Vanity Fair March 2022 : The Hollywood Issue by Maurizio Cattelan & Pierpaolo Ferrari

Nicole “too old” for that look? HELL NO! look at those abs, the nepo girls wish. She looks faboulous!

Definitely not their best hollywood issue but is pretty clear that they took notes from last year’s disaster. Just wish it has more celebs.
 
This magazine has become such a parody of itself.
The glory days are well, and truly gone.
That ridiculous Nicole Kidman cover, with her forever frozen expression, is kind of perfect tho.
 
Add the one with three legs and three hands, hahaha.
cover-lead.jpg
Daily Front Row


Kristen looks amazing in her cover. I like most of the guys. And Nicole's looks taken 25 years ago! Why these photographers reminds me a lot (a lot!) to the infamous E. Farneti?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Penélope's cover is literally Cattelan's banana duct-taped to the wall, only the banana poses better.

To be fair in general is not about good or bad poser, Penelope proved that she works amazing in front of the camera, sometimes its about good or bad photo editing...
 
Love the covers...i think it follow the same road that GQ with Robert Pattison, on purpose over post produced, kitch, campy, fun, silly for moments...and i love when actors are open to be involved in this kind of projects even if they look ridiculous. It's like a less extreme Lachapelle style...

Nicole wearing Miu Miu amazing!! K Stewart great! reminded me as 70's 80's poster girls...
 
the covers have this cheap look that I cannot unsee.
some of the covers (or the actors expressions) are absolutely terrible such as Nicole, Benedict, Andrew and Michaela. not good at all IMO

the group shot is good and something like that should’ve been the only cover.
 
I like some of the covers, being Kristen's the best and Andrew's the worst.
 
My favourite cover is Kristen Stewart's and as much as I love Penelope Cruz, her cover is a downright eyesore. None of the others do it for me and while I understand the end result is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, fun and kitsch the over-editing is just far too apparent and looks rather cartoon-ish.
 
MJ is completely cross-eyed…I can never take her “fierceness” seriously.

These covers are ridiculous. Hard pass for me to all, frankly.
 
I treasure my old Hollywood issues of Vanity Fair from 20 yrs ago even more

I subscribe and I read every issue I receive - but I hardly ever keep any of them. There's not really anything in them that's worth keeping for the long term.

Yet I have a dedicated magazine holder for some of the old Hollywood issues of Vanity Fair (which are kept beside some 1991 issues of Vogue Italia).
 
What I hate about this is that it lacks the humor and the glamour. People like David LaChapelle have always done these kinds of shoots but it always feels elevated and subversive. This just looks goofy and cheap.

I was thinking the ssame, David LaChapelle would have aced this. These are in the so bad that they are good category. I barely tolerate the second Idris one, the Penelope one and the second Kirsten one. Most of them look like some Mafia family reality show promo. I dont mind the group shot minus the photoshop
 
I'm flicking through the digital copy of the UK version as my print copy hasn't arrived yet. It's 140 pages, and the digital cover is Cumberbatch. The editor's letter isn't saying much, it might as well be the contents page in prose format. Nicole Kidman has had ten covers with Vanity Fair. There's an ad for Hamish Bowles and the forthcoming first issue of World of Interiors under his new editorship. The Hollywood Portfolio is just a compendium of all the cover shots.

The articles open with Jerry Falwell Jr talking about life in the footsteps of his father, and after his wife had an affair with a pool boy. Then it's a look at Amazon's "billion-dollar backstory" to Lord of the Rings (probably ignoring the true moral to be found in The Hobbit about stretching things out too thinly using material from books people generally didn't read for a reason). The topic of film composers getting paid in the era of streaming music is up next, plus mini profiles of Ruth Negga and Kodi Smit-McPhee. There's an investigation into what happened with the shooting on the set of Rust, and some old(er) Hollywood content about Jerry Lee assaulting women. Kenneth Branagh is the back page Proust interview.

What do you dislike most about your appearance?
No good disliking ourselves - it gives the world an excuse to do the same.

And... that's it? Maybe seeing all the covers in advance (essentially all the photographic content) has spoiled things, because it doesn't feel like there's much content in this issue, when there's probably just the same amount as every single-month issue. It's those double-month issues that make you feel like you've got something proper to read.
 
But what happened to Annie Leibovitz? Where is she? Testino got cancelled. Demarchelier cancelled. Weber cancelled. Lindbergh died. She's like the last great celebrity photographer and the icon of Vanity Fair cover shoots and yet she's nowhere to be seen. Such a shame.

These are all quite embarrassing.
 
I'm wondering if the 'main' cover for this release ended up being the Benedict Cumberbatch one, because it's the only one I've seen so far (and it was my subscription copy as well). The Guardian has provided its take on it:

(theguardian.com/film/2022/feb/18/benedict-cumberbatch-vanity-fair-hollywood-issue-cover)

Benedict Cumberbatch swans about on the baffling cover of Vanity Fair’s Hollywood issue

Scowling, sodden and surrounded by waterfowl, the actor adorns the new Hollywood issue as an icon of … what exactly?

Caspar Salmon
Fri 18 Feb 2022 15.59 GMT

The customary brouhaha erupted yesterday after the release of Vanity Fair’s annual Hollywood Issue cover photos, the most striking of which depicts an angry Benedict Cumberbatch emerging fully clothed from a hot bubblebath sesh with a bevy of swans.

The Hollywood Issue increasingly feels like it belongs to a different era, when fashion magazines and actors’ star power were at their respective heights. These days, the printed press is clinging on for dear life (Entertainment Weekly announced just last week that it will be ceasing its print edition), and in Hollywood no one performer is bigger than a franchise. So the Hollywood Issue, which trades in the nose-to-the-window glamour of movie stars, has a more forlorn quality than it used to.

In previous issues – such as the “Legends of Hollywood” iteration in 2001, featuring Nicole Kidman, Catherine Deneuve, Meryl Streep and Gwyneth Paltrow variously bestriding and draped over plush scenery – the magazine veritably crowed about the glamour of its catches, and, by extension, its own Brobdingnagian pulling power. Annie Leibovitz has since been taken off photography duties and the covers have been somewhat de-whitened (the extravagantly alabaster tones of 2010’s roster would quite rightly not pass muster in 2022); Maurizio Cattelan and Pierpaolo Ferrari are now on call to provide a self-consciously loopy look at today’s celebrities of the not-so-silver screen. “Look at these stars!” the magazine now appears to mumble, rather hopefully. “You like them?”

In a series of eight covers for 2022, which features such other actors as Andrew Garfield, Idris Elba and Penélope Cruz, Cumberbatch’s is the standout. Where Garfield is photographed in goofy neon pink, suspended over Hollywood on a construction hook, and a dreamy Kristen Stewart surveys the city from atop a diving board, a scintilla more art direction appears to have gone into the Cumberbatch shoot. A soapy Benedict stands in a finely appointed room belonging to a Pemberley-style mansion and stares defiantly into the lens while a quartet of handsome swans cavort in and around a gold bathtub. What does the picture signify (apart from being a play on the well-worn “wet fully-clothed movie star” trope)? It’s notable that, in contrast to his surroundings, Cumberbatch is dressed in distinctly modern, action-man togs, while there are touches of distress – some chipped wood in the doorframes – in the antique chamber behind him.

Perhaps the photograph is intended as a subversive comment on Cumberbatch’s efforts to distance himself from his extraordinarily moneyed family, whose every generation has its own Wikipedia page going right back to his slave-owning ancestor Abraham Parry Cumberbatch?

Certainly it feels as if the UK’s current triumvirate of public school-educated acting superstars, (Cumberbatch, Eddie Redmayne and Tom Hiddleston), have been rather more quiet of late than when they once appeared to dominate the promotional circuits. Indeed, for early students of Cumberbatch’s career – from his stunning Tesman opposite Eve Best in Hedda Gabler in 2005 and his exquisite performance in Stuart: A Life Backwards alongside Tom Hardy in 2007 – a certain level of Cumberbatch fatigue set in after the actor had racked up several Sherlock Holmeses, a Hamlet at the National, the voice of Smaug in three Hobbit films, a Turing and a Julian Assange.

Since then, the actor has appeared to scale things back a smidge, keeping a relatively low profile among Marvel gigs with a few cameos and secondary roles before returning to a world that was now more ready for his award-winning turn in Jane Campion’s The Power of the Dog, playing decidedly against type as a gruff and wounded rancher. This tightly coiled, muscular, surly performance seemed also to present a new Cumberbatch, one whose wit and charm had been excised in favour of a more physical charisma, banishing any Englishness from his persona.

Although the Hollywood Issue has lost a touch of its pizzazz over the years, it’s interesting to see how, in its depiction of Cumberbatch at least, the magazine has resorted to a type of old-school glamour, playing on notions of money, class and perhaps even race to conjure a vision of ambiguous stardom for 2022 – played out against an empty, dilapidated room.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
213,111
Messages
15,209,914
Members
87,070
Latest member
jltakespics
Back
Top