy between the expectations of trash and the presence of a beautiful woman urging Elmo (and the viewer, the kids) to see the beauty in everything. I agree with Marienee that there’s an element of the Mother archetype in this.
I’d say her performance is sexual only for males who are already interested in sex, and the sole reason for that is that Williams is sexy. The performance itself is not overtly sexual.
If anything’s weird about the clip, it’s the racial undertones, what with the headdress and the faux-African drumming / back-on-the-chain-gang vocal rhythms. Of course, I might be off on this, not having the context of the rest of the movie. Maybe there are white actresses dressed like peacocks elsewhere in the film.