Vanity Fair March 2018 : Jennifer Lawrence by Inez van Lamsweerde & Vinoodh Matadin

[Piet Retief]

Jennifer Lawrence isn't my cup of tea but this cover image is really striking and mesmerizing.

 

[tigerrouge]

I finally got my subscription copy. It's a gorgeous cover shot, but for some reason, the front of my print copy was worn and scuffed, despite coming in a plastic wrapper that remained pristine. I don't know if I care enough to order a replacement; not much in this issue interests me.

While the UK version never attracted the number of adverts that the US edition did, this one is particularly thin by that already-small standard (134 pgs), and there's no supplement to bulk it out. The articles have the superficial appearance being the same, but already, some are much shorter than what we're used to seeing. Well, in that case, maybe it won't take me a month to get round to reading it all. Elsewhere, the images don't really speak to me.

And all of it makes me realise how much the magazine's spirit flowed from Graydon himself, how it seeped into the pages, the character he was playing, the larger-than-life editor who's a legend in his own lunchtime.

Maybe this is another instance when a new editor's first issue comes with a fantastic cover shot, but then goes downhill on every page thereafter. Or maybe it's me, because I subscribed to UK Vogue, and look what happened to that. I subscribed to Vanity Fair, and this is the result. I was subscribed to UK Glamour for a while, but I don't even know what's happening with them. So maybe I should just stop subscribing.

Alternatively, is there any magazine you'd LIKE me to subscribe to...

 

[samoanceleb]

I do not like the cover/masthead and the new art direction (on the cover at least), it looks like a second rate Vogue Cover Challenge entry.

From the features/editorials posted above, the pages look straight of Vogue. So far, it's missing the strong Hollywood/LA-centric aesthetic that Vanity Fair built their brand upon, and has been widely (and poorly) imitated since the 80s.

I'll reserve my full judgment until I see the magazine in the flesh, but I was hoping for a newsy, punchy statement and refresh similar to Tina Brown's Talk, Kate Bett's Bazaar or Enninful's Vogue.

 

[tigerrouge]

I'll be very disappointed if the content moves away from reporting on Hollywood - if there are no more articles exploring how a cult movie almost didn't get made, or what happened to a certain person who controlled a lot behind the scenes, or which actress almost murdered someone with their own stiletto due to a lesbian love triangle that was kept out of the press. You know, that sort of thing.

I know the IT sector is where fortunes are currently made, but reading about it doesn't really have the same allure, because not all of them have a personality that lends itself to publicity, and the only glamour is generally coming from models marrying to secure their next round of alimony.

 

[Benn98]

I'll be very disappointed if the content moves away from reporting on Hollywood - if there are no more articles exploring how a cult movie almost didn't get made, or what happened to a certain person who controlled a lot behind the scenes, or which actress almost murdered someone with their own stiletto due to a lesbian love triangle that was kept out of the press. You know, that sort of thing.

Of course we must kiss these features goodbye now, Tigerrouge! They were my favourite as well. But you must understand that Graydon really loved Hollywood and moviemaking. That signalled the birth of the Hollywood issue, and the VF Oscar party. Can't say the same about this woman. She seems a capable book editor, but I can already tell she's going to politicise the hell out of this magazine. That much can be gathered by her content and editor's letter. And by the roster of photographers commissioned throughout her issue. I got my issue over the weekend, flipped through it, and haven't bothered with it since.

But what I'm really more concerned with is the investigative journalism and exposes! Again, because Carter was already somewhat familiar with the American establishment in his early VF years, it meant he had connections. Tina Brown came from Tatler! How will Radhika Jones navigate a corporate or political scandal with limited financial resources, political correctness, and very little connections to the establishment? She'll cave at the mere sound of a lawsuit! Do you even think she'd be able to face a standoff with Angeline Jolie? Please!

 

[tigerrouge]

While it has a niche circulation, it's also a powerhouse of a magazine to take on, in terms of its history. These days, you could argue about the relevance of any print magazine, yet - for example - VF still managed to create waves with its Caitlin cover.

It'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but perhaps that's the sort of process that - in time - forges a damn good editor.

 

[axiomatic]

But what I'm really more concerned with is the investigative journalism and exposes! Again, because Carter was already somewhat familiar with the American establishment in his early VF years, it meant he had connections. Tina Brown came from Tatler! How will Radhika Jones navigate a corporate or political scandal with limited financial resources, political correctness, and very little connections to the establishment? She'll cave at the mere sound of a lawsuit! Do you even think she'd be able to face a standoff with Angeline Jolie? Please!

She's worked at Paris Review, Time, and NYT, but you don't think she has connections to the "establishment?"

 

[Benn98]

She's worked at Paris Review, Time, and NYT, but you don't think she has connections to the "establishment?"

VF encompasses mediums beyond the literary scenes. Politics, fashion, architecture, entertainment, and British culture on a much grander scale than what she's accustomed to. So no, I don't think her connections are sufficient enough for this title.

 

[madame_georgiana]

VF encompasses mediums beyond the literary scenes. Politics, fashion, architecture, entertainment, and British culture on a much grander scale than what she's accustomed to. So no, I don't think her connections are sufficient enough for this title.

I really don't think you know what your talking about at all! You make it sound like she went from working at W to heading Vanity Fair...

 

[tigerrouge]

I think we're used to Vanity Fair being driven by the personality of its editor, and with Radhika, we just don't know who she is yet. That part is a blank. So it's hard to imagine what will happen.

 

[Benn98]

I really don't think you know what your talking about at all! You make it sound like she went from working at W to heading Vanity Fair...

Sigh. And I really don't care what you're talking about which is why I won't bother to justify myself, but can I just add that there are ways to respectfully disagree with someone else? Try it sometime. Might do wonders for you.