Vanity Fair April 2016 : Meryl Streep by Brigitte Lacombe

[LastNight]

vanityfair.com

Photographed in 1988

Article: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/meryl-streep-kramer-vs-kramer-oscar

 

[MON]

This is gorgeous!!!

However, they could have done better by taking an actual photograph of her.

 

[dodencebt]

They couldn't shoot her again, seriously? It's a rarity that actresses over 60 are ever featured on magazine covers, so having a photo from when she was 39 is not fine.

 

[zzzyao76]

Honestly I don't know why.

 

[blueorchid]

This cover would be perfect... if she was dead.

 

[Benn98]

They couldn't shoot her again, seriously? It's a rarity that actresses over 60 are ever featured on magazine covers, so having a photo from when she was 39 is not fine.

Wow, that is quite lazy. Brigitte Lacombe + Meryl can do way, way better than this. It seems they aimed for something iconic, but I'm not sold. There are a few similarities to Meryl's last cover, also shot by Lacombe:

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2010/01/contents-201001

 

[justaguy]

Love the shot but disappointed they aren't using something recent.

 

[Nymphaea]

They could have at least shot her again in the same pose.

 

[Royal-Galliano]

This cover would be perfect... if she was dead.

sad but true!

 

[Bertrando3]

LOVE this!!!

 

[Handbag Queen]

They couldn't shoot her again, seriously? It's a rarity that actresses over 60 are ever featured on magazine covers, so having a photo from when she was 39 is not fine.

Exactly! This photo of her was taken in 1988. Ridiculous that they didn't put a current photo on the cover.

 

[Oxymore]

Why??? Meryl is so beautiful! That's so stupid to put an old picture of her...

 

[Nymphaea]

^Yes why? Because she's too old looking? Because Meryl didn't want a new pic taken?

 

[kokobombon]

Can a magazine write an article and have a celebrity on the cover without her consent? cause this looks like she didn´t want to be interviewed or have her picture taken so VF bought the rights to an old picture, someone wrote the article and voila! the april issue.

 

[Benn98]

Can a magazine write an article and have a celebrity on the cover without her consent? cause this looks like she didn´t want to be interviewed or have her picture taken so VF bought the rights to an old picture, someone wrote the article and voila! the april issue.

Magazines can, and it's been done before. American Harper's did the same with Angelina Jolie years ago, which more than anything highlighted their desperation and failed efforts to book her.
In this case it might be different. There's somewhat of a relationship between Meryl, Lacombe and Graydon. So I imagine Meryl must've been aware they'd use this pic and maybe even recommended a shot from Lacombe's vast library. Judging by the the coverline, this looks to be quite a deep and intimate piece. Her PR team might've thought it a bit crass and tasteless to have posed images appear next to such a personal interview. I mean, she's not Teri Hatcher, Jennifer Aniston or Lindsay Lohan (who all did it before for VF).

 

[t-rex]

Was Meryl even interviewed for the story?

 

[lavieenrose]

Was Meryl even interviewed for the story?

No. It contains an excerpt from a new biography about her with salacious tidbits about Dustin Hoffman slapping her on the set of "Kramer vs. Kramer."

 

[Hchloe]

How lazy!

 

[Nepenthes]

The photo itself is gorgeous but I'm disappointed that they didn't do an actual shoot with her. Meryl is stunning and she's not being photographed enough so I don't get it. I'm sure Annie Leibovitz could have come up with a beautiful portrait!

 

[ad030817]

This cover is beautiful & i miss photographers like Brigitte Lacombe. It certainly proves how superior magazines once were but how redundant they are now.