Vanity Fair Holiday 2020 : Stephen Colbert by Annie Leibovitz

[MagFan]

who knew that Vogue Taiwan was ahead of it's time a decade ago

 

[reesewu]

Now there's someone who should be on the cover of magazines a lot more often than she is.

True, but I’m afraid that we will have to wait until the release of Crazy Rich Asians 2 for her to be featured more in magazines.

 

[WAVES]

True, but I’m afraid that we will have to wait until the release of Crazy Rich Asians 2 for her to be featured more in magazines.

I would love to see more of Constance Wu, actually.

 

[KoV]

I would love to see more of Constance Wu, actually.

I feel as though she’s been labeled as “difficult” and blacklisted a bit. It’s a shame, because I think she’s quite a good actress and was having success after success.

 

[Benn98]

^Sure, but by magazines as well? Isn't Constance precisely the type of outspoken, independent 'boss lady' who goes against the rules, that Laura Brown, Marie Claire and Nina are championing? I recall Constance only appeared on Marie Claire so far, as part of a group.
I actually find her very pretty and I've never been bored reading her interviews because she always goes off-script. LOL.
Gemma is pretty as well but I dunno, there's something very 'safe' about her looks and personality. And as history has proven time and time again, the 'safe' ones will always skyrocket. See Taylor Swift. Gemma already has 2/3 times more magazine covers and features than Constance and will continue to surge. I'm sure when the time comes for magazines to start giving Asain women more covers, Gemma will be the first one they'll consider.

 

[KoV]

I agree with basically every word you’ve said, but unfortunately I think they’re all connected. Part of the scandal of the TimesUp era as it relates to Hollywood is the way powerful people wouldn’t just personally stop working with a woman, they’d actively try and ruin her career by using their clout around town to get others to do the same. Weinstein did this to several women. Then you have Robin Wright getting blacklisted because she wouldn’t do a Vanity Fair cover and the entire industry decided to punish her for not playing the fame game by their rules. That is how nasty and petty these people can be. Magazines are so celebrity-obsessed and linked to Hollywood, it wouldn’t surprise me if the influence translates directly. If Constance is perceived is difficult, outspoken, not willing to play the game (and that’s assuming she hasn’t been the victim of a more nefariously motivated blacklisting) than people may be actively trying to squash her career. What other explanation can their be for the lead on a hit, award-winning and groundbreaking mainstream TV show who is also the star of two of the most acclaimed and buzzed-about adult blockbusters of the past couple years, who is beautiful, young, and talented, to be so ignored? Not only is she not booking magazines, she doesn’t have leading roles in big projects lined up, other than the Crazy Rich sequels.

 

[reesewu]

I agree with basically every word you’ve said, but unfortunately I think they’re all connected. Part of the scandal of the TimesUp era as it relates to Hollywood is the way powerful people wouldn’t just personally stop working with a woman, they’d actively try and ruin her career by using their clout around town to get others to do the same. Weinstein did this to several women. Then you have Robin Wright getting blacklisted because she wouldn’t do a Vanity Fair cover and the entire industry decided to punish her for not playing the fame game by their rules. That is how nasty and petty these people can be. Magazines are so celebrity-obsessed and linked to Hollywood, it wouldn’t surprise me if the influence translates directly. If Constance is perceived is difficult, outspoken, not willing to play the game (and that’s assuming she hasn’t been the victim of a more nefariously motivated blacklisting) than people may be actively trying to squash her career. What other explanation can their be for the lead on a hit, award-winning and groundbreaking mainstream TV show who is also the star of two of the most acclaimed and buzzed-about adult blockbusters of the past couple years, who is beautiful, young, and talented, to be so ignored? Not only is she not booking magazines, she doesn’t have leading roles in big projects lined up, other than the Crazy Rich sequels.

Wait, I thought Wu’s only scandal was that she came across ungrateful to some due to her tweeting “f**k” or something after Fresh Off the Boat got renewed? This insight into her supposedly diva antics is news to me.

And as to why she didn’t get that much recognition, well, it’s still a predominantly white industry no matter how widely championed diversity is.

 

[WAVES]

I had no idea Constance Wu was seen as difficult.
I remember when I started to watch ‘Eastsiders’ she and I believe the writer of the show were very vocal about the fact that Constance wasn’t allowed to continue to film this series... (she’s very present on the first season and much less after), so I’m pretty sure her sourness with the ‘FOTB’ crew or production team comes from there.

Constance was the lead role in ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ and got one magazine cover... maybe her PR team sucks... she’s got a contract with Piaget which means she’s not completely invisible to brands
BUT
on the other hand Gemma has a Marvel movie coming out, and two other ones with Meryl Streep and Angelina Jolie...

 

[ellastica]

I saw this and bought it on the spot. NEVER happens. Instantly thought Beatles x Avedon too. Anyone else catch the visual reference not thanks to images circulating on social media? I was just reflecting on how much of my visual language was shaped by looking at print images vs online image sharing platforms...The cover style is derivative as heck but doesn't diminish the visual impact on the newsstand.

 

[tigerrouge]

Reading through this today, it's full of... content that would meet a fashion magazine's definition of an in-depth feature. The calibre of the writing might possibly impress you if it turned up in Vogue or Elle - but held up against Vanity Fair's own standards, it's awful.

 

[RaisinBoy]

oh no...

 

[caioherrero]

Reading through this today, it's full of... content that would meet a fashion magazine's definition of an in-depth feature. The calibre of the writing might possibly impress you if it turned up in Vogue or Elle - but held up against Vanity Fair's own standards, it's awful.

This magazine needs a powerhouse EIC. An old guard that can makes connection between Hollywood and UK. Radhika only has the job because Anna wanted someone that will listen to her forever. This magazine needs someone like the New Yorker editor .

 

[Benn98]

This magazine needs a powerhouse EIC. An old guard that can makes connection between Hollywood and UK.

And also corporate, aristo and political intrigues across the globe, interesting in-depth features about say the butterfly migration to Mexico that happens every autumn. This magazine used to rival Vogue, Time, The Economist, and National Geographic all at the same time and still maintained an identity and unique voice. But maybe they just don't have the money anymore to commission a William Langewiesche article.

I don't think she's a terrible editor full stop, I just think she's a terrible editor for this specific magazine. Also, the royal correspondent is a joke. Penning stuff like 'Will Camilla watch The Crown?' Nobody cares,

 

[tigerrouge]

Radhika seems like a very nice and respected person. You never hear anyone saying anything bad about her. And we’ve seen a greater range of people on the front cover than we could ever have imagined.

However, in her role at Vanity Fair, she comes across like a Head Girl at a school - aware that she’s in a position of visibility and responsibility, trying to set a good example and do all the right things, but also unwilling to do anything to cause offence.

I’m currently reading through all my old print issues of Vanity Fair - because there’s no need to keep most of them if all the content is online - and one thing I notice about the progression of the writing under Radhika is an increased unwillingness to come out swinging against something. More and more of the articles follow a pattern of this-happened and then-that-happened - and we’ll leave it up to you, dear reader, to conclude who is the villain of the piece, as if ambiguity is the height of sophisticated writing. In the hands of a sophisticated writer, it is - but the rest of the time, it’s flat. It’s disappointing. It’s reporting a situation - and then failing to take a stance on it.

Yes, in the interests of fairness, the usual pattern of reporting is to present both sides - but under Graydon, you were usually in no doubt about whether the magazine thought something - or someone - was a good or a bad thing. People were permitted to have strong opinions. That was the added extra, the dash of bitters which blended with the sugary Hollywood cover stories.

Sure, modern-day Vanity Fair will run features which disapprove of Trump - that’s a hot take from a Conde Nast magazine - but it’s still feeble in comparison to Graydon Carter’s monomaniacal dislike for the man down through the decades. Graydon was on Trump’s case from the start, long before the Apprentice and the Presidency, and he never wavered. In time, everyone else caught up with him.