Vanity Fair June 2008 : Bobby Kennedy | the Fashion Spot

Vanity Fair June 2008 : Bobby Kennedy

MissMagAddict

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
26,621
Reaction score
1,342
I'm just grateful Miley Cyrus didn't get the cover:ninja:

2448307778_debc6dec78.jpg

source | nytimes


The Miley article & behind the scenes photo shoot.

 
That picture of the cover with Miley superimposed on top of Bobby doesn't even seem right. It ruins a perfectly good cover, thank goodness when I get it I can just flip over her feature.
 
Wow, Vanity Fair doing a report on Kennedy :judge:

I wonder if this thread will turn towards the hoopla surrounding the Miley kid and her pictures?
 
That picture of the cover with Miley superimposed on top of Bobby doesn't even seem right. It ruins a perfectly good cover, thank goodness when I get it I can just flip over her feature.

Agreed & I'm happy she didn't get the cover so I don't have to see her staring at me from every newsstand all month long...Eww:angry:

The Karl Lagerfeld Road Tripping article might be fun though:lol:
 
Well atleast she didn't pose with her ever present flat-ironed dad. But seriously I'll take circa 2000 Brit or Christina over Miley any day.
 
Okay I spoke to soon, that pic of her dad was not there when I wrote the message but it popped up once the page refreshed when I posted it.
 
Good glad the Miley girl was not on the cover, and seriously is VF obsessed with Kennedys or what?!Still a good cover imo.
 
Prefer Kennedy over Miley.
Dear God, that girl is 15 and posed topless. she even said that her favorite show was sex & the city! 15 again...:ninja:
 
i'm definatley buying this, but not for the cover, because it's horrid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hmm...

I don't really know why people are freaking out about Miley being "topless" (she's covered by a sheet). I see her as ALREADY fifteen, not JUST fifteen. I guess I don't fall for tween innocence in this day and age. I mean, photos keep leaking with her prancing around in her underwear... I dunno.

As for the actual photo, there is something really stunning about it (even though I hate Miley with a passion). I wish it had made the cover instead of another Kennedy. Oh well.
 
as a huge bobby kennedy fan, i'm very excited to check out this issue...
i could care less about miley...
 
Vanity Fair is fairly dull for me.It tends to have some fashion campaigns photos that other magazines don't which is good news for my wall collages, but the rest of the magazine never interests me.Unless of course it is the style issue.

Miley looks horrid, even Paris Hilton in her worst days(and she really is a pretty person) never looked that down in the dumps.She looks like she's been living in a dumpster for weeks.
 
Source | WWD

HITTING BACK: As practiced outrage spread through America on Monday over Miley Cyrus' back-baring photos for Vanity Fair ("Miley's Shame" boomed the front of The New York Post), no one was more confounded than the magazine's fashion and style director, Michael Roberts, who styled the shoot by Annie Leibovitz. "I'm European. I come from London, I lived in Paris, and I just find it extraordinary that this has been blown up like this," he told WWD.

He continued, "The whole kiddie p*rn prurient angle seems to be worryingly sour grapes from other magazines that didn't get a picture like this...teenagers can be seen on TV and in the cinema in the most prurient ways, and then a photograph which is for all intents and purposes innocent is blown out of portion and condemned as some ridiculous apotheosis. It's a joke to me. But it's not a joke because I don't find it funny. I find it offensive. I'm deemed as being party to some kind of subversive picture of this girl, that she was cajoled. That we literally manhandled her into stripping is completely not true."

He also objected to the characterization of Cyrus' attire as a bedsheet. "It's a duchess satin stole, Champagne, specially made — I had several made for different photo shoots. I thought this one was really appropriate. It's about 83 inches long. She's not wrapped in something skimpy. She had her jeans on. She looked at the screen and loved the picture."

As for Cyrus' statement apologizing to her fans and distancing herself from the shoot, Roberts said, "This is a girl caught up in a gigantic enterprise where many people's fortunes are riding on her future. If it was fine then, I don't see why suddenly it's not fine."

Roberts suggested one rationale for the change of heart: "Maybe Vanity Fair is a far too sophisticated media outlet for her. Maybe she's better off in those teen magazines. We don't do cheesy teen pictures. We do chic pictures and pictures that are beautiful portraits by probably the leading portrait photographer of our age."

Leibovitz did not respond for a request for comment, but issued a statement through Vanity Fair Monday saying, "I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted. Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it. The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful." The magazine's statement said in part, "Miley's parents and/or minders were on the set all day."

The Disney Channel, which does a brisk business off Cyrus' squeaky clean image, said in a statement, "Unfortunately, as the article [in Vanity Fair] suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
214,403
Messages
15,260,526
Members
88,387
Latest member
jsmythe303
Back
Top