TIME movies

Watch the New Hunger Games Trailer With Jennifer Lawrence

Katniss, played by Lawrence, is sent back to a devastated District 12

A new trailer for the next installment of the Hunger Games series shows Jennifer Lawrence alone and aghast as she wanders a bleak, destroyed world.

In the preview for The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, Katniss, played by Lawrence, is sent back to her native District 12 to see the horror wrought on it by the Capitol, the malicious central government of the Hunger Games universe. A Lorde track, “Yellow Flick Beat,” plays in the background.

In the short video, Plutarch Heavensbee, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, tells President Coin, played by Julianne Moore, that they must motivate Katniss by “making it personal for her” and letting “her see what the Capitol did to District 12.”

Meanwhile, Coin wonders if Katniss can “handle” fighting in the revolt against the government, after “the games destroyed her.”

“No one else can do this but her,” says Heavensbee, in the video.

TIME movies

Jennifer Lawrence Starred In a Movie, and You Can’t See It

Jennifer Lawrence
Actress Jennifer Lawrence poses for photographs during the photo call for the film Serena, as part of London Film Festival, at the Vue cinema in central London, Monday, Oct. 13, 2014. (Photo by Joel Ryan/Invision/AP) Joel Ryan—Joel Ryan/Invision/AP

What's the deal with Serena, the J-Law film that's been in the can for years?

A new Jennifer Lawrence movie, since her breakout in Winter’s Bone, means that fans should either get ready for an Oscar campaign (she won the prize for Silver Linings Playbook and was nominated for American Hustle) or for long lines at the multiplex (her two Hunger Games and two X-Men films have all been major hits). There’s no surer bet than casting Lawrence in your film. But apparently that wasn’t enough for the producers of Serena, the Lawrence movie whose long delay has been one of the great movie mysteries of the decade.

Serena, which stars Lawrence and Bradley Cooper, was shot in early 2012, before Lawrence and Cooper’s Silver Linings Playbook was released and before either of the pair were A-list fixtures. The movie is reportedly a drama about a femme fatale set against the backdrop of the North Carolina lumber industry during the Great Depression, and a difficult story to pin down: allegedly, director Susanne Bier was editing the film up until it was shopped to distributors in November 2013. At that point, the Hollywood Reporter printed that various production companies, including Fox Searchlight and the Weinstein Company, were interested in the movie, and that the Venice and Cannes Film Festivals “had reached out” about showing the film.

None of that happened; Magnolia Pictures, which bought the rights to the movie in the U.S., has not set a premiere date, and the film premiered at the relatively minor London Film Festival last night, where it got mixed reviews. Variety called the film “compellingly untidy” and “a far pricklier property than outward appearances might suggest,” while IndieWire called it a “moderately-sized trainwreck.” Even the relatively positive Variety review noted that despite the film’s upcoming U.K. release, it didn’t have completed credits.

The case of Serena is a peculiar one, and speaks in large part to how much Lawrence’s career has changed in the past few years. It’s difficult to imagine a movie with Lawrence attached getting made and left on the shelf for years today, because the project would be franchise fare or a safely awardable prestige drama. Lawrence has stayed remarkable as an actress, but, as someone with many people’s livelihoods riding on her, she may have become more risk-averse. A new Jennifer Lawrence movie, in 2014, wouldn’t require 18 months to get the editing just right, casting into question the whole endeavor. Its themes and setting would be amiably uncomplicated so as not to risk damaging a powerful brand. (Her next movie, her third with fast-working David O. Russell, is reportedly Joy, the story of the woman who invented the Miracle Mop.)

For what it’s worth, Jennifer Lawrence is terrific in the Serena trailer. It’s an alluring clip — especially for U.S. audiences, who have no sense of when they’ll be able to see the whole project.

 

 

TIME women

A Million Peeping Toms: When Hacking Is Also a Hate Crime

"Serena" Premiere - 58th BFI London Film Festival
Jennifer Lawrence attends the premiere for "Serena" during the 58th BFI London Film Festival at Vue West End on October 13, 2014 in London, England. Stuart C. Wilson—2014 Getty Images

Soraya Chemaly is a media critic and activist.

Technology isn’t just mirroring offline crimes but amplifying them in ways that qualitatively change their impact

In her first public statements about the theft and distribution of her private nude photographs, Jennifer Lawrence called the act “a sex crime.” There are differences of opinion about using those words to characterize what happened. What is not debatable however is that, of the reportedly more than 100 celebrities targeted in this episode involving Lawrence, the overwhelming majority have been women. So, why aren’t we seriously discussing this in terms of gender-based hate? That’s also a serious charge.

The nonconsensual distribution of intimate photos is similar to offline voyeurism in many ways. We call these voyeurs Peeping Toms, a classic linguistic minimization of a sex crime that, like revenge porn, is gendered. Peeping Thomasinas aren’t really a thing. (The crime is treated differently state by state. In some states, but not all, voyeurs must register as sex offenders. Revenge porn is a non-registry offense.)

“There is no principled way to argue that this is any less serious than voyeurism,” explains Mary Anne Franks, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law and Vice-President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. “There is no denying the blunt truth of [Lawrence’s] words: she alone has the right to control access to her naked body, and anyone who violates that right has committed a profound and inexcusable wrong. That means that laws against hacking are insufficient to address this violation.” Danielle Citron, author of Hate Crimes in Cyber Space, has also argued that these crimes clearly infringe on women’s civil rights.

However, what happens when there are millions of Peeping Toms? Given the scope and number of people who participated, and the time and effort the hackers took to gather the photographs and carefully plan their release, it’s clear that technology isn’t just mirroring offline crimes but amplifying them in ways that qualitatively change their impact and should prompt serious debate about gender-based hatred and bias crimes.

Federal hate crime legislation does not actually require that perpetrators of crimes express explicit hatred for the people they target. Instead, the salient information is that hate crimes are those in which a person is targeted because of, in this case, his or her gender. In addition, a “prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.” While men are also the victims of revenge porn, as with the threat that a serial rapist of women poses to a community, how can anyone doubt that girls and women experienced the theft and sharing of these photos, which overwhelming involved women, in ways that men did not?

This wasn’t a privately executed sex crime, but a public one infused with gender bias. As the systematic theft, accumulation and mass sharing of these photos shows, we live in a culture in which violations of women’s privacy are normalized, where harms to women are routinely trivialized, where our sexual objectification is the norm and where society resists legitimate and reasonable consideration of the role gender and status play in what happened. (There have been at least four waves of photo released, the last of which included the first man.)

It’s not just that photographs like Lawrence’s violated women’s rights to privacy and constituted theft, or that they might be considered pornographic or offensive. It’s that the perpetrators sought to attack the women, humiliate them, assault their dignity, and interfere with their lives and well being because they are women. Revenge porn is overwhelmingly perpetrated against women by men, and is rooted in displaying male dominance. There is nothing new in this type of female dehumanization. What’s new is its digitized and scalable industrialization. The attack on female celebrities sends a clear message that even the most admired and powerful women can be treated this way.

We have a national predisposition to downplay gender as consequential. This November marks the fifth anniversary of the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, in which sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability were finally added to federal hate crimes law.

The purpose of the 2009 act was largely to ensure that people have the chance to pursue justice if they feel that their state courts have failed. Only some states have hate crime statutes and, of those, a sub-segment include gender as a category for consideration. The battle to include gender at the federal level was long and hard fought. Either way, social recognition of gender-based hate, as post Elliot Rodger’s public discussions showed, remains controversial.

Bias and hate crime laws exists so that members of groups that were historically discriminated against know that the societies they live in support their equal right to live their lives, raise their children, travel in public, and pursue their work, free of fear and discrimination. They are a challenge to social norms that would perpetuate violence and subjugation, an old-fashioned word no one likes to use in the United States, on the basis of immutable characteristics. Like being female.

If there is one silver lining in this, it’s that the women who were targeted are not being stigmatized or punished and that the trajectory of traditional shame seems to be reversing in a way that accrues to the perpetrator, and not the victims, of these assaults.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME celebrities

Larry David Wishes He Were Young Enough to Date Jennifer Lawrence

File photo of actress Jennifer Lawrence arriving at the 2014 Vanity Fair Oscars Party in West Hollywood
Actress Jennifer Lawrence arrives at the 2014 Vanity Fair Oscars Party in West Hollywood, Calif. on March 2, 2014. Danny Moloshok—Reuters

“It’s a shame I’m about 40 years older than she is”

Jennifer Lawrence loves Larry David—she said so herself in her wide-ranging interview with Vanity Fair. But it looks like their love is not meant to be.

“I’m in love with him, and I have been for a really long time,” said Lawrence, 24. “I worship Woody Allen, but I don’t feel it below-the-belt the way I do for Larry David.”

David, 67, responded to her comments during an interview at the New Yorker Festival on Saturday, saying, “it’s a shame I’m about 40 years older than she is”

Regarding Lawrence’s “below-the-belt” feelings, David suggested perhaps the Oscar winner was referring “to her knees.”

“I don’t think I could do it,” David said. “On one hand it’s very flattering and on another hand, it’s kind of a shame—in terms of timing. I’d have fun watching the reality show of it, though.”

[Vanity Fair]

Read next: Jennifer Lawrence’s Breasts Aren’t Sending Mixed Messages

TIME Media

Jennifer Lawrence’s Breasts Aren’t Sending Mixed Messages

Vanity Fair Cover Jennifer Lawrence November 2014
Vanity Fair

Rachel Kramer Bussel is a New Jersey-based writer on sex, dating, books and pop culture.

The only way to see the actress' stolen nude photos and her 'Vanity Fair' ones as 'confusing' is to be confused about the nature of consent

In a controversial, much-criticized post Wednesday on LinkedIn Pulse, business writer Bruce Kasanoff derided Jennifer Lawrence for daring to do the unthinkable (to him): bare her breasts in Vanity Fair magazine. Originally titled “Why Jennifer Lawrence’s Breasts Confuse Me” and later changed to “Why Jennifer Lawrence Confuses Me,” Kasanoff’s piece was riddled with ill-considered and outmoded ways of thinking about bodies, nudity and ownership of our stories. Kasanoff deleted the inflammatory article Thursday, telling Time.com via email, “My intention is to help people, not upset them.”

“If someone outraged me by publishing naked photos of my body, I’m pretty certain my next move would NOT be to then pose semi-naked for a national magazine, especially with a cockatoo,” Kasanoff wrote. As a man, Kasanoff will never know what it’s like to be a woman whose nude photos were stolen and leaked for the entire world to see, nor the ways that violation affects her. Yes, male celebrities such as Nick Hogan, son of Hulk Hogan, have also had their nude photos leaked, which is problematic, but they are less likely to come under the kind of scrutiny Lawrence has. In Hogan’s case, for instance, most of the commentary has focused back on women, namely photos of his mother, which the New York Daily News deemed “worse” than his own nude images, and of photos he’d possibly taken of underage girls. Male nudity simply doesn’t cause the same moral panic that female nudity does.

From a young age, girls are taught that our bodies, by the very nature of existing, are and should be on display, primarily for men’s pleasure. We all navigate that landscape differently, but there’s no single right approach to take. Frankly, we’re damned if we do indulge in the male gaze and damned if we don’t. But what’s missing from that worldview is that there are other gazes–namely, our own. By choosing to gaze back, to be unashamed and proud, we can take back a little of that power that’s so often used to belittle and make women feel that we are only sexual objects. By making that proactive decision to strip down for a camera, we are the ones saying first that we’re sexual subjects.

Posing nude, or topless, can be part of our self-expression. Of course, it doesn’t have to be, which is exactly the point: I doubt a celebrity as powerful as Lawrence was in any way coerced into baring her breasts, which means she got to make the decision about who would see those photos (Vanity Fair readers). She didn’t with the nude photos taken in private. That point is made repeatedly clear by her statements about the leak, saying it was “against my will” and made her “feel like a piece of meat that’s being passed around for a profit.

Kasanoff’s piece tries to play both sides of the fence, such as when people claim it’s okay to wear anything we want, but we shouldn’t wear something too enticing lest we be assaulted.

On Twitter, journalist Felix Salmon made a similar point, contrasting Lawrence’s statement to Vanity Fair–“I don’t want to get mad, but at the same time I’m thinking, I didn’t tell you that you could look at my naked body”–with an image of her topless, entirely ignoring the context she so clearly provided. At the risk of being redundant, having private, personal nude photos stolen and published is the complete opposite of consenting and posing for nude photos intended to be published in a widely read national magazine. There’s nothing similar about them except the nudity. By choosing to pose nude with her head held high, literally and figuratively, she’s making it clear that it wasn’t her body being ogled she objected to per se, but instead the illegal, nonconsensual manner in which the stolen photos were obtained. Lawrence is being chastised for daring to say that she is okay with nudity when it’s on her terms, as if once her photos have been released without consent, she should lose that privilege forever. The implications of that idea are extremely disturbing. As Brooke Burchill writes, also at LinkedIn Pulse, “The discussion here isn’t whether or not she wants to be seen as sexual, it’s whether or not she is in control of her own sexuality and how it is portrayed by the media and consumed by the public.”

I’ve posed for nude photos, both for lovers and for publication. Does that mean that anyone anywhere has the right to use the private photos for any purpose they like? Of course not. Yet Kasanoff and numerous commenters seem to think that once any woman bares her body, whether in private or public, they are immediately branded with the modern equivalent of a scarlet letter and forfeit all right to control anything that happens with their images. Witness Vanity Fair commenter SJWarrio, who wrote, “if she didn’t want the photos online she could simply not have them taken, it’s not like it was a paparazzi case, on the leaked photos, she KNOWS that somebody is taking them, her naked, looking at the lens.” The crime, it would appear, is in taking off her clothes, in brazenly, openly owning her sexuality.

Kasanoff paid lip service to his declaration that “Lawrence has the right to do anything she wants,” but then undermined that right by saying she is sending “confusing signals” by posing topless. No, she’s not. She’s saying, “Don’t steal photos of me (or anyone else), and don’t look at stolen photos because they are available because a crime was committed.” She’s also saying the complementary but not contradictory, “Feel free to look at these photos I opted to pose for of my own free will.” The only way to see these two viewpoints as “confusing” is to be confused about the nature of consent. Lawrence herself makes this very clear in the article, saying, “I started to write an apology, but I don’t have anything to say I’m sorry for.” Exactly. Yet scolds seem to think she owes them an apology for having the audacity to publicly claim her right to both pose topless for a magazine and have her privacy respected and not illegally invaded.

Whatever Jennifer Lawrence decides to do with her breasts and the rest of her body, they still belong to her–even if she’s letting us look at them.

Rachel Kramer Bussel is a New Jersey-based writer on sex, dating, books and pop culture. She teaches erotic writing workshops, pens the Let’s Get It On column for Philadelphia City Paper and is the editor of over 50 erotica anthologies such as Hungry for More and The Big Book of Submission.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Opinion

How Nudity Became the New Normal

Vanity Fair Cover Jennifer Lawrence November 2014
Vanity Fair

Millennials have no problem with nakedness, as long as they're in control

In an interview for the November issue of Vanity Fair, Jennifer Lawrence finally revealed how it felt to have her nude photos hacked and distributed on the internet this summer. “Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offense,” she says. “I didn’t tell you that you could look at my naked body.”

“It’s my body, and it should be my choice, and the fact that it is not my choice is absolutely disgusting,” she continued.

The photos accompanying the Vanity Fair piece show Lawrence topless, in a swimming pool, wearing only a diamond necklace and holding a cockatoo. Lawrence is certainly not the first actress to sit for a tasteful topless shoot, but the difference between being hacked and choosing to pose for Vanity Fair says something about how millennials think about nudity. Nakedness isn’t about lack of clothing anymore– it’s about lack of control.

When it comes to our birthday suits, young people are more comfortable than ever with seeing and being seen. A 2014 Pew survey found that 44% of people aged 18-24 reported that they received sexts (which Pew defines as “sexually suggestive photos or videos”) while 15% reported sending one. That number is almost double the 2012 sexting rates, where only 26% of that age group reported receiving a sext. A study at Drexel University found that 28% of surveyed undergrads said they had sent photographic sexts while underage.

If these are the photos that young people admit to sending and receiving, imagine how many revealing photos are simply being taken. At this rate, 2028 presidential candidates won’t be trying to bury nude photos– they’ll be debating in nothing but red and blue ties.

Everywhere you look, naked is the new normal. Miley Cyrus’s mostly-naked 2013 “Wrecking Ball” video got over 700 million views on YouTube, and Robin Thicke’s 2013 hit video “Blurred Lines” was viewed over 300 million times despite objections to naked supermodels dancing on leashes. HBO has always been skin-friendly, but the last four years has seen an explosion of casual on-screen nudity everywhere from Brooklyn (in Girls) to Braavos (in Game of Thrones.) There’s even a reality show on VH1 called Dating Naked that features couples courting each other in the buff.

And from the ubiquitous shirtless selfie on Tinder to mayoral candidates’ “dick pics,” sexting works as a vehicle of instant intimacy in a world where genuine intimacy is harder than ever. “It’s our image, it’s not us,” explains sexuality educator Dr. Logan Levkoff. “We’re not engaging with someone face to face, so the perception is that we’re not vulnerable.”

In other words, nakedness can be an expression of strength, as long as you’re in control of the image. That’s the difference between Miley Cyrus’s Instagram of herself wearing ice cream-shaped pasties and Jennifer Lawrence’s selfies distributed against her will. It’s not the clothing that matters, it’s the context.

It’s the difference between posing nude and feeling naked. We use “naked” and “nude” like synonyms, but there have always been differences between bare bodies, even in art history. A naked figure is supposed to have clothes on, but doesn’t (like the naked woman surrounded by clothed men in Manet’s Luncheon on the Grass.) A nude figure doesn’t have to worry about pesky social conventions like pants, because it’s usually some kind of Classical or Biblical hero, like Michelangelo’s David.

The new nudity is even being used for political purposes in some contexts. Some people strip down to defy beauty standards, like the plus-size women who Instagram pictures of themselves in bikinis with the hashtag #fatkini. Others wear their birthday suits to protest censorship, like the Free the Nipple campaign. “We’re in a world where we fight so hard to talk about how how bodies come in all shapes in sizes,” says Dr. Levkoff. “So are there some girls that say ‘this is me, this is beautiful and I own it’ and post it online? Could be!”

But even kids who post nude selfies to prove how secure they are probably still bluffing, Dr. Levkoff says. “The majority of adolescents who are out there naked, its not because they’re necessarily comfortable, it’s because they want to show people they’re comfortable.” And when today’s teenagers are photoshopping out their stretch marks in 20 years… maybe the naked thing won’t be so much fun anymore.

When it comes to naked photos, technology acts as both a fig leaf and an vehicle of humiliation. On the one hand, a nude selfie gives the subject some control over the image—we can use filters, lighting, and specific angles to control how we’re represented. But what feels liberating and empowering at one moment can be mortifying when the photo gets into the wrong hands. And it’s not just risky for celebrities—nude selfies sent to jerk ex-boyfriends could be lurking anywhere on the internet, just waiting to crop up as soon as our future bosses Google our names.

Unless all our future bosses are also naked, holding a cockatoo.

TIME celebrities

Kim Kardashian Among Targets in Latest Alleged Nude-Photo Leak

Previously unseen photos of Jennifer Lawrence are also said to be included

Updated Sept. 21, 2:11 p.m. E.T.

Naked photos purportedly showing Kim Kardashian and other celebrities have been posted online in the second major theft and publication of stars’ private photos this past month.

Pictures said to be of Kardashian, Vanessa Hudgens, Hayden Panettiere, Mary-Kate Olsen, Hope Solo, Kaley Cuoco and Aubrey Plaza were posted on the site 4chan and quickly spread on Reddit on Saturday, the Daily Beast reports.

Previously unseen photos of Jennifer Lawrence are also said to be included in the latest batch. According to comments in the Reddit thread devoted to discussing the photos, the latest hacking may also include photos of underage Disney stars.

A rep for Kardashian declined to comment to multiple publications. Actress Gabrielle Union released a statement about the leak, calling whoever had leaked them “vultures.”

“I can’t help but to be reminded that since the dawn of time women and children, specifically women of color, have been victimized, and the power over their own bodies taken from them,” Union said in a statement with her husband Dwyane Wade, according to TMZ. “These atrocities against women and children continue worldwide.”

The actress’s legal team is contacting the FBI to investigate the theft and publication of the photos.

The theft comes a few weeks after photos of Lawrence, Kate Upton and close to 100 others were published online in August, just before Labor Day. A rep for Lawrence confirmed that the photos belonged to the actress and called them a “flagrant violation of privacy,” saying that “authorities [had] been contacted and will prosecute anyone who posts the stolen photos of Jennifer Lawrence.” A spokesperson for singer Ariana Grande, another a purported victim of the incident, said the photos were fake.

“I think it’s a wake-up call for people to make sure they have every privacy setting,” Kardashian said of the hacking during a radio interview earlier this month. “It seems like there are a lot of people that love to spend their time hacking people’s information, and that’s just a scary thing.”

TIME movies

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Trailer is Here

Real or not real? This is war.

The full trailer for The Hunger Games: Mockingjay–Part 1 is here.

It’s war between the districts and the Capitol, and the first installment in the last chapter of The Hunger Games trilogy is not shying away from showing the gory details. Fans get their first look at Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta as the mind-warped weapon of the Capitol. There’s also a sighting of Julianne Moore’s President Coin and Game of Thrones’ Natalie Dormer, who will play Cressida. The film’s focus is clearly the intensity of rebellion and war. Katniss, of course, continues to struggle with being the symbol of a revolution, telling Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Plutarch Heavensbee: “You will rescue Peeta at the earliest opportunity, or you will find another Mockingjay.”

The film is set to hit theaters Nov. 21. You can watch teaser trailers here and here.

TIME movies

Watch Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper Reunite in the Serena Trailer

Hey — it worked the last time!

Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper are starring in a movie together — again. After striking award-season gold in David O. Russell’s last two films, Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle (both were nominated for a host of Academy Awards; Lawrence won a best actress Oscar for the former), the two actors are playing a Depression-era couple in the upcoming Serena.

Based on a book by Ron Rash, the movie follows a couple whose timber empire comes into jeopardy when the wife, Serena, realizes she cannot bear children. Susanne Bier-directed pic is set to hit theaters on Nov. 27.

TIME celebrities

Jennifer Garner Jokes About ‘Sexy Polaroids’

Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Garner at the premiere of Men, Women & Children at the Toronto International Film Festival. Arthur Mola—Invision/AP

"That's what we do at the Affleck house!"

Here’s one way to keep your sexy photos from getting stolen and published all over the Internet: Take polaroids instead.

“That’s what we do at the Affleck house!” Jennifer Garner joked during a recent interview with Vanity Fair about her new drama, Men, Women & Children, which takes a look at the role technology plays in sex and intimacy today. “We have a stack of sexy polaroids.”

Garner’s “tip” comes in the wake of dozens of celebrities falling victim to their nude photos being leaked, the apparent result of a hacker infiltrating a backup storage service. And it’s pretty solid “advice,” too, even if she doesn’t really have those pictures — as a mom of three, she’s concerned about the risks that the Internet and social media pose to her kids.

“It makes you feel kind of sick to your stomach,” Garner said about the movie, in which she plays an overprotective mom who’s so concerned about her teenager’s online activity that she monitors all their digital communications. “With parenting, how I feel about it, and specifically my character I guess, you’re just trying to get it right. You’re trying to do right by your kids and you’re trying to protect them.”

[Vanity Fair]

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser