UK Vogue October 2006 : Scarlett Johansson by Patrick Demarchelier

[Faith Akiyama]

^I think it's Guinevere van Seenus?

 

[sethii]

I have a subscription but I have not received this issue yet
Whats going on!?

Anyway it's the worst cover of vogue I have ever seen. Really really bad.

 

[tigerrouge]

Same here - as a subscriber, I was expecting this issue to arrive over the weekend, but nary a sign of it. If it's not sitting on my doorstep when I get home tonight, I will rage. I don't want to pass comment on the cover or the contents until I see it 'for real'.

 

[Manuva]

I only got my subscription copy today.

It's one of the worst Vogue's for awhile, at first glance not one editorial/article interests me.

 

[Alien Sex Friend]

review please???

 

[J'ador-DioR]

I flipped through it really quick and it' s even worse than the September issue

 

[ingvildel]

cos alexandra shulman is taking a leaf out of anna wintour's book, thinking that celebs sell better than models no matter how sucky the celeb cover looks.

it's such a shame they didn't lily on

That's so american to think such a thing I know, it's a shame

 

[miwa]

love Scarlett and dress, love the cover

 

[sabshine]

hey, is it too much to ask to get a high quality copy of the second page to the left in post #44 , the one which has de topshop yellow cape? down here in south america these vogues are soooo expensive ($60) and i really want to get the cape pic to copy it. ill apreciatte it very very very MUCHO.

 

[1karina1]

Scan request

Please could someone scan the Chanel ad featuring Anna Mouglalis?

 

[tigerrouge]

Subscription copy still not arrived. Rage! Suffering! Inability to comment on anything other than the cover!

In all my years of reading UK Vogue, they've always put celebs on the cover around 3-4 issues in the year, so for Scarlett to appear on this cover, I don't think it's a sign that Alexandra Shulman has started to go down the road of 'celebrity overload'. At the same time, even though I like the actress, I can't get excited about this cover. I feel it should work - a pretty girl, in a simple arrangement, in a modest dress, in one of the colours of the season - so where did things go wrong? For me, it's missing something, it just doesn't have the edge that a great cover should have, and that lurid pink writing cannot compensate for the lack of excitement in the image.

Or maybe I'm starting to have Scarlett-fatigue, because I am getting tired of her being salivated over as "the new Marilyn Monroe", a description which does a disservice to both the women involved.

 

[catherinea]

I don't have mine yet.

 

[truebluejen]

I don't have mine either

 

[delerith]

I'm also waiting my 1st-time-subscribtion-to-Vogue UK issue ever to arrive!

 

[iluvjeisa]

Or maybe I'm starting to have Scarlett-fatigue, because I am getting tired of her being salivated over as "the new Marilyn Monroe", a description which does a disservice to both the women involved.

But why? It's pretty obvious that Scarlett is one of the few representatives of the natural hour-glass figure, and, at the same time giving off a nice "lust for life" attitude, that's also pretty rare, again similar to Marilyn. So, why is it a disservice and how?

That said, it's clear that Scarlett doesn't seem as interesting, captivating or brilliant as MM, nor does she seem as troubled, but overall she does come pretty close. Closer than anyone else the last 20 years.

The cover isn't that bad, but it doesn't really work. It's probably the pink font that really makes it weird. And perhaps that wide smile doesn't go so well with the moody grey dress. Although it's a gorgeous dress that suits her very well as far as the cut goes. I can't put my finger on it, but it's just a little bit off.

 

[tigerrouge]

I don't like it when she's described as 'the new Marilyn Monroe' because for me that's a sign that in her media portrayals, she's starting to get reduced to some one-dimensional figure of womanhood, who can be disposed of as soon as her lips start to droop at the age of 28.

In other words, I'm not seeing a positive celebration of her physical charisma, I'm more of an insidious men's mag commodification of a young woman who has so many aspects to her, it's a disservice to the all-round person that she is to see her portrayed as some mindless sex symbol...

...which wasn't what Marilyn was either, but when she's used as a byline in a magazine, we have to admit that it's never as descriptive shorthand for 'complex and intelligent woman'. So there's the second disservice.

 

[dearnike]

Patrick Demarchelier is so overrated! boring boring.

 

[iluvjeisa]

...which wasn't what Marilyn was either, but when she's used as a byline in a magazine, we have to admit that it's never as descriptive shorthand for 'complex and intelligent woman'. So there's the second disservice.

Still, Marilyn Monroe had so much more soul than today's stars. I find it unfathomable that she was ever considerered anything but complex, not to mention a brilliant actress. She was so much more than your regular T&A starlet. The fact that Scarlett can be compared to her without it being just ridiculous should be an honor to Scarlett.

But I suppose the stigmatization of MM adds to her allure.

 

[chanelnumber5]

Wonder why they didn't put Lily on the cover, she looked much better than Scarlett

i know i thought theyd give lily more than just the cover of the suplement or have i missed an editorial....

 

[MarryMeTomFord]

I flipped through it really quick and it' s even worse than the September issue

whats wrong with the sept issue - I LOVED it!