US Vogue December 2008 : Jennifer Aniston by Craig McDean

[ckgirlbr]

posted before?

spfw.com.br

 

[fiqary]

^Yup.

 

[Gaultier_Bandit]

Does anyone know if they will do a story theme edit like they have done with other December issues. A la Natalia/ Alice in Wonderland and Beverly Peele/ Snow White?

 

[masquerade]

I have given up on fighting US Vogue. Anna Wintour is my lord and savior. If she says there should be a beach editorial with Jennifer Aniston in the middle of December, then there should be. If she wants Meisel to shoot Trentini jumping, then it should happen. She is always right, and everything is as it should be.

 

[mynn_plastic]

I don't like the cover too. But I'm anxious to see inside ^^


Yasmin
plasticky.wordpress

 

[Spike413]

I don't think I'll ever understand the comments that inevitably come up when a celeb is on the cover of a mag. People are all up in arms if they feel that celeb doesn't "deserve" a cover, because she's somehow inferior to other celebs. Let's think about this, people want models on the covers, and that's fine, I do too. But what is it that models do exactly? They pose and look pretty. That's all. They don't have to earn a cover by being a talented actress, humanitarian, singer or style icon. They just have to look good.

So if celebs are filling in for the models, doing their job for this months magazine, why is it that some of them don't "deserve" a cover? Shouldn't the fact that they're attractive be the most important criteria? Don't get me wrong, I don't think this cover succeeds in making Jen look her best at all (I do happen to think there is something attractive about her), and as usual Vogue put a crap photo on the cover and left a much, much better photo for the editorial which is insane to me. But I think because we've become so numbingly used to seeing celebs on the cover of Vogue/Bazaar/W the criteria for what makes a worthy cover subject has been completely distorted.

As for the article, I'm honestly a little shocked by how nasty some of the "get over it" comments are. Yes, we're all sick of hearing about the break up (and that's the media's fault more than Jen or Brangelina's as far as I'm concerned). But my god, cut this woman some slack! She got dumped for a woman who's resume includes succubus/homewrecker under special skills with all of the accents she's learned. Regardless of whether there was a strain in the marriage before Angelina sunk her claws into Brad or not, that still has to hurt a LOT. And it's not as if Brangelina slunk into the shadows to live their life together like the case would be if the parties involved weren't famous. No, they shouldn't have to walk on eggshells because Jennifer is going to get her feelings hurt, but people have to realize that when the hurt/failure is constantly in your face it makes it that much harder to just get the f*** over it.

 

[Luxx]

Debate! Huzzah!

Personally I don't feel as though a celebrity on the cover of a magazine is the same thing as a model on the cover of a magazine. A celebrity comes with history / expectations / iconography and a whole host of other things. When Jennifer is on the cover she comes with baggage - everyone knows her fame narrative and this cover completely plays into it. She lacks the anonymity most models have for their covers - put Caroline Trentini on the front of Vogue and the main headline will not reference anything other than the fact that she's a cute rising model. With Jennifer on the cover the automatic inference and corresponding text goes back to the ongoing Brad/Jen/Angelina love triangle.

Celebrities sell and are on the covers of magazines because we know things about them / want to know things about them. Models (excluding supermodels and other household names) are on the covers of magazines because they are aspirational. We do not know about about them - they are playing into an image the magazine wishes to project. A celebrity can function in a similar way but it isn't the same thing because there is always that extra kernel of knowledge.

As for the issue of who "deserves" a cover I think that boils down to personal preference and overall. For Vogue US the criteria of cover choices goes back to sales - if we look at this purely from a sales point of view then whoever sells the most issues is the most deserving. If we look at if from a creative standpoint then whoever is the most relevant to fashion wins out. I think the problem - and the overall source of most argument on tFS is that Vogue looks at things from the sales POV and fans of fashion are looking at it from a creative POV. They put whoever they think will sell the most copies on their frontpage and in recent years that list is very, very short. The same handful of actresses is featured over and over again in ways that aren't visually interesting and I think people are tired of that.

By the same token I don't feel as though a model's job is merely to look pretty on the cover of a magazine either. Pretty is not an overarching goal as much as it is simply a societally enforced beauty standard. Pretty can be boring as Vogue US shows us each and every month with aplomb.

For me personally I think the failure of Vogue US covers in recent years stems more from an inability to present it's image in a way that is appealing and fresh as opposed to just the celebrity cover issue. Yes it is boring to see the same milquetoast actresses over and over again but if they are going to use them they should at least strive to present them in a way that is palatable. For me that is the issue. Granted, I would probably dropkick Hamish Bowles if I thought it would get a girl like Jourdan or Anna J a US Vogue cover but at the same time I'm willing to call a spade a spade. A bad cover is a bad cover, I don't care who is on it. The first image of Jennifer that ckgirlbr posted would have made for a much more appealing image. That would have been fresh and different and about a thousand times more flattering.

I also feel as though Vogue is playing into a lot of really stupid things lately with their covers - there was no need for them to put the insipid quote about Angelina on the cover. For a magazine so obsessed with society you'd think they'd know a thing or two about class..

 

[Big Jay]

The fashion business is a business first and formost. It's all about who sells the most.
The magazines want to sell and the celebrities agree to do interviews inside in order to
get the cover. Why? To sell their most recent movie/project or whatever they have going on.

 

[inhirnamy137]

I don't like the cover, but the pics inside are cute, I think her and her dog should of been the cover.

I wish she would stop talking about her love life past and present.. even IF the interviewer ask.

 

[Deleted member 98391]

The fashion business is a business first and formost. It's all about who sells the most.
The magazines want to sell and the celebrities agree to do interviews inside in order to
get the cover. Why? To sell their most recent movie/project or whatever they have going on.

Well, that's insight I've never heard before!

 

[pasfoti]

I love all those editorial pictures of Jenn. She looks gorgeous as usual. What I soooo dislike is the comment about "Angelina being uncool" on the cover. Does Vogue really need that to attract readers? Kinda feel sorry for Vogue.

About Jen's interview...You go girl, it's about time to give Saint Jolie a slap or a finger.

 

[Handbag Queen]

Awful photo. Vogue is rapidly becoming a tabloid and not a fashion magazine...gossip and celebrities. Sad.

 

[iriswills]

Excellent post Spike413! I can't imagine how hard it must be to have everyone watching and waiting to hear your reaction to something so personal and painful. I would be very testy if I were in her shoes. Isn't it obvious that any woman in that position would be hurt and pissed? Do they need Jen to say it out loud? The feeling I get from Jen is that she's irritated by the media because they really do want her to state the obvious.

Meanwhile, I love Jen's editorial. She looks fantastic, and the setting feels fresh to me. But um... those striped pants she's wearing on that log?

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^^OMG those pants are soooooo wrong!!!Couldnt agree more, when i saw that photo my first thought was> oh hell no!

I think the tagline was uneccessary but they are no stranger to doing this, Kidmans cover had "Pregnancy Update" text on it, and who can forget the first cover of Sienna Miller that read like InTouch Weekly or any other trash mag.

 

[LUXXX]

Anna should've taken a risk and published Meisel's "dogging" editorial before it went to V, that would've saved the issue...

 

[parkereloise]

haha that would shock the readers

 

[Bahiyya]

The fashion business is a business first and formost. It's all about who sells the most.
The magazines want to sell and the celebrities agree to do interviews inside in order to
get the cover. Why? To sell their most recent movie/project or whatever they have going on.

In that case, I'm looking forward to Vogue US putting Miley Cyrus on the cover in head to toe H&M . (I tried to think of someone older without going for the obvious Britney Spears but I'm not sure who is the latest pop star queen who can actually move units as opposed to iTune singles these days.)

The Fug Girls are always interesting, right? Here's Heather's take on the cover. (How many pages will this thread go before we get an actual review ?)

Jessica and I were just discussing how much people seem to have held onto the whole Jennifer Aniston/Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie bizarre love triangle. Seriously, they split up three years ago -- although in some ways it feels like ten, and in others, as if it were yesterday, given that people still ask them about each other every chance they get. LET IT GO, EVERYONE. Angelina should be more careful and considerate when rhapsodizing about when and how she fell in love with the married man, and for her part, when she's asked about it, Jennifer should probably just take the high road and say, "Wow, are people still talking about that? I feel like we've said everything there is to say on that subject," and then everyone can just MOVE ON so that magazine covers stop saying things like "ANGELINA: LYING SUCCUBUS HUSSY STRUMPET" or "JENNIFER DID EIGHT HOURS OF YOGA AFTER THAT COVER ABOUT HOW ANGELINA IS A LYING SUCCUBUS HUSSY STRUMPET," or in the case of Vogue, this:

(cover)

She is not helped by the cover quote being taken slightly out of context, but Jennifer is REALLY not being done a solid by the choice of photo. She looks so... tense. And cranky. And like she would rather be stabbing pillows with a pair of scissors than be smiling at the camera right this second. Although I appreciate the attempt at putting "$5" on its cover in any context, and it's very nice of the magazine to try and convince me that pricey clothes are actually "investments," if I am going to pick up an issue of Vogue in these tragic times -- a pretty big "if" on ANY given day, to be honest -- I want it to inspire me, or distract me, or just basically take me away like a really ad-heavy, semi-out-of-touch box of Calgon. This does none of that. Instead, this cold-eyed cover says, "I hate this issue. I don't give a **** about you and your holiday romance or stupid bogus love stories or nice bedrooms. I just want to get the hell off this beach and move to a yurt in Deepest Mongolia because I CANNOT CATCH A BREAK. My friends all allegedly hate that I am dating John Mayer again, I can't sneeze on a dude without someone writing a story about whether I will ever get to use my uterus as a fruit bowl, Angelina won't shut her face, everyone is hell-bent on throwing everything she says back at me, and now apparently I have to FREEZE MYSELF in order to look young? I'M SO SURE. WHERE IS THE F*%&ING GIN?"

gofugyourself.celebuzz.com

I really am more and more convinced that this cover was done to deliberately put her in an unfavourable light. Although US Vogue *did* make Keira look like a baby ape and Anna loves her. So maybe it is just incompetence.

 

[Flashbang]

Anna should've taken a risk and published Meisel's "dogging" editorial before it went to V, that would've saved the issue...

and the next day..there're many boycotting and Anna's down! hurray!

 

[eternitygoddess]

Agreed wholeheartedly with Spike413

 

[eternitygoddess]

^^That is certainly part of it, but that circle should be broader simply because there are other out there that are worthy of their so called "exclusivity"!!

I disagree. Part of being "exclusive" is keeping the circle tight and small and admitting only very very few people. It's not about admitting who is the most worthy, it's about keeping the numbers small.

If everyone worthy of being admitted was admitted in, the exclusivity factor would disappear.

Take a look at college admissions. Half of the applicant pool is more than worthy of entering top-tier colleges, yet admissions is less than 10%. As a result, the "exclusivity" title of those few schools are reinforced.

Likewise with Vogue.