Vanity Fair April 2025 : Gwyneth Paltrow by Ned Rogers

[ivano]

In the video on YT reminds me a lot to Lisa Kudrow in Romy and Michele. Still, I like her as most of the times

 

[crmsn]

Her face screams "I need five Red Bulls right now" in that photo.

 

[vogue28]

It could've been a fantastic cover but Gwyneth's face is what runs this into the ground, IMO. The facial expression is all sorts of awful (when it should've been smoldering to go with the mood of the shoot). Paltrow looks miserable, unbothered, and half-asleep. Such an unfortunate image for a cover.

 

[blueorchid]

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.

I guess I'll just have to disagree, because they're all Vanity Fair to me, but fit the different category of cover-star 1) Paparazzi/licensed photo of the Royals, a member of the Kennedy family and/or an old hollywood actor, etc. 2) ingénue trying to be "sexier" than usual (see: Lindsay Lohan, Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone), 3) older actress/actor trying to look "powerful" by making them look "sexier" than usual 4) a politician photographed by Annie Liebowitz and 5) oddball/pop culture celebs (Catilyn Jenner, RuPaul) and 6) Hollywood/Multi-celeb covers.

To me, each of those covers fits into a one of the Vanity Fair categories I have in my mind. It's not as consistent as other magazines, but I don't think it has to be.

 

[aracic]

She's so mother here

 

[tigerrouge]

the different category of cover-star 1) Paparazzi/licensed photo of the Royals, a member of the Kennedy family and/or an old hollywood actor, etc.

When Graydon left, the last two in that point went with him - I think the closest they've come recently is that cover of a younger Barbra Streisand, but generally, anything about old Hollywood gets tucked away near the back of the issue, as if the foundational layers of the film industry can be reduced to an afterthought.

It might be interesting if VF were to shine a light on any currently notable member of the Kennedy clan, but would they feature them so prominently on their cover?

So VF is left with their yearly licenced photo of someone relating to the Royal Family, and it becomes increasingly hard to believe it's the same publication that once had the gravitas to get The Queen to sit for a cover portfolio. Now it has to settle for scraps.