Vanity Fair April 2025 : Gwyneth Paltrow by Ned Rogers

[tigerrouge]

 

[honeycombchild]

I mean, can’t deny it, she looks amazing. Also not someone I’d be expecting to see on covers these days either. For me she’s always photographed really well and done some beautiful editorials, it just got very commonplace to see her on covers for a while.

 

[Avonlea]

How kind of them to use her face from 15 years ago for the cover.

 

[kokobombon]

I love the rich colors but everything else, not so much.

 

[KoV]

I love it because I love Gwyneth but it also looks like it should be a supplement? I felt the same about March's cover. With a few exceptions, VF as of late has no throughline when it comes to covers, no visual identity. Take away the masthead and I'd never know this was a Vanity Fair cover.

 

[thenewclassic]

this is already to promote a movie that comes out in December?!

 

[KoV]

this is already to promote a movie that comes out in December?!

I think it's more to promote herself as un-retired from acting, not specifically just the Safdie movie.

 

[jeje10]

Beautiful, I love this opulence

 

[GoldenPetals]

Very rich. Very CAUCASIAN.

 

[JohannesL]

I prefer Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct if that was the inspiration behind this.

 

[Lucien112]

I'm fine with this. VF using established stars/celebs is where they should be.

 

[blueorchid]

I love it because I love Gwyneth but it also looks like it should be a supplement? I felt the same about March's cover. With a few exceptions, VF as of late has no throughline when it comes to covers, no visual identity. Take away the masthead and I'd never know this was a Vanity Fair cover.

I don't know, I'd argue that VF does have a visual identity... not a strong one, but I think I'd recognize this as VF without the masthead. What else would you think this was Vogue?! Harper's Bazaar?! Elle?!

 

[kokobombon]

The face looks awful imo, very copy-paste from the cover...

 

[tigerrouge]

Like last month's cover story with Millie Bobbie Brown, I welcome any sign of a return to glamour, or at least, a mood of some sort. Anything's better than people standing around in a blank studio.

But I've said before, leave it long enough and magazines forget how to do it.

When you're going for glamour, whatever you're doing needs to flatter the person. It needs to make them a more glorious version of themselves - and this shoot feels like the surroundings do most of that work. Gwyneth might look good - but that house looks even better.

I'll take what I can get, but I look at that cover shot and I'm deeply appreciating that red carpet - and a Hollywood legend shouldn't have to compete for attention with carpet on the stairs.

 

[KoV]

I don't know, I'd argue that VF does have a visual identity... not a strong one, but I think I'd recognize this as VF without the masthead. What else would you think this was Vogue?! Harper's Bazaar?! Elle?!

It's not so much they're stealing another magazine's visual identity (this cover could sorta be a Samira era Bazaar cover, though, or certainly a T&C cover) it's just that they no longer have their own. Consider their three most recent covers. Without a masthead, I don't think I'd ever guess these are all the same magazine and released within the span about about 2 months.







vanityfair.com

 

[VanillaCrush]

The face looks awful imo, very copy-paste from the cover...

For me, it's using ultra-rich celebrities doing sad-face, when the rest of the country is suffering so much. It's really hard to get on board with the "poor little rich girl" right now.

 

[woemwoem]

Oof, the face lift. She looks like one of those women from the Housewives franchise.

 

[GIVENCHYlover]

I get sad bunny in the Playboy house vibes from these images