Talk:Jenny Agutter/Archive 2

Page archiving and mediation
I removed the page archiving as the traffic here has slowed down considerably in recent months and it no longer seems necessary. If the page starts to grow big again it can be archived manually. i've also removed the mediation template as that issue appears to have been resolved. Paul Largo (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Significance of nudity in Jenny Agutter's career
I want to go back to the following sentence which is present in the current version:
 * She would later appear naked in other films, the most notable examples being Logan's Run (1976), Equus (1977) and An American Werewolf in London (1981)

The significance of nude appearance over an actor's career is not obvious to me. An actor will wear costume or not as and when the role requires. Is there some particular reason why Jenny Agutter's nudity in a number of films should be considered significant to her career? If so then I should expect that we can find a reliable source to say that it is. --TS 22:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it the line does seem a bit tagged on and not integrated into the article. I've found a couple of newspaper articles about her (The Guardian  and The Independent ) that refer to her nude scenes in some of her films.  They address it through the impact on her career and her popularity.  The Wiki article could take a similar approach rather than just listing the films, but we have to be careful not to ignore the outcome of the dispute resolution.  Some editors obviously felt that the nudity is worthy of mention, and the newspaper articles seem to validate that view.  I think the reason for this is that she was a child actress and many fans grew up with her so her nude scenes created quite a stir at the time.  The validation for mentioning them is down to impact - some actresses have shown more but it never caused any impact.  You read any article about Agutter and the nudity inevitably comes up.  If you've got any suggestions on how to phrase it we better get it right on this page first and see if anyone has any objections, because I'm reluctant to just dive in and change anything that could set off the arguing again. If we come up with something then I will notify the editors in the dispute and see if they're ok with the changes. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Gareth McLean in the Guardian, 2002 is referring to the propensity of men of a certain age to fantasize about Jenny Agutter. And why not? She is very beautiful and for many men she may have been the first female teenager they saw, as teenaged virgins themselves, in the nude. Agutter herself summarises it well in McLean's piece, to quote:


 * "It's flattering and terribly sweet," she smiles when I relate the feelings she inspires. "But, in truth, it's nothing to do with me. An American Werewolf in London has come out again and again as have The Railway Children and Walkabout. Most people see The Railway Children with their families as children and in Roberta is the perfect sister/friend, a good egg who's struggling to keep things together. When you're in that frame of innocence, you admire that. Alongside that is Walkabout, which is about loss of innocence. Anyone who has seen that film, and is touched by it, relates it to their own experience. And then you've got his young woman in a uniform in American Werewolf. By virtue of the fact that time is compacted because you can see them altogether, I think they are perfect fantasy fodder. I guess if you take a young man with a good imagination..." She smiles benevolently. "Also, I am happy about them as pieces of work - I think they were all good films and none of them have adversely affected my ability to get parts since."

Looking at the Independent piece, by John Crace in 1997, he specifically writes:


 * And how come we can all overlook her many nude scenes - Walkabout, Equus and An American Werewolf in London come instantly to mind - and still think of her as that nice Jenny Agutter? I mean, some actresses only have to flash their boobs once to get branded as some kind of screen tart.

And yet here we are on Wikipedia, it seems to me, branding her as a screen tart.

If we really are going to write about the significance of nudity in Jenny Agutter's career (and I don't see why we should really), we should give it some kind of context. Both of those articles provide such context, and it is missing from our current article which simply flops the bald statement of her nudity down. When Laurence Olivier used blackface makeup in Othello there was a cultural context and that context is explained in the article. If Jenny Agutter's hardly-surprising nudity has a similar context, other than her prettiness and the attractive, sexually active women she tended to play as a young actress, we should cover it. Even if it's just that she was once young and pretty and men still remember her for those roles, we should say something about why that is so. Otherwise we're just making a mountain out of a molehill. --TS 01:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the article is just documenting the films she has appeared nude in, much like the aforementioned newspaper articles. I don't see any moral judgements, just statements of fact. The Walkabout nudity is covered well, but the rest "she appeared nude in this and that etc" is a bit crass.  However, the consensus (on Wikipedia and in the popular press) seems to be that nudity has played a part in her career and her popularity but I agree with you it could be phrased and contextualised better. I will try to come up with something later on.  Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --TS 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just seen this discussion and thought I should add my thoughts on the matter. I became involved in the dispute over the nudity section last October. Parts of the section seemed very distasteful to me (eg, you can see her labia in one part of the film, etc), but I tried to incorporate the best of the information into the main body of the article. This was met with rigid opposition, however, and I later discovered that the accounts supporting the section's inclusion were mostly sockpuppets of one user (see this checkuser report). Another user has since managed a compromise. I feel that if it is important to include information on her nude appearances it should be done in good taste and, as has been said, not portray her as a screen tart. I'd urge anyone who's looking at this section, however, to be vigilant. I ended up being stalked and harassed by the person who added the section, who balked at being unmasked as a sockmaster and went on to use a number of accounts and proxy ip addresses to evade blocks, causing a great deal of disruption. It only ended after the compromise was reached. I wouldn't like to be harrassed in that way again, so please be careful. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the dispute, so I'm aware of de-stabilising the section. I'll get the ok for any alterations here first. I think there is enough verfiable information about to leave the section more or less intact but make it a bit less salacious. Betty Logan (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel that given the brevity of the article, almost any concentration on this tiny aspect of Agutter's career is going to fall afoul of our neutral point of view policy, particularly on undue weight. However if nudity is mentioned at all it should have some context. I think Agutter's own words, which I quoted above, supply that context very well. --TS 22:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is my first stab at it:


 * Agutter enjoys an unusual and enduring popularity among the generation of men who grew up watching her films, first as a child actress and then as an adult. She puts this down to the fact that having grown up with the films, audiences have come to relate to her characters through their own personal experiences.  She believes that the innocence of the characters she played in her earlier films combine with the costumes and nudity in some of her later adult roles such as Logan's Run, Equus and An American Werewolf in London as "perfect fantasy fodder".  Since returning to the UK, Agutter's work has been mostly limited to theatre and UK television, and she recently appeared in ITV drama Monday Monday.

I though maybe we could scrap the line about her further nude roles, and insert this as the last paragraph in the career section. Since it provides more of a summary of her career and its appeal it would be better coming at the end. We can stick in the newspaper references too to make it legit. I'm no Dickens but I think it's better than what it was. Feel free to make any suggestions/criticisms. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that should work with the two references you provided. Better than what we had, which amounts to "pssst! you can see her get her kit off in films X and Y." --TS 04:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed some of the prurient stuff that seemed to be sourced from a website called "Mr Skin", and replaced it with a new section based on your draft above. I thought the latter part of your draft seemed to restate facts already mentioned so I omitted it.  I've also tweaked the wording for grammar. --TS 00:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the Walkabout section because i) it is sourced and ii) there was no consensus to remove this. I think the Walkabout section was quite informative, especially with Jenny's thoughts and reaction to it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That ends my involvement with this article. --TS 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I go away for a few weeks and all this business starts up again, but thankfully with a more agreeable conclusion. Good work on the paragraph. It reads very well and I think it takes a sensible approach. I've made one or two adjustments to the Walkabout information so that flows more smoothly. It would be good if we could find a free source for the information rather than a subscription site. I might see what I can do about this. Paul Largo (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you did a terrific job of resolving it the last time. Since a consensus was agreed on this section I did have my doubts about re-writing it but it seems to be stable. If it becomes unstable because of them then I have no problem with you reversing my edits.  I agree a free site would be better than a subscription website if it is possible to find one. Betty Logan (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Autograph hunters, fan pages, etc
Our External links guideline (WP:EL) is fairly strict. I've twice removed a link to a page that appears to be maintained by a fellow who visits celebrities and has himself photographed with them. Very exciting for him, but not really suitable for an encyclopedia. --TS 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)