Sean Lennon Recreates Parents’ Legendary Photo
Posted by: Susannah Breslin
Filed in:
news
8:45AM, Friday September 4th 2009
In late 1980, hours before he was shot and killed, John Lennon posed with wife Yoko Ono for legendary photographer Annie Leibovitz. Lennon was naked and curled around his wife. After the Beatles star died, the image became an iconic Rolling Stone cover. Now, nearly 30 years later, their son, Sean Lennon, and his model-girlfriend Kemp Muhl recreated the infamous shot with provocative photographer Terry Richardson for the fall issue of Purple magazine. This time, Sean lies fully clothed as a nude Muhl spoons him. What do you think: beautiful homage or twisted facsimile? [Flavorwire]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
katethegreat
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:17 am: [report]
Twisted facsimile. Dislike.
shortandchic
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:23 am: [report]
Beautiful homage.
Squidtermz
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:23 am: [report]
FAIL - yer doing it wrong
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:26 am: [report]
@Squidtermz: It’s either “FAIL” OR “Yer doin it rong” not both.
Steph9668
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:32 am: [report]
Nope… don’t like.
writergirl
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:37 am: [report]
Sean looks beyond bored.
Keesh Mia
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:38 am: [report]
Sean needs to think about getting his OWN life and identity.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:39 am: [report]
Didn’t know they had a kid. Now I don’t care.
Riley
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:41 am: [report]
Homage to his father. I wouldn’t go as far as saying either is beautiful. The orginial wouldn’t have been so powerful if he had not been murdered in such a short time after posing for it.
People won’t like it because they’ll think it somehow diminishes the value of the original. The same song and dance for any “remake”, if you could call it that.
dirtyboots
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:48 am: [report]
I think the original is much more powerful, for all the reasons listed above, but mostly because John Lennon is nude, while Yoko is clothed. In that photo, the male is more vulnerable and that is not something we see much. A nude woman wrapped around a fully clothed man is not as provocative, we see that pretty often actually.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 08:51 am: [report]
@dirtyboots: But, but….boobies!
GreenAura
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 09:08 am: [report]
Nothing comes close to the original BUT since he is John’s son, it’s beautiful.
Pinky
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 09:21 am: [report]
cheap facsimile, attempt to get noticed.
Erin G
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 09:38 am: [report]
Cheap. It doesn’t express the same things.
pyromantic
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 09:58 am: [report]
The look on Sean’s face is a little too pervy for my liking.. also, fail.
raqueleza
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 10:23 am: [report]
Eh, it’s alright.
If she were wearing assless, high-waisted tricot leggings, it’d be an American Apparel ad.
SEMI-girl
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 11:19 am: [report]
The original was powerful because it reverses gender-stereotypes and is evocative. Lennon is vulnerable and literally clings to his wife, kissing her with eyes closed and complete submission, while she remains powerful and aloof. In the remake Lennon has a sexually aroused look on his face while his model girlfriend is posed for the camera, not interacting with his body. The original is all about powerful emotions while the remake is a perfect encapsulation of our objectification of the female form through beauty photography for the sake of male arousal. If I thought that was at all on purpose I might find the photo interesting, but compared the original the whole thing just seems like a sad waste of time.
bogart4017
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 12:49 pm: [report]
get yer own!!stop biting!
rsonnack
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 12:51 pm: [report]
couldn’t have said it better myself, semi-girl. i wonder why they chose to reverse the genders for the remake?
rsonnack
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 12:52 pm: [report]
besides, no one can lay a finger on annie leibovitz.
lawyrgrl
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 01:13 pm: [report]
@raqueleza LOL! Too true.
Coral
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 01:26 pm: [report]
I don’t like it because I have always disliked the original one.
Tetrine
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 01:39 pm: [report]
@SEMI… Well said. I agree totally.
seygra20
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 02:30 pm: [report]
cheap knockoff
heartofglass
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 05:21 pm: [report]
ehh, his parents did it better.
Justine
wrote on September 4 2009 @ 05:46 pm: [report]
They look drunk..
Lavanderism
wrote on September 6 2009 @ 06:43 am: [report]
Didn’t do it right. And does he looks super greasy to anyone else or is that just me?
chipclip
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 08:52 am: [report]
Agree with dirtyboots and others talking about the nudity. The image is provocative because Lennon was shot, but also because he is in the naked and vulnerable position. There is something extra vulnerable about the particular way Lennon is wrapping himself around/against his wife that the picture on the right doesn’t capture. The woman isn’t in a ball, isn’t pressed tightly against the man without an inch of space, etc. I guess not everyone can bend like that, but still.