What I find limiting about these kind of covers is the nigh annual labeling of a group of people as "the next generation of talent" or "the new Hollywood" or some such. It's like a tradition
Vanity Fair can't or won't break, because it's such an easy and cheap way to comprise and sell an issue, especially to those who only casually buy one. It lacks authenticity. And, as this cover so well showcases, where will you find nine or ten "new" faces
every year that a majority of people
won't find questionable in talent or other merit on the basis of which they are featured?
To address this cover specifically, it really is rather misleading. Is this a cover for the "fresh faces of 2010" or a cover for the decade's "new Hollywood"? This particular, ambiguous group of actresses doesn't fit either description as a whole, and the overall choice of stars therefore really doesn't feel well-considered. Not to mention that many of the actresses featured here have very differently distinctive things going for them, which makes them an all the more random bunch.
On another note, I am so up to here with Annie Leibovitz's supposed brilliance. The casual styling and outdoor settings, particularly when combined with these in many ways unknown faces, in
no way speaks "Hollywood" to me and I really don't see how this is any different from or more compelling than Leibovitz's past boring work. "Legendary" is an adjective I keep hearing associated with her, but to me a long body of work alone does not "legendary" make. I am simply not impressed with or in any way affected by this type of bland, idolizing celebrity portraiture, completely void of personality or reality, which Leibovitz has made a career of. But on second thought, I think I may have just described exactly what Hollywood is and has always been about, and I've simply become disillusioned with it and, therein, Leibovitz.
At any rate, the cover photo isn't particularly great for almost any of them. So much Photoshopping, and yet Emma Stone still has bags under her eyes. Kristen Stewart looks her usual dull-eyed, greasy-haired self, and why Amanda Seyfried's amazing hair has been hidden behind her back in this way is simply perplexing. Although Carey Mulligan doesn't photograph well overall, this is really a
particularly bad photo of her, and if it wasn't true I could scarcely believe they really saw her half-sarcastic, half-sour expression here and thought, "Oh, good enough." Anna Kendrick looks like she's straight off the Bel Air tennis court for trophy wives, while Evan Rachel Wood, although pretty, is a deer in the headlights. Only Abbie Cornish and Rebecca Hall look genuinely good here, but somehow maturer than the rest, which just makes me all the more confused as to what
Vanity Fair is alluding to here with "fresh".
Really, Annie, I realize a group of people is difficult to direct, but with your reputation I expect more than 2/9.
I like some of the Hollywood portfolio, though. While a lot of it doesn't strike me as anything above basic portraiture, the charisma of some people shines through regardless. Saoirse Ronan looks incredibly flawless and soulful in her picture, while Christoph Waltz's presence is just exceptionally intense and charismatic. I also like the warmth in Scott Cooper and Jeff Bridges' photo, which I guess I must credit Leibovitz for catching on film.
But then there's James Cameron as "The Visionary", and we're back on track with the helplessly boring and shamelessly pretentious. Never mind that the picture is a rather revoltingly kiss-@ss portrayal of him, it's the labeling that really kills me. If there was one director I could've titled as "The Visionary", James Cameron would
not have been my choice --
ever. Blue people and digital trickery don't to me speak of exceptional
vision above that of all his contemporaries, and it is actually a little sickening that he is raised on a pedestal in this way without any actual forethought.
Although
Vanity Fair rarely impresses me, this issue is to me exceptionally disappointing. Oh well. I guess I just don't belong among their target readers.
Yes, Hollywood is vapid and has twisted standards. And yes, they can be called out for them. If an Oscar nod has nothing to do with "taking the mantle," then folks in Hollywood, and probably a lot of their readers, certainly need to wake up.
People challege standards all the time. The same standards have existed in the fashion industry for years, and many people have responded with critique. This has been going on for decades, and it's the only way any changes are made. It's the same for Hollywood. Vanity Fair, for all it's vapidity, has had enough sense to at least use "token" women of color on its previous Hollywood issues. Here, they're making a different statement.
