Miley Cyrus in Betsey Johnson

Posted on April 20, 2012

Don’t look so cranky, Miley. We’re about to pay you a compliment.

 

Miley Cyrus leaving Pilates class in Los Angeles.

Betsey Johnson Spring 2012 Collection

Because we think this is kind of cute and for once, age-appropriate. Normally, you’re either dressed like Helen Mirren or dressed like an aging hippy. At least this time you look like a girl your age in 2012. Of course the boots paired with it make you look a bit like a hooker in an action movie (maybe because we made the mistake of watching that execrable Sucker Punch movie last night), but we’re used to seeing that from you L.A. girls.

And hey, the Pilates is obviously paying off because you are looking toned as shit, girl.

[Photo Credit: WireImage, elle.com]

Tags: ,

  • Lina_bee

    I love it, especially with the boots. I just wish it were separates instead of a friggin romper. I mean, she’s 20, not 3.

    • MilaXX

       I agree, this is the one time combat boots actually go with the outfit.

      • Little_Olive

        Yep; the boots are the correct choice for balancing the upper part (sandals would have been “not enough” shoe, IMO). I hate skulls as anything other than poison warning but I admit it’s very much her and she can pull off the little romper.

    • ballerinawithagun

      Rompers were the big thing this year even in NYC, love the whole look and she looks great. 

      • BuffaloBarbara

         Being a big thing doesn’t exactly make them attractive.

        It looks much better with the longer short-style pants that Miley is wearing than the French cut undies style looks on the model, though.

  • CPK1

    I think she looks adorable here and finally age appropriate. If you can’t wear something like this at her age and with that body I don’t know when you could.  I can’t help myself. I love Miley.

  • shirab

    I’m just glad it looks like shorts, because on the model it looks like a bathing suit. Not sure if it’s how the model is walking or if Miley’s version is different.

    • guestela

      Yeah, I was trying to figure out why it looked pretty skanky on the model and adorable on Miley. I think because it’s got a more ease on Miley — in general but most importantly in the hips — and is a little longer on her.

      (Plus the obvious difference in accessorizing, including Miley’s lack of visible bra.)

    • amywinns

      Probably normal runway-vs-retail adjustments.

  • http://twitter.com/vintagegoddess just julie

    Cute yes, if it was a top and shorts, but really people just because they make jumpers does not mean anyone has to buy them…or wear them in public.

    • schadenfreudelicious

      or attempt to deal with them in a public washroom….

  • ChaCha_70

    Holy crap, she looks really cute!
     

  • BazoDee

    Sigh -I hate to agree with you but you are right on all counts. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jessica-TallGirl-Freeman/1043623567 Jessica TallGirl Freeman

      It hurt me as well.

  • judybrowni

    Yeah, and the model was over-styled, there’s enough going on in those rompers on their own. They didn’t need the junk drawer necklace, the peek-a-boo hot pink bra straps, lipstick, and bear trap shoes.

    • HomeOfficeGirl

      Umm… Betsey Johnson.

  • MilaXX

    I don’t like it, but I give it a pass because it’s not awful, I just think wearing skulls is corny so skull clothing almost always get a fail from me. I do like that she looks her age. As for looking toned, this walks that line of body snark, but she’s also reportedly changed her diet due to an alledged gluten allergy.  She looks find now, I just would hate to see her get Hollywood thin.

    • AudreysMom

      pretty much OT, but watching Modern Family is painful now, just looking at Julie Bowen.

  • StillGary

    She looks super cute and it is an adorable romper, but I wish the pattern lined up!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1248212910 Jessie Melcher Brown

      That bugged me too, for what it cost the design should line up better.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jessica-TallGirl-Freeman/1043623567 Jessica TallGirl Freeman

    I like this….at least it’s not as short as it is on the model, where it looks like a bathing suit.  I’m no fan of jumpers, but I’ll let this one slide.

    • http://www.djplaw.com/ Tadiana

      With you on this.  I’m just floored that Miley actually chose to make an outfit less rather than more skanky.

    • Carla_Charlton

      Am I a total square to say that for walking around purposes, I still think it’s too short?

  • Whever

    Was there any information on who made the boots? ‘Cause I would happily sell my sibling’s (hypothetical) first-born for them. They’re gorgeous. 

  • Rand Ortega

    Super cute!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/W7A5N4G7FDTV5U2KOHBVSB55XI Basket

    She really does need a trim.  The ends look horrible.  

    • AudreysMom

      her color needs some work as well.

      • MissAnnieRN

        That whole ombre hair thing is the big trend right now.  I can’t stand it.

  • http://twitter.com/thejackanory Charles

    I really like the look, though I do agree on the boots. But the one nagging thing about it is that the skulls aren’t lined up on the romper and after too long watching PR, it really looks lazy when they can’t/don’t line up a pattern properly

    • http://twitter.com/Fibercrazed Sara

       I’m glad I wasn’t the only one that noticed that and found it distracting. C’mon Betsey, if I can line up the patterns making clothes for my own kids I’m sure your clothing minions can too.

  • http://phantomminuet.blogspot.com/ MinAgain

    She looks great.  In.

  • gabbilevy

    Look! pigs are flying! because I kind of love it, and I usually hate her. I’d wear that romper (give me a less skull-ky pattern, though) in a heartbeat.   

  • ThaliaMenninger

    You know she’s not eating Glu’En and she’s feeling, like, SOOOOO awesome and everything and no one should ever eat Glu’En, right? Like, I hope so. Cause her Glu’En campaign would just, like, fix all the world’s problems, yo.

  • http://profiles.google.com/sara.e.munoz Sara Munoz

    Yes, it works. And the reason it works, is that she didn’t costume it up with heavy makeup, black jewelry, ripped fishnets, etc. Well played, Miley.

  • TieDye64

    Love this on her, and I totally dig the boots here. She really is looking toned as shit. Kudos.

  • http://heartprintandstyle.blogspot.com Vivi N

    I see nothing wrong with rompers/jumpers. As long as it’s cute and fits you properly…go for it (Connect Four)!

  • SewingSiren

    Very cute. Suits her perfectly. But her Pilates class is obviously a lot “dressier” than mine.

    • rawrgrowlrawr

      The only exercise routine I manage is power shopping so I’m no expert, but her outfit does not seem appropriate for working out.

  • marilyn

     The problem is all of the seams and darts.  They slice and dice the pattern.  Patterned fabric is very difficult to sew with. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HIZ7S2FRLC52NXARXQ4ERHNOGE Liz

    Oh my god, Sucker Punch was so bad but had such interesting visuals and music!!  But So, SOO bad.

    • Ruminum

      I think it’s actually a really deep, and genius critique of the false idea of female empowerment in male wish fulfillment genres. Check out this analysis here: 
      http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/?2011,5,299

      It seriously made me LOVE the film.

  • http://tigergray.blogspot.com/ Tiger Gray

    that’s really cute. 

  • Terence Ng

    Wow, I think this is the first time I’ve liked something by Betsy Johnson. Not stunning, but super cute. I can’t help but like that Miley Cyrus…

    (Also, I love Sucker Punch. At first I hated it, but once I figured out what it actually was about, I was floored. Probably one of the most interesting and damning feminist critiques ever made in film about male-dominated Geek Culture and the male wish fulfillment genre.)

    • readdiefreddie

      Sorry, I just cannot consider Sucker Punch a feminist critique. All I saw was a gratuitous male nerd fantasy-fest of explosions, fight scenes, scantily clad females, and scantily clad females in fight scenes with explosions with a half-assed attempt at a “deep and meaningful” storyline with a muddled ending message that seemed to say, “YOU can take control of your own destiny. It may just amount deciding to embrace a terrible and unavoidable situation instead of passively letting it happen to you, but you can OWN that bad situation, girl!”

      • Terence Ng

        (Sorry this is long, but only because I find the topic very interesting.) That was the entire point. The movie was a critique of male wish fulfillment fantasies that project the idea of empowered females when all they are are wish fulfillment. It holds a mirror to the genre, embodying everything that is problematic about false empowerment, pointing it out, and then letting it play out to demonstrate why. The reason why people felt that it was sexist was because they expected to see a film that refuted sexism in its story, but the film actually showcased sexism to reveal how it goes unquestioned in the genre and just how problematic it is.

        The film is cleverly set to be the exact material it critiques, which is why the girls DON’T win; they fail horribly. It has several meta points where it clues the viewer in to that idea. 

        What Sucker Punch “is” (Baby Doll’s story) and the sexually exploitative nature of these kinds of media is pointed out when she first arrives in the brothel. She sees them putting on a play of her actual situation (a girl unfairly institutionalized and about to be lobotomized). But the story is horrific, not sexy, causing Sweet Pea to yell “No! Don’t you get it? This isn’t sexy!” It’s a direct reference to the idea that what’s actually going on (the reality terrible things happening to Baby Doll) is not sexual and not erotic, and to try to make it into an erotic tale is absurd. This revelas the true intention of the film: we’ve just been told that the film is a study in the absurdity of eroticising female trauma.The absurdity of the sexism in what Snyder described himself as a criticism of nerd culture is apparent in the beginning of the film. Everyone criticized that a girl seeking to escape her trauma would fantasize about being in a brothel. In fact, people were stunned that Snyder apparently missed the mark, but in reality, the ludicrousness of it is the point. No one who is sexually traumatized wishes themselves into a fantasy land where they are hot and sexually objectified. But this is the exact thing we’ve seen in the genre for decades. The film mimics this to point it out as a genre trope. It’s on purpose.

        This is echoed again in the next level of fantasy when Baby Doll dances and the film switches to the battle scenes. The girls have a mission: to obtain the items that will facilitate their escape. If that’s their mission, why are they imagining themselves as sexed-out, scantily clad soldiers/warriors instead of just warriors? Who are they dressing for? Certainly it’s not for themselves. Why would their mission of escape involve trying to be sexually appealing to male gaze? The point is that it wouldn’t. But another genre trope is that “empowered women” in male wish fulfillment fantasies are inexplicably sexualized for no reason. Their skimpy, impractical costumes bear no explanation with regard to their goals and objectives. They only exist because these “empowered women” need to appeal to male gaze. Even if the girls are disgusted by their lives as sexual slaves and have an objective to accomplish, they irrationally fantasize about being appealing to heterosexual male gaze while accomplishing those objectives.And these fantasies happen when Baby Doll is forced to perform supposedly the most erotic dance any of the characters has ever seen. 

        …But the audience never sees it. If the film was actually seeking to exploit these women as just another false “empowerment” wish-fulfillment story, the audience would totally see an erotic dance. Instead, the audience is blatantly denied the chance to see it. Every dance cuts away just as she starts and cuts back right as she finishes, with every character talking about how amazing it was. The film brilliantly places the audience in the same role as the men in the brothel watching Baby Doll. We expect, demand, and even become disappointed when we can’t see this character be objectified for our pleasure. The film is reviewed as being “unsexy” and “disappointing”, but that is exactly why it was done: it reveals that we exist in a culture that expects and demands female objectification in our “empowerment” narratives.

        The need to appeal to male gaze through the missing dance is also critiqued in the film when the girls discuss Baby Doll’s dancing. Sweet Pea calls Baby Doll out and says that dancing should be something personal. It should be something about her, not about what it does for the men in the audience. This draws the link between ownership and control of one’s sexuality and being objectified for other people’s sexual needs.Finally, the film takes all the tropes about false empowerment and demonstrates that they lead to nowhere for female narratives. The girls, pushed along by their male gaze adventures, and missions and objectives supplied by and fueled by the actions of men (the monk giving the tasks, despite being a force of “good” and the evil of the pimps/doctors/police/abusive fathers), ultimately fail, and fail miserably. Though they imagined that they were warriors and heroes, they are brutally reminded that they are still girls in a brothel under the thumb of their pimp (and likewise, girls in an institution, controlled by the doctor). Their empowerment was an illusion. They were never really empowered. Their actions lacked their own agency. Everything they did was motivated by men. With objectified names like “Baby Doll”, “Sweet Pea”, “Rocket”, and “Blondie”, they were never even actually people, just sexualized “things”. And because of that, they can never actually succeed. That’s why the film’s “Baby Doll” story can never be a truly satisfying feminist empowerment story. The false empowerment heroine of male wish fulfillment fantasies can never truly be a successful feminist icon as she is.

        That’s why Baby Doll realizes that this “isn’t her story”; it’s Sweet Pea’s. Sweet Pea is the only character who embodies the blossoming (though not fully realized) concept of self agency and the rejection of male gaze. That’s why her character is given the opportunity to control her own destiny. She is the only one who continues forward, representative of what the true idea of female empowerment in narratives should embody: sexuality that is owned, not exploited (re: the dance), rejection of unquestioned objectification in narrative (re: this is not a sexy story). Baby Doll is representative of the classic false empowerment character: her motivations and situations are all due to men (her father’s sexual abuse, the doctor’s sexual control, the pimp’s control of the brothel, the skill at erotic dancing for men’s pleasure, her orders received from the monk). She is the false empowerment narrative that’s existed for so long, and that’s why it’s “not her story”. The film makes a point that the final message is that these narratives must end and real empowerment narratives–those that hold the ideals slowly exhibited by Sweet Pea–must begin.

        But even then, the film retains its cynical viewpoint. It provides the cheesy, superficial empowerment statement but shows that Sweet Pea’s road to liberation begins the same way the other characters’ missions did: the monk as the bus driver. Are we seeing a character who is truly liberated? Or is that the unsettling twist, where the seemingly defeated patriarchy is actually still alive? The monk seems to hint that these false messages are an illusion: the character thinks she’s free, but the overarching problem remains. The question of whether Sweet Pea is actually liberated echoes the idea of false empowerment for Baby Doll and other girls, and intentionally further echoes the movie itself with its mirrored reflection of the false female empowerment genre. We must be careful that when we have the right idea, we don’t allow it to be warped and spoon fed back to us like those last-minute, superficial “destiny” messages. We have to ensure that the content backs up the concept of true empowerment, not just pay it lip service.

        The film is brilliantly pessimistic. It’s not a story about how female characters rise up and become empowered by breaking the shackles of sexual bias in the industry. It’s the opposite: a cautionary tale. It shows what happens when female narratives DON’T break those shackles: They become exploitative, empowerment is ultimately false, the material unsatisfying, and the objectives are failures. The reason why Sucker Punch is able to show these things without being just like the films it parodies is because it takes those very clear and purposive steps throughout the film to point out that what we are seeing are tropes. It directly questions them, focuses on them, and lets them play out toward its inevitable conclusion. It allows the tropes of sexism in the genre to speak for themselves and demonstrate their problematic existence.

        • guest2visits

          I find alot to agree about in both assessments of Sucker Punch (liked sountrack). I think it was a
          sometimes clever, gruesome attack of male misogyny.  The twisted male fantasy thing however is
          so oppressive, so disturbing, that it becomes what it sets out to expose, or ridicule.  The movie is
          a dark exposition of unimaginable violation and suffering.

          So much so, that the women are required to check out mentally; to split from reality; or to become
          catatonic in order to function; to survive their own existance.   The ending, while it makes some
          story-line sense; doesn’t resolve this, or correct this hopeless despair for me. Was it supposed to ?
          Well, if it wishes to despise the very cruel and absurd genre that it objectifies; then it definitely
          needs a successful heroine. This isn’t my idea of a successful conclusion. In the end, the women are
          nothing more than desperate mice; fleeing to the four corners of a filthy room. Where they will
          never escape the very final, and omnipotent monster.
          It’s been a long time since I saw the movie. I can only remember the impressions it left behind.
          If I truely like a movie; I usually try to buy a used copy. This isn’t part of my collection. NOT that
          it wasn’t filmed creatively, or that the actors weren’t great. Just not a tale I want to visit again.

          • Terence Ng

            “The ending, while it makes some story-line sense; doesn’t resolve this, or correct this hopeless despair for me. Was it supposed to ?”

            I think the answer here is “no”. I think people expect that critiques of these issues are identifiable ONLY IF they rectify the horror of what they show. But that’s not true. Sometimes successful critiques allow the irony of the horror unchallenged to BE the criticism, such as “A Modest Proposal”.Essentially, I think Snyder took the giddy masses who wanted a “Magical Girl” nerd fantasy genre film, gave them this, where the girls are sexy, but horrifically brutalized and asks them, “This is what you wanted, right? Because this is what these false empowerment narratives actually are. Are you okay with that?”

            Some people were looking for an outright and official condemnation in the film which would prove that it was actually a feminist film, but the film isn’t trying to do that by showing these atrocities being rectified. It’s not trying to correct your hopeless despair. It’s trying to demonstrate why this subject matter is flawed BECAUSE of the hopeless despair it induces. This kind of mindless sexism and objectification shouldn’t be celebrated. It should be disturbing. It’s a precarious line to walk, because if you don’t do it right, all you get is a work where it looks like you’re supporting what you’re really trying to show as barbaric. 

            I think that’s what happened here. I can only believe that it’s doing this because of the way the film turned out: the falsely empowered heroines fail, the oh-so-erotic scene never appears, and the one character who objects to sexism and male gaze lives. If the movie was trying to be another piece of erotic pop, I think Baby Doll would have escaped, all while the film showed how sexy she could be, and wouldn’t have called out these things as sexist, because that’s what false empowerment does; it constructs the false idea that the heroine’s sexual appeal to male gaze is key to her success or even her entire being.

        • readdiefreddie

          I guess I just don’t see enough balance between “displaying” and “critiquing” (I’m putting those words in air quotes because they’re not the best word choices but I don’t know how else to describe it) in the film to see it as an actual critique of the status quo. It kind of felt like they made a movie of male wish fulfillment, and then after the fact, outside of the actual film, said, “No, see, everything we showed in the film is actually just an example of what’s wrong!”, as if the film was supposed to be Figure 1: This is What’s Wrong from their paper on the subject, not the paper itself.

          Yes, there is the dissenting character in Sweet Pea, who does declare the act to not be sexy. But that’s one single line from one single voice amidst the rest of the script that is all “sexy male fantasy.” I guess what I’m saying is, to me, mentioning one time that this is wrong is not enough to really convince me that everything else being done is a critique rather than just having your cake and eating it too.

          I had nothing against the brothel fantasy. It was a fairly accurate analogy for what was going on for Baby Doll in reality, and things switched over to it nicely. I guess I could even entertain the notion that the battle fantasy is a wonderfully meta commentary of how even when a woman escapes to somewhere that is completely hers and she is powerful and in charge, it’s still ultimately servicing men. That’s great and all, but where do they demonstrate that this film is critiquing it? All I see are action sequences that would look right at home in a video game intended for males aged 18-25. Lift them out as they are, place them in a video game, and the audience would enjoy it as sexy ladies fighting sexily. No commentary. No critique.

          I also don’t buy your argument that showcasing scantily-clad women fighting giant robots instead of showcasing scantily-clad women dancing erotically demonstrates how the film departs from the false-female-empowerment-that-is-actually-just-male-wish-fulfillment. The scantily-clad fighting? Just another example of male wish fulfillment. In fact, this one allows them to target an even broader range of heterosexual males, since the brothel targets the general het male population, and then the video game fantasy singles out the gamer het male population.

          I did like the part of the film where everything went to shit and “reality” came smacking back down. It was a nice jolt out of the smooth sailing that had been going on in the fantasy-within-a-fantasy land. What bothers me is when Baby Doll gives up her protagonist role for Sweet Pea. It seems nice enough, and lots of movies take that route of realizing you’re not the one, and sacrificing yourself so that one who will make the most of their freedom gets to be the one person to make it out alive……

          ….but Sweet Pea doesn’t actually exist. The actual reality is Baby Doll in the asylum, getting a lobotomy. Sweet Pea never really goes free because Sweet Pea isn’t actually real. Baby Doll isn’t the just the protagonist of reality, she’s the only actual character. So letting Sweet Pea escape doesn’t sit well with me. What are they trying to say here? Reality is inevitable, so just go away inside your head and imagine you can be free when you actually aren’t? 

          Basically, I don’t see enough critique in this film to see it as a critique rather than more of the same. This film is a critique of male wish fulfillment because it’s filled to the brim with male wish fulfillment with one dissenting character who becomes the protagonist in the last ten minutes of the film despite not even existing in the film’s reality? I feel like the writer/director had a good idea with what they were trying to do, but I feel like they didn’t execute it well enough and maybe got a little caught up in showcasing the male wish fulfillment that they didn’t supplement it enough with critiquing points. A good portion of the film was the girls going on mini-quests, and story-wise, they were utterly dull. They could have done one successful mini-quest and just as much movie progress would have been made. But they did so many little quests, and it dragged out further and further into Gratuitous Land and Critiquing Land became nothing more than a faraway memory. And then I take a great deal of issue with the fact that the alleged freedom payoff at the end was placed upon a character who isn’t real. I guess I wouldn’t be as bothered with that if the movie had set up more criticisms of the subject at hand.

          • Terence Ng

            Sweet Pea is real. All the girls in the brothel are the real girls Baby Doll encounters in the mental institution before she’s lobotomized. Sweet Pea’s escape at the end is her escape from the mental institution while Baby Doll gives herself up for lobotomization. So what Sweet Pea represents isn’t tantamount to nothing because she isn’t a figment of Baby Doll’s imagination; she’s a real girl at the asylum and her escape is real. The brothel scenario is just the lens through which Baby Doll escapes the reality she’s living in. It’s not all in her head, it’s just how she perceives the asylum, the doctor, the nurse, and the girls. We see that Rocket, Amber, and Blondie all die in the Brothel scenario, but we don’t know what actually happened to them in the asylum (though I suppose you could assume that lobotomy in real life = death in the fantasy). After the lobotomy, the film reveals that all the things in the brothel fantasy were things that actually happened. There was an actual fire started, an orderly was stabbed, and Baby Doll helped a girl escaped: “Sweet Pea”. 

            I think the missing dance is a way to frame what we see when we see the girls fighting in skimpy, erotic outfits. Again, the film doesn’t drag out the tropes of wish fulfillment and skewer them on screen. It frames the trope and then allows the trope to roll itself out for study. Just as with the “this isn’t sexy” floor show moment, it isn’t confronting the trope directly. All it does is say “keep this in mind with what you are about to see”. We’re told that the idea of sexualizing Baby Doll’s situation isn’t erotic and then we’re given her story in all its eroticised glory to watch and think about. We’re given a moment where a character is objectified and we know as an audience that it’s repugnant (Baby Doll and the girls are uncomfortably forced to do it and then Baby Doll has to “wish” herself away while it happens), and then we’re given a (different) objectification scenario to watch. The film is essentially like a lecture in a course on sexism where you’ve learned about the identifying tropes, and now you’re going to watch some material and use what you’ve learned to dissect it. Along the way, your professor has placed title cards with clues at each scene to tell you what you should look for. Those framing devices are the clues, and the scenarios are the material you’re supposed to dissect.

            Still, I think you’ve made very good points about the limited effectiveness (if any) of the critique itself. Definitely, if the film intended to be a meta critique, it doesn’t mean it necessarily did it well. To continue with the lecture analogy, the film is ineffective because it doesn’t spend enough time teaching you about the tropes in order for you to fully recognize them.  If it devoted more time to discussing these, instead of reducing them to one-liners and framing devices, it probably wouyld have worked much better, and the meta aspect would have been more clear. 

            Personally, I believe that it was a vicious meta critique, but one that wasn’t handled deftly enough to make a particularly satisfying and effective. If it was using the genre’s problems to straddle the line and show how problematic they are, it needed a bigger arrow to indicate it. All the groundwork is there, and you can see the intent (the criticism of sexualizing the story, the commentary about dancing, the missing dance) and the clues, but it wasn’t a clear enough meta commentary. Obviously, it was obscure enough that I didn’t notice it in my first watch.

            Given that Sweet Pea is revealed to be an actual person, and it was a major issue for why you had a lot of issues with the film, I’d be interested to know if that changes your opinion at all or if you have other issues with it. I think there are other problems with the film (it wasn’t very captivating i.e. boring to me, for one thing), but ultimately, if it IS a meta critique of sexism in the genre, which I believe that it is, it’s sad to see it being misunderstood and criticized as a reductively sexist work as opposed to being criticized for what I believe it actually is: a critique of sexism that just didn’t work the way it was supposed to.

          • guest2visits

            I think this movie has the ability to pinch some nerves; you can give it that anyway. It was
            abit notorious when it first debuted among gleeful gamers. Apparently; it’s heavier meaning
            and implications were lost, I think; in translation.  For me it was disappointing, because after
            all that misery; I expected it to deliver a meaningful gain for the protagonists.

            Instead; crushing defeat. As simplistic as it may be; when the director deprives the hero
            of a win, he deprives the viewers as well. As a result, the notoriety of the film was short-
            lived because it failed to convey that ‘underlying message of self determination’ or success
            by the women, who are ultimately destroyed. The lack of a victory was what killed the
            ‘message’, whether it was the director’s intention or not. Maybe thats one good thing about
            the film; people don’t want to see themselves (via the women) get pounded into nothing
            over and over again; so viewer-ship dwindles.
                 I do understand not every film is intended to have a ‘happy’ or satisfying ending; of course.
            And I wouldn’t change a frame of the director’s intention. This is their creation, their story,
            their perspective. Even Sucker Punch.  That being said; I don’t need to embrace the end
            product. I couldn’t take the movie seriously enough; partially because of it’s sci-fi/cgi
            packaging, and also; inspite of its subject matter,- it was too juvenile. It couldn’t overcome
            the gloriously-hip, sexualized girl-warriors that took no prisoners when tearing it down in
            fantasyland. The real world flip-side  also failed to transcend the grisly women-in-chains
            type of voyeurism; inspite of it’s horrific plot.
                 Does the movie have any value other than 2hrs of sometimes squeemish entertainment ?
            I don’t know that this kind of movie compels positive action or introspection about cruelty
            towards women. It has too much baiting it in the direction of the common graphic-novel
            exploitive. I think readdiefreddie has it right when pointing out this is more fantasy-fest,
            than constructive, meaningful storyline.
                 You clearly saw more in this movie than I would have; and I appreciate the very
            reasonable and considerate commentary.

          • readdiefreddie

            Sorry about the late reply. I appreciate having this conversation with you, by the way. You’ve explained things about this film better than I’ve seen anyone else explain it (and cleared a few things up for me!), and very graciously to boot. 

            Since we never actually met the brothel girls in reality (and I saw Sweet Pea’s ending scene as another fantasy – the treatment of the film, the old mentor, and the paradise sign all implied to me that it all took place either in the brothel or video game level), I interpreted them as all existing inside Baby Doll’s head. I guess I took the brothel fantasy too far into the fantasy aspect and interpreted everything in there as a metaphor for the asylum reality. That was a mistake on my part.

            I guess, then, I wish that we had seen the girls in the asylum level a bit, just to ground things. They did a good job of grounding things when they killed Rocket, Amber, and Blondie in the brothel, but they didn’t tie it back down to the true reality well enough in my opinion. And then I’m only really fussed about that because then it would make Sweet Pea’s scene less ambiguous about whether it was real or in Baby Doll’s head. Then again, I may be one of the few who saw things this way and it was just a misinterpretation on my part.Clarifying that Sweet Pea was real doesn’t really change my opinion much, though. It makes it a bit better in an optimistic ending sense, but then it makes it worse on an emotional connection sense since she is completely separate from Baby Doll. Sure, Baby Doll says something along the lines of how this isn’t her story, but it’s Sweet Pea’s – but you spent the last hour and half (or however long this film is) telling us Baby Doll’s story. We connect with her much more than Sweet Pea, so giving Sweet Pea the ending monologue loses me a bit.

            Storytelling aside, though, I guess I’m frustrated the most by the intent of the film compared to its actual effect. You can very easily watch this film in its entirety and appreciate for the veritable buffet table of heterosexual male fantasy. The audience has to look for the critique in order to receive it, rather than having the critique forced on them whether they like it or not. I don’t mean that I want the intended message to whack the audience over the head like a sledgehammer, but I want the audience to at least feel something other than “TITS!!!” during those scenes. Do something to make the audience squirm a bit, or feel uncomfortable in the midst of their fantasy fulfillment. Because man, you can have the best intentions and the most biting message, but it doesn’t make a damn difference if the general reaction from the public is the same thing that you’re trying to critique.

            What I’m trying to get at (and wording terribly) is that I feel that Snyder went too far into having his cake (meta-critique) and eating it too (LLLLLLADIES!). And yeah, I’m targeting Snyder because he’s a heterosexual male. (If a heterosexual female had made this exact same film…you know, I can’t even actually fathom that happening.) Put it this way: is there really any part of the film that would earn a smarmy YouTube comment along the lines of, “I find this difficult to masturbate to”? Aside from the death scenes and probably the opening sequence, not really. There’s just too much unmitigated gratuity, so it’s not surprising at all that so many interpret the film as a blatant fantasy-fest.

          • Ruminum

            No problem. I really liked discussing this with you, too. I think your criticism is totally valid. If it IS a critique, then it needs to make the problem more clear. It can’t just key into the audience taking on the role of boob-demanders; it has to then make the audience realize that they were demanding boobs. Interestingly, the retrospective review that I read that shed the movie in a new light for me (you can read it here alternatetakes.co.uk/?2011,5,299) mentioned the Youtube-esque comments, pointing out that many official reviews called the film frustratingly “unsexy”, demanding to know why the hottest moment was never seen, or, summarized in one such Youtube comment, “Where are the boobs?” during the Missing Dance sequences.

            Thanks for hashing this out with me! I still view it in a positive light, but I think you gave me a lot of tempering for why it just isn’t successful (possibly in the least) at what it may have set out to discuss.

            Great point about having your meta-cake and eating it, too, btw. :)

          • Terence Ng

            Thanks! I really appreciated discussing this with you, and I think you made a lot of great points (and not at all worded terribly) about why it may not have been a successful critique. The “meta-cake and eating it, too” is a great point, btw.

            I think there were a lot of reviews that criticized the film as a supposedly sexy film that managed to be entirely unsexy. A few reviews I read criticized the Missing Dance and lack of anticipated nudity. In fact, quite a few stated that the lack of nudity and gratuitous sex was a huge problem. Perhaps Snyder was more reserved for the boob-hungry, heterosexual, male audience, but well over the line for viewers who are already keen on objectification and sexism tropes in the genre? In the original review I read that discussed the meta concept (Alternate Takes’ “Questioning ‘Empowerment’: The Reception and Feminism of Sucker Punch” written by James MacDowell, which I definitely recommend. Snyder’s own statements about the film mentioned in the review are quite interesting, and made me potentially like him more than I did after watching 300) pointed out that it could be summarized by a Youtube commenter’s criticism of “How are you going to put all these hot girls into one movie, aimed at a male fan-base, and not show a little bit of boob?!”

            Still, I think you’re absolutely spot on that a critique like this needed to either push it way high enough for the audience to SEE that it was embodying/demanding the sexism and objectification it should despise or feel uncomfortable about, or it needed to point it out more clearly so the audience understood it.

  • guest2visits

    Well; unless it’s a retro-style bathing suit, - I absolutely hate it. Cheap as can be. Child-hooker.  

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2P2ANLRZ6YAVGONA36I2AQJYGI VicD

      Thank god! FINALLY!  I thought I was all alone in my dislike of this get-up.

      • guest2visits

        Yeah; terms like ‘cute and adorable’ don’t really apply here.  She’s 20. Not 12.
        I don’t even think she was aiming for cute.  
        I thought the garment itself was poorly made; not a quality ‘designer’ piece.  Kind of wretched, actually.
        Rompers are a lousy idea from any perspective.  But hey; if your objective is attention….

    • MissAnnieRN

      Ummm…..I can’t believe that the TLo abides!  I totally agree with you!!!  

  • Beth G

    Any outfit that requires you to fully undress to pee is not a winner in my eyes.

  • Pants_are_a_must

    The pants portion of this pantsuit seems a bit too crotchtacular for me. Just an inch or two lower and I wouldn’t have to instinctively wonder if she’s wearing underwear.

  • giiiirrrr

    Cute.  Cuter with brown boots, but that’s soooo Coachella 2012…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3KCDEX4FOTCFHZP6WLKSOOKUVM Danielle

    Totally cute on Miley.  On model it just looks skanky.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/Space_Kitty Space Kitty

    She always looks like she got dressed before anyone told her where she was going.  I mean, she looks adorable here (she usually does when she dresses her age) but this is so not leaving Pilates wear. Even in LA.

  • gubblebumm

    i hate skulls…sorry…just hate them…god i wish they would just go away already

  • http://twitter.com/yessveee Sarah Veenstra

    I don’t *want* to like it, out of knee-jerk throwing up in my mouth a little every time I see her mug or hear her mentioned….but ffs, I love this.

  • j_anson

    Damn, “looks better in that than the model” is not something I ever expected to say about Miley Cyrus.

  • Judy_J

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but she looks cute and totally age-appropriate.  Maybe there’s hope for her yet!

  • http://twitter.com/A_SmallFry AC

    This is super cute. Love the outfit, love the boots!

  • http://twitter.com/aStudiobytheSea a Studio by the Sea

    Cute and appropriate.  Actually makes her look leggy, when all the other photos of her shows her to be a muppet.

  • Warmheartedgirl Seattle

    Cute little outfit for a young girl like her.  She looks good, and I don’t ever remember saying that before!

  • Judy_S

    I’m not a fan of skulls on children’s clothing…

  • formerlyAnon

    The boots make it, to my eye. Otherwise it’d look either too high school or trying too hard. But that’s probably just me.

  • http://twitter.com/malaulau Madeleine La

    She looks great!

  • StelledelMare

    For once she looks good although I wish the skulls were lined up evenly. And I love Sucker Punch

  • Anathema_Device

    Betsey Johnson and Miley are a pretty good match. I generally dislike rompers, but I do like this on her.  I did enough of the Dr. Martens with babydoll dresses in the ’90s to not criticize her shoe choice.

  • janetjb

    She looks adorable as one can wearing a skull covered romper.  I love the boots on her.

    If this were an in or out I’d give her an IN!

  • Wrenaria

    I want those boots. So cute.  She looks great.

  • bellafigura1

    Perfection.

  • holdmewhileimnaked

    if i were her age i would wear the same damned thing. only w/ multicolor hair. which i wear even when i’m not her age. i think she looks great. as a very strange aside, i think i like her a bit better than a lot of people do. which doesnt make sense, but is true. she has a real lack of pretentiousness [dont laugh] that a lot of her contemporaries, um, lack.

  • erinbinek

    Ug.  Sucker Punch is pretty much the worst movie I’ve seen in the last ten years.  So sorry for you.  But Miley looks cute, so that’s good.

  • Annabelle Archer

    It is one of those looks that really no one else could rock, but several will likely try and fail at this summer. 

  • Susan Crawford

    I never thought I would say this – but Miley Cyrus looks cute as a button in her Betsey romper. Phew.

    Now I have to have a slug of gin and lie down for a little while.

  • quiltrx

    Digging this, WITH the boots.  Wish it wasn’t a romper, but I do love a good skull print (and black/white, which goes without saying!

  • LambeeBaby

    The whole thing works for her in a “young rocker way”. I this much better than the Bea Arthur or dirty slut look (ala Christina).

  • PeaceBang

    MMMMM HMMM! Right on, TLo.

  • unbornfawn

    I also like the changes in the bottom on the one Miley is wearing. More like shorts rather than granny panties.

  • http://annequichante.wordpress.com/ Anne

    Ooh, cool!  And I think it looks much better on her than on the model–one of the times when being shorter helps!  The way it looks on the model, I don’t think I’d want to wear this in public…

  • bluefish

    Betsey Johnson — adore her.  Read a description of her house/life in Mexico years ago — her routines, etc., while living there — and was green with envy.  Fantastic little romper — bet Mondo would love to work with that fabric.

  • kmk05

    TLo, can I just say: you enable me. I mgiht have tracked down the only European Betsey Johnson store, went in to try this on and walked out with it -.-

  • mslewis

    I like that she isn’t wearing it too short, like the model.  She looks really good except I don’t understand why the skull heads aren’t matching up at the seams in her outfit the way they are on the model. (A particular hate I have is designs not matching at the seams.  Looks cheap.)  Anyway, I like Miley.

  • eight_of_nine

    Usually I hate rompers, but this is really cute.  I love the combat boots with it, too.

  • Patricia Gillett

    This is a cute look for her and if I had those legs, I’d rock it too. Now, honey, about that hair color…

  • Patricia Gillett

    This is a cute look for her and if I had those legs, I’d rock it too. Now, honey, about that hair color…

  • paintbynumerals

    I have this romper and I think it’s precious. The pattern on mine is lined up so much better than this one but it makes my legs look fantastic!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/A33UHNU2ODEJJALZDGGUAJCVYA Chad

      look on that man as happy, who, when there is question of success, looks into his work for a reply.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mary-Stone/100001328135240 Mary Stone

    The mismatched skullies print is making my eyelids twitch, but otherwise not bad at all…

  • Truthiness2U

    Well, I’m a sucker for skulls as a motif. It’s a holdover from my punk youth. So yeah, I really like this outfit, and I like the contrasting skull prints of white skulls on black w/trim of black skulls on white. 

    I think the boots are a great choice with this outfit. Though again, this may be informed by punk past, so  I like combat boots in general. Though I like that her’s is longer than the runway model, it’s still much  too short for me to ever consider wearing. But I don’t consider it too slutty, so it avoids the hooker wear look so popular with some young women these day. So yeah, not for me overall, but I like this look. 

  • http://twitter.com/ennisamy Amy Ennis

    So cute! Love it. 

  • margaret meyers

    A skull-covered romper with Clockwork Orange boots.  What’s not to like?

  • H3ff

    Girl is looking long and lean.

  • http://twitter.com/la_panique Panic

    Does anyone know how Betsy is getting away with using the McQueen skull print?  These are his EXACT skulls.  http://festo.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/skull-scarf.jpg

  • fursa_saida

    Looks infinitely better on her than on the model. Will wonders never cease.

  • LilyPad

    NO

  • MKchat

    Please.  Please.  I beg you–  please.  Someone please tell me– WHO MADE THOSE BOOTS!!!!!    must…. have…  pleeeaase…

  • SEAN

    Miley is a wonderful person Let Her Be what she wants to do she,s Beautiful inside and out