US Vogue July 2016 : Amy Schumer by Annie Leibovitz

[honeycombchild]

For me, the comments about Amy not being 'fashion' are irrelevant, let alone her being 'high fashion'. This is Vogue. They put the fashion context onto the subject. It makes absolutely no difference if the celeb / model / politician is 'fashionable' themselves, Vogue should supply them with that for the imagery produced.

All of that being said, this whole thing falls absolutely flat for me. The styling choices are odd and the images selected are weak. I'm not a massive fan of Amy, nor do I feel strongly against her, but I'm all for a fresh face landing a cover, I just can't help but feel they didn't even really give her chance here. She can photograph better than this I'm sure.

 

[Benn98]

For me, the comments about Amy not being 'fashion' are irrelevant, let alone her being 'high fashion'. This is Vogue. They put the fashion context onto the subject. It makes absolutely no difference if the celeb / model / politician is 'fashionable' themselves, Vogue should supply them with that for the imagery produced.

Thanks for pointing that out! I think it's very important to bear this in mind when we regard celebrity fashion profiles.
And just to reiterate, when I said 'she doesn't carry hf very well', I meant exactly that. The act of applying bustiers and puffy ballgowns to her in this feature failed to impress me. She doesn't look comfortable, and I imagine part of this 'fashionization' process is to show people that she can look as confident in a D & G as she does in a tee and denim. If they're going out on a limb they might as well go all the way, isn't it?

Saying this is her wrong angle.. uh, there's just no other angle?. It's a bit like hoping that Jay Leno photographed from the left corner on the floor as he's looking to the sky might just pass as Tom Sturridge. He won't.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ I actually think she CAN look better than on this cover. The pap photo posted on the previous page is even better than the face she has on this cover! Look at how tense her mouth is, not to mention the bags under her eyes. So i feel like you can't change someone (and you shouldn't!), but you can work with what they have, and make it flattering at least. (SJP is another Vogue favorite who is considered "unconvetional beauty" for their standards, yet they have done some great covers with her) If a team of Vogue people can't produce something better with her, then they aren't doing their job well!

 

[Les_Sucettes]

I don't understand the shock about people judging her looks. It's one thing to be cruel, but it's also not the cover of Time, Reader's Digest or Country Home. It's a magazine about aesthetics, physical beauty as a lifestyle, and she's choosing to be on the cover. It's stupid PR to decline a Vogue cover, but also to think you might just jump from your career as a scientist, comedian, politician or whatnot to the interview inside without playing the game and exposing yourself to what that game invites, which is criticism based on appearance, surface, that's their foundation and readership, and it's what most people are here for, not exactly for how much models know about electromagnetic radiation. If she's built a career out of making a parody of how nonsense and irrelevant beauty standards in the show business are, great, but a bit of a contradiction to then play it as a serious game and in its most traditional, strict and cliché form (1940s Hollywood beauty aesthetic repeatedly) and expect different results just because you *are* aware that it is nonsense. Most people are aware, some just explore the many variations of aesthetics, not just desperately trying to prove compliance to conventional prettiness.

Frankly I think this is the best she's ever looked and.. also the best she can look . Saying this is her wrong angle.. uh, there's just no other angle?. It's a bit like hoping that Jay Leno photographed from the left corner on the floor as he's looking to the sky might just pass as Tom Sturridge. He won't.

Amen to that.

There is nothing inherently wrong about not being good looking, it hasn't done men any wrong, as long as women keep craving approval for their looks, like they won't be complete if they are not also recognised for their beauty, nothing will ever change. People like Amy, Lena just perpetuate the status quo.

 

[tigerrouge]

If you end up on a Vogue cover and you don't look good, someone's not doing their job right. Magazines regularly mess around with the faces and bodies of the celebrities on their pages, so even if you were ugly, it's not as if that reality would ever get in the way.

And I don't think Amy is ugly, I think female comedians are unusually scrutinised for their physical self, as if people have an ongoing disconnect in how to reconcile a woman with wit (or who 'talks back' or passes comment on society) with the way she's gained a public position.

Most female celebrities aren't going around expressing their opinions - they're visible yet bland - but it's a comedian's job to say or do things that get a reaction. This naturally causes an entire range of reactions from the public, and before you know it, you're back to the same - often savage - conversations about appearance that have always accompanied these performers.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ Exactly! Well said, as always.

 

[kokobombon]

I like her and I´m glad that she got the cover. That said, I think it´s a horrible one... hair & makeup could/should have been better. The editorial is same old same old Annie, at this point I don´t expect anything from her.

 

[valliaddict]

Amen to that.

There is nothing inherently wrong about not being good looking, it hasn't done men any wrong, as long as women keep craving approval for their looks, like they won't be complete if they are not also recognised for their beauty, nothing will ever change. People like Amy, Lena just perpetuate the status quo.

God forbid someone like Lena Dunham actually TRY to look pretty. I don't understand this logic at all. Most people put effort into their appearance, not just women, but because Amy & Lena aren't conventionally attractive they get nailed to the cross for accepting any offer to do something glamorous. Should they be crucified for appearing on a Vogue cover simply because you don't find them attractive? The fact that you are insinuating they are doing all of this for the approval of others perpetuates the idea that women who aren't considered "beautiful" don't have the right to be portrayed that way.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

God forbid someone like Lena Dunham actually TRY to look pretty. I don't understand this logic at all. Most people put effort into their appearance, not just women, but because Amy & Lena aren't conventionally attractive they get nailed to the cross for accepting any offer to do something glamorous. Should they be crucified for appearing on a Vogue cover simply because you don't find them attractive? The fact that you are insinuating they are doing all of this for the approval of others perpetuates the idea that women who aren't considered "beautiful" don't have the right to be portrayed that way.

This is Vogue magazine. It simply makes them fair game to be scrutinized solely by their looks. The fact that women continue to subject themselves to it when they got to public attention for talents totally unrelated to their beauty is perpetuating the status quo. Only when you have women like the historian Mary Beard that asserted her right to be visible against the trolls, that think that only bright young things should be on TV, but pointing the absurdly obvious that to be an academic and engaging teacher looks are irrelevant and they will have to put up with her things will change.

I think Amy "does not have a good angle" to put it mildly, something that i would never write if she was not plastered in the cover of fashion magazines. The fact that her looks are now a point of discussion is totally of her own doing. Instead of people pretending we live in cultural vaccum and that being cover magazine good looking is entirely subjective, and that we are all brazilian supermodels in our own way, a trend to stop putting a premium on being beautiful is a long time coming.

 

[valliaddict]

This is Vogue magazine. It simply makes them fair game to be scrutinized solely by their looks.

Not to the extent of which this forum takes it to, and I'm not referring to you specifically since you didn't compare her to an animal or call her downright ugly, but people should have more tact when talking about someone's physical appearance. When you hide behind the "keeping it real" logic you can say whatever you want, I guess...

The fact that women continue to subject themselves to it when they got to public attention for talents totally unrelated to their beauty is perpetuating the status quo.

Subjecting themselves to what exactly? A barrage of teenagers with keyboard courage telling them how ugly they are & that Kendall Jenner should've gotten the cover instead? I wouldn't be too bothered by that or anything people in the fashion industry had to say, either. This "stay in your lane" rhetoric is exactly why people outside of the fashion industry don't like us, because "we" point our nose up to any outsider who dares to step into our world not looking like a 10/10. If Carol Burnett were to have graced the cover in the late 1960s, that would have been legendary & you can't tell me otherwise. Amy could've managed to look decent under a different setting with a better photographer.

splitsider

Only when you have women like the historian Mary Beard that asserted her right to be visible against the trolls, that think that only bright young things should be on TV, but pointing the absurdly obvious that to be an academic and engaging teacher looks are irrelevant and they will have to put up with her things will change.

This went completely over my head, so I'll just give you this one because it sounds like a really well constructed point was made. If someone wants to translate this to an Associates Degree/high school level of comprehension, that would be greatly appreciated.

I think Amy "does not have a good angle" to put it mildly, something that i would never write if she was not plastered in the cover of fashion magazines. The fact that her looks are now a point of discussion is totally of her own doing. Instead of people pretending we live in cultural vaccum and that being cover magazine good looking is entirely subjective, and that we are all brazilian supermodels in our own way, a trend to stop putting a premium on being beautiful is a long time coming.

You don't need to be a Brazilian supermodel to turn out a good photograph. Missy Elliot's shot in the new Marc Jacobs campaign is the best of the bunch & she's a five foot tall, 40 year old, black rapper. I understand that beautiful people tend to be more palatable on the eyes & much easier to sell, but unconventional beauty has a place in fashion too when done right.

I guess I'm just trying to figure out how an elite group of fashion insiders (insert sarcasm here) can spew out the same amount of hateful, run-on sentences I see on instagram & twitter every day. It's quite disheartening when you look at how much this place has changed, & not for the better.

 

[YohjiAddict]

I'm just crossing my fingers for a decent collection editorial. Once again Leibovitz has proven that her talent has completely vanished. She really is the worst.

 

[kroqjock]

Review time! I was gonna post this earlier but the magazine weighed a metric ton and I had a hard time opening each page since it was, like, 300 pounds per page. FAT HUMOR.


#1 - Singular Obsessions (15 pg)
PH: Patrick Demarchelier
Style: Camilla Nickerson
Models/Celebs: Liya Kebede, Elizabeth Debicki, Xiao Wen Ju, Lineisy Montero, Sarah Burton, MacKenzie Davis, Petra Collins, Adwoa Aboah, Miriam Miller, Van Rompaey & Luka Sabbat, Anna Ewers


#2 - Grand Hotel (10 pg)
PH: Mikael Jansson
Style: Phyllis Posnick
Models/Celebs: Anna Brewster, Noemie Schmidt, George Blagden


#3 - The Queen Of Comedy. Nope! (12 pg)
PH: Annie Leibovitz
Style: Tonne Goodman
Celeb: SHUT UP!


#4 - Making His Mark (6 pg)
PH: Dodie Kazanjian
Style: Phyllis Posnick
Celeb: David Adjaye


#5 - Prying Eyes (2 pg)
PH: Norman Jean Roy
Style: Lawren Howell
Celeb: Daniel Radcliffe


#6 - Small Wonders (4 pg)
PH: Eric Boman
Model: Shrimp inside a cage. WHAAT?


#7 - Paris Uprising (4 pg)
PH: Karim Sadli
Style: Camilla Nickerson
Models/Celebs: Arnaud Vaillant, Sebastian Meyer, Julien Dosena, Diane Rouxel, Christelle Kocher, Johanna Senyk, Simon Porte Jaquemus, Karly Loyce, Aymeline Valade, Celine Bouly


#8 - All Choked Up (2 pg)
PH: Gregory Harris
Style: Sara Moonves
Models: Katie Moore & Charlee Fraser


#9 - High & Mighty (8 pg)
PH: David Sims
Style: Camilla Nickerson
Model: Karlie Kloss



So when's the August issue?

 

[StylishDreaming]

Looking forward to Singular Obsessions. The rest, I couldn't care less about.

 

[penny609]

I'm really looking forward to seeing the shrimp, especially as I guess Katie Moore only has one picture.

Seriously, I'm not often excited about something from US Vogue (apart from a few editorials lately, I remember one with Grace Hartzel that I like), let alone being surprised by its content, but it seems Vogue (all editions, more or less) is turning like most variations of french Camembert: people keep buying it and talking about it but its taste hasn't much to do with what it should be or used to be.

 

[YohjiAddict]

Only god knows why US Vogue is always recycling editorial titles "High & Mighty"
is the name of that infamous Newton ed with the high-heels and the crutches. Aren't there any other idioms/plays on words in the English language?

The inclusion of Jacquemus on the "Paris Uprising" thing made me cringe so hard. Excited about Katie Moore's picture.

 

[Benn98]

Only god knows why US Vogue is always recycling editorial titles "High & Mighty"
is the name of that infamous Newton ed with the high-heels and the crutches. Aren't there any other idioms/plays on words in the English language?

Very perceptive, they probably thought nobody will pick that up. This is something which I pay a lot of attention to. Lol. But when you think of it, the splurb on every image gets an idiom/classic book, song or movie title as reference. And it's mostly one which Americans would be very familiar with (see 'Look Sharp' on the cover). At some stage they probably ran out of idioms, and started to recycle.

 

[kroqjock]

Why is it that after I post the review each month, the thread just goes and dies? Sigh, WHAT EVS.

#8 - All Choked Up (2 pg)
PH: Gregory Harris
Style: Sara Moonves
Models: Katie Moore & Charlee Fraser

#9 - High & Mighty (8 pg)
PH: David Sims
Style: Camilla Nickerson
Model: Karlie Kloss

All scans by yours truly

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ Thanks for review, and scans, Kloss can elevate even a boring studio shot, she really is that good!

 

[Hchloe]

A David Sims studio jumping editorial in US Vogue???? Such original, much wow.

 

[anlabe32]

Ugh, Karlie Kloss is so awful.