Over the past year, year-and-a-half, I’ve noticed something about Emily Ratajkowski: she comes out for the opening of an envelope. She’s always hitting up events in LA in particular, although she’s not above traveling to Las Vegas or NYC to walk a red carpet. It started happening around the same time that Gone Girl was released, and Emily was trying to make a bigger transition into acting. The idea is probably “get out there, be seen, network with the right people!” Which is probably what a lot of agents and publicists tell their younger clients to do. But for some reason, Star Magazine is picking on Emily for being thirsty as hell.
A friend of Emily Ratajkowski reveals to Star that ever since her minor role in Gone Girl, the model has been trying to barge her way into Hollywood’s inner circles.
“Emily goes to every opening and party – she’s out all day and night,” says a source. “Becoming more famous is all she cares about, and the only time you ever hear from her is if she wants a favor.”
But A-listers can smell a stage-5 clinger a mile away.
“She needs to be careful because she’s starting to rub her serious contacts the wrong way,” warns the spy, who reveals that Emily’s topless selfie with Kim Kardashian had less to do with promoting body positivity and more to do with promoting herself.
“People saw right through it and called her out, but Emily doesn’t care. She believe a huge part of getting noticed, but her overexposure is starting to come across as desperate.”
[From Star Magazine, print edition]
Here’s the thing: if Emily simply wanted attention, she could easily get it with very little effort. She would just need to take on more modeling work, specifically more modeling work that would involve taking off her clothes. My guess is that she’s spent the last 18 months turning down offers to pose for more men’s magazines, bikini-themed shoots and lingerie-modeling. And she’s always been pretty clear about why: she’s comfortable with her body, but she’s not just going to get her boobs out all the time. She wants to be an actress, and this is the way to network in Hollywood: attending lots of events, getting your name out there, making sure people know you’re available for work. As for the Kim Kardashian thing… considering I felt the same way as Emily, I guess I don’t understand the shade for that either.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.
I could’ve sworn I’ve seen her naked in photo shoots recently..
Didn’t she take a nude selfie with Kim? I thought I saw headlines about that.
Famehoing 101: Hitch Your Wagon to a Kardashian.
I think she’s not doing modeling work because she desperately wants to be taken seriously as an actress.
(sorry it’s hard to write that without giggling)
Yes. The reason I gave a side-eye to her Kim K support was because it was so obviously a ploy for publicity. Say what you want, but more Instagram peeps saw her photo on Kim K’s page than have seen her in years. If ever. She’s not stupid, but she is thirsty.
But, but “empowerment”!
Well, at first glance of her head shot, I thought it WAS one of the Kardashians…
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a photo shoot of her where she had clothes on.
Her site is all nudes, her video w/ Pharell was a full nude, I simply don’t think she has the talent or meaty roles don’t go to girls who give it all away. Hate when people think were throwing shade if we say put some clothes on, there is one reason she n Kim do it, ATTENTION
She looks like a Kardashian — maybe being a fame-ho is just her nature?
I thought it was Kim on the thumbnail.
Kut price Kardashian – pretty but bargain basement.
This “source” sounds like they have a personal beef with Emily and is probably close with someone who works at Star. Why else would Star print such a story? Unless there is a major scandal coming up and Star is just firing the first shot…..
Yeah exactly! This sounds kinda personal. She’s networking to get jobs, that’s hardly something to snark on.
Since my first response at reading the headline was “Who?”, I think Star is overplaying this one.
Same
No shit Sherlock.
But that’s the way it works. These starlets can’t use talent to get ahead, because they have none, so they hustle. You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do. I don’t think she’s more exposed than others in her famowhore bracket.
She’s using the opportunities she has. The problem is that she herself comes across as grating.
She grates for sure.
Is that second outfit even a dress?
As some poster said in another post she’s Thirsty of the parch.
so. thirsty.
so. desperate.
so. annoying.
I do think she’s thirsty and she’s booking jobs because (insert reason that I don’t get here). I don’t see acting talent whatsoever. And this is why I completely disagree when people complain about some actresses like Blake Lively, but then are all apologetic to this girl.
But maybe I’m biased, I can admit that I never liked her. In case it’s not clear.
Same.
so far she’s stayed in her lane, which is supporting roles as ‘the hot chick’ because she doesn’t have the talent to do anything else.
but if she picked up some big PR guns and started trying to front like she was at leading lady status/it was just a matter of time, the exact same people who tore Lively a new one for pap-calling and famewhoring would go after Ratatouille too.
I think with Emily some people want to defend her because they either feel sorry for her or they are attracted to her.
Blake overdid the publicity, but she can be tolerable when surrounded by more talented actors. She is lucky that Leighton carried her on Gossip Girl for all those years.
Emily is just cringeworthy in everything she does. Then she tries to sound intelligent in interviews, but ends up sounding coached,
GG is nobody’s best acting reference, tbh, and Blake, I give her credit for sisterhood of traveling pants (not a serious movie but it was cute), and Adaline, I really thought she was good in that movie. And I find her likeable.
I agree with you, some people side with Emily because of that mess of a video with Robin thicke, she used that whole mess very well in her favor, and the beautiful boobs. Her vapid, empty stare just irks me. I can’t with this girl.
I can see trying to network and get yourself out there, and taking advantage of the publicity from a small role, but something about her does strike me as terribly desperate for attention.
What I don’t get- was she acting bef the Blurred Lines video? If no, then why the sudden-“yes acting- how hard can it be?”. There’s $$$ to be made from doing what she was doing, so why quit? I honestly can’t remember a single scenes she was in from GG. She does need to drop the make-up
person from the header photo- that is a horror show.
The character was more prominent in the book and I’m curious if they at least blocked the scenes but she just couldn’t do it right.
She got the job in GG because Ben Affleck wanted to make out with her boobs in that one scene. No seriously, he randomly suggested her for that role. And then you have to note that Lainey said he had confessed to his wife that he had hooked up with a brunette co-star and a few months after filming GG had ended, she had broken up with her boyfriend. 2+2 = … I’m convinced that at least a portion of those hacked naked pics were sent to Ben.
@ Steph and Felice-I remember the rumors too. I get Ben A possibly wanting to
spend quality time w/Emily’s “assets”, but he didn’t edit that film, so someone made the call to keep her scenes in the film. And those scenes(scene?) were totally forgettable. And agreed, that character played a much bigger role in the book. So that begs the question- why not stick with your money maker?
Honestly if they went with the book description and someone who could act, they should’ve gone with Alexandra Daddario.
So much defending going on over this nude KK selfie that I just do not get. Both of them posted it because they are thirsty way more than to promote body positivity, and this is proven by the fact that they keep bringing it up and defending themselves when the rest of us start to forget it happened (because they’re both always naked, what even is the big deal about this one photo?)
RE: Emily/KK selfie.
Two women known for being sexy and having huge boobs posing topless on IG isn’t any more about body positivity or feminism than a Maxim cover. Like, is the expectation that all the womenfolk should be rallying around these two brave women who dared to show the world their enormous, perfect breasts (AGAIN)?
Feminism. Yay.
But in all seriousness, let’s not pretend that this is the same as cancer survivors bearing their mastectomy scars or a seventy year old woman proudly displaying her less-than-perky boobs.
Emily and Kim represent the female ideal, thus them posing topless just perpetuates the status quo. It’s just the same ol’ same ol’. Nothing new, nothing revolutionary, and nothing to do with female body empowerment. I certainly don’t think they should be shamed for showing their bodies, but I think it’s disingenuous for them to try to cloak what is clearly a cheap ploy for attention under the guise of “body empowerment” or whatever.
We see through you, ladies, and nobody’s falling for that BS.
I agree Kitten. Very well said.
Not to mention, it was clearly intended for the male gaze. Like pretty much everything both of these women do.
I wish I could publish this to the entire world. So well said.
Thank you, Kitten! She should not have been shamed for it and I didn’t like what certain people said about her, but let’s not act like KK posted it out of anything other than thirst. Same with Emily.
Wonderfully said!
I couldn’t agree with you more.
I’m in total agreement.
To be fair, Emily R’s essay wasn’t just about body positivity, but about the policing of women’s modesty in general. A woman doesn’t have to have had a mastectomy or be older for that to apply to her because that’s something that applies to women in general. Emily definitely wants attention just like every last one of these celebrities do at some point. But her being an attention-seeker doesn’t make her point about being empowered by not listening to the ‘put some clothes on and present yourself THIS way as a woman”-police wrong. I might agree with your point about toplessness if someone like her going topless in a vid or photoshoot was treated the same way as Channing, Usher, or Justin going topless in a vid, concert, or photoshoot.
“But her being an attention-seeker doesn’t make her point about being empowered by not listening to the ‘put some clothes on and present yourself THIS way as a woman’-police wrong.”
It makes her message FAR less impactful. If she finds going topless empowering that’s great and if you read my comment, you would notice that I wasn’t telling her to put her clothes on. I was simply making the point that as women, we are BOMBARDED with images of beautiful women with large breasts and perfect bodies. It’s not empowering-it’s the standard and it’s been the standard since before Playboy. She’s part of that and it’s fine that she is. But like Playboy, her posing topless on IG doesn’t effectively send the message “don’t police women’s bodies” or “here’s an alternative to what society deems is the ideal female form”. It just comes across as incredibly self-serving and I resent that she tried to spin it as some sort of rallying cry for women.
“Most adolescent women are introduced to ‘sexy’ women through porn or Photoshopped images of celebrities. Is that the only example of a sexual woman we will provide to the young women of our culture?”
That’s straight from her essay.
How is she providing an alternate example of female sexuality again?
By being one of a million naked women dancing around fully clothed men in a music video that glorifies rape?
Or by posing topless with a reality TV star?
While I appreciate her message, I’m not sure she’s really the most effective messenger. It doesn’t mean she has to put on a Quiverfull outfit and hide her body or pretend that she hates sex, but surely the answer isn’t found in her posing topless, flipping off everyone on IG either.
They weren’t promoting body positivity. But they have the right to post whterver they want without people shaming them.
They have the right to post whatever they want and people have the right to react to it. It’s not shaming to not be impressed by a selfie and say so.
Absolutely, Neners, but people didn’t say they weren’t impressed by her selfie, people said she wasn’t a role model ( why would she be one), question her ability as a mother, questioned her value as a human being, etc. That’s shaming.
I mean, Kim’s not. Unless you need a role model on how to be famous with no actual talent. And people have been questioning all of those things separate from 1 selfie.
@Neners: There were also people saying that Emily, Kim, and others couldn’t be feminists because of it. Excluding people from whole political movements because of what they do with their bodies is definitely a form of shaming. Religion does it all the time. Just sayin’.
I honestly didn’t know who she was before the KK photo. But then again, I’m not really into going to movies and wait for them to come out on Netflix or some other provider.
Starting????
Also, does the photographer who took that Met shot hate her? It makes her look like a squatting, one legged stork.
LOL, “starting to.”
She doesn’t have any talent. Her body is her talent. And since the only other shortcut to fame and jobs is to date someone high-profile, she has to hustle and network, make sure that people don’t forget about her. Her current boyfriend is a nobody.
When your body is your talent and your boobs are fake, well ……
It has been obvious for a long time that Emily is extremely thirsty. Star isn’t giving any new information there. The problem for Emily is that her acting talent is nonexistent. So she needs to either get close to Kardashian or some other reality garbage because there is no other future in the business for her.
I havent seen Gone Girl yet, but I saw We Are Your Friends, the DJ movie with Zac Efron, and she is NOT GOOD. I usually dont care for that kind of thing. (Everybody isnt Meryll Streep.) But it bugged me for 2 hours. She was boring and wooden… and not charming at all. If she becomes a thing, I hope she improves and fast.
To be fair to her she has great PR if she manages to end up at the Met Ball on the strength of showing her boobs in a music video and showing her boobs in a two minute film appearances.
The Kartrashians had to wait years before they were invited and that was only because of Kanye.
Her PR team likely begged Anna Wintour’s assistant for a ticket. The Met Ball had quite a few nobodies this year.
Hm, this is really an interesting question. Besides Celebitchy I never see her covered anywhere. Nobody recognizes her from this music video. She only stays in my mind because I regularly read about her here.
Why *would* she be invited to the Met Gala? To up the sex level? Maybe to get a scandal (she might show too much skin and that might make people talk about the event?). If you think about it there is literally no reason to invite her. So strange.
I mean she’s a model and was in Sports Illustrated.
Maybe she should take the slow methodical approach, get parts in supportive roles. Be seen in movies, work on her skills and try to become a celebrity with a cause and use her name for something good. Instead of being naked and showing off her body she needs to have talent to back her up.
Then again she sees the kardashians specially Kim and thinks I only need to be naked to make it!
Whoah, she looks (especially in first pic) like alien Kim K. I’m going to skedaddle outta here quick like a bunny.
I bet 7 out of 10 laypeople wouldn’t be able to pick Emily Rideajetski (thank you Michael from DListed) from a lineup. How exactly is she overexposed? Taylor Swift is overexposed. Beyonce is overexposed. No one knows who this chick is.
Except that she’s an awful actress. She was in a movie with zac efron and she was so bad. All she kept doing was pouting her lips. Not on a natural my lips just fall that way; she’d talk, stop, and pout.
Girl’s just trying to make a living in an industry that chews pretty women like her up and spits them out.
Whenever I see her she reminds me of a frog—a busty, pretty, frog.
I don’t see this strategy working long term unless she learns to act. Until then she will be accused of being thirsty.
Tons of people go to every event they can but not everyone gets photographed every damn time. She is stunning. The camera loves her. I’m interested to see how she develops as an actress… Good for her for being proud of her body while pursuing another skill set. IMO it’s too early to say whether she’s a talented actress or not. Let’s not let jealousy get in the way. Let’s withhold judgment until she’s been in a few more complex roles.
You have a right to your opinion of course but the accusation of jealousy because she’s not everyone’s cup of tea is a stretch. We have no idea what anyone here looks like or who they are. I didn’t get jealousy from anyone. People love to accuse it to invalidate someone else’s opinion. This is a gossip site not a daily affirmation blog.
Ugh exactly. The *jelly h8ter* stuff is so tired.
Also, you can admire someone on a purely aesthetic level while also thinking that person is a toolshed. The two are not mutually-exclusive.
I think Emily’s breasts are amazing and of course I wouldn’t mind having a set like that, but that has ZERO to do with my opinion of her. Great boobs aren’t really a reason for me to like an actress.
I think Emily’s stunning too. She’s got time to work on her acting skills and whatever. I don’t see how Emily’s any less of a hustler than Kim K is. I’ve seen plenty of folks defending Kim’s hustling skills, even if they don’t like her. I’m not sure why the reaction to Emily is different. To me, they’re behaving in the same way.
Also her abs.
Eh, I have a bit of a soft spot for Em Rata. Her acting isn’t so good, but I loved her interview with Vogue and am obsessed with that funky loft she calls home. She seems fairly bright and interesting.
Idk, she’s doing the best she can and trying to hustle her 15-minutes of fame from “Blurred Lines” into a career.
So annoying – bet she turns up in Cannes
Sounds like someone is jealous.