Vanity Fair May 2016 : Amy Schumer by Annie Leibovitz

[kokobombon]

I´m too lazy to do some research but I think they shot Amy Adams, Katy Perry, Emma Stone in similar poses and/or outfits. I think the rocket idea was also used for a Vanities pic. I wonder how people reacted to those? did they praise them? are people not liking these because Amy doesn´t look like other stars? (beside the parody, I mean).
I´m asking because I feel like we see this type of imagery all the time and as long the model is attractive in a modern conventional way, we think they´re beautiful pics.

 

[MulletProof]

guess it would be hilarious if she didn't abide by the same poses, dress code and attitude on the red carpet and everywhere else. Maybe it's a cultural thing but I'll never understand what's remotely brilliant or funny about her, she sounds like evey other spring breaker in the caribbean.. loud, vulgar, arrogant, taking herself so seriously as she pretends not to, high school-level sense humor. I understand her success because really, there are just so many men and women like her, but the way she's marketed...

 

[fee de foret]

I like it. They're clearly making fun at the way women are usually asked to pose.

Ironic, being that Vanity Fair pushes that kind of image on their female cover stars more often then not. I can't remember the last time a woman on the cover who wasn't made up in a retro/pleasing to men/sexy way...maybe the Fox News anchor Megan Kelly? Meanwhile Jimmy Fallon got to becoming out of the ocean fully dressed in a suit with two bikini clad Victoria's secret models, Channing Tatum half body shot sitting seriously with his face resting on his chin, Seth Rogan and Paul Rudd got to poke fun at the time Vanity Fair posed two women completely nude with a fully clothed Tom Ford( the idiocy of making two women pose nude with a CLOTHING designer is a subject for another time)...This magazine grates on me like no other. As if they'd have the balls to style Amy in a power suit and not sexual-ized in any way. I'd be something new and fresh for her.

 

[t-rex]

^And men on the cover often appear in jeans and t shirts.

Interesting discussion!

 

[Firefly216]

I can't stand her, so of course I'm not going to like it
This is awful

 

[Benn98]

I'm not sure they were trying to do a parody... This is exactly how Vanity Fair frequently shoots their female stars, undressed sexpot glamour. I don't think Leibovitz is capable of doing irony or has any interest in it... And long gone are the days when Vanity Fair had ironic, funny covers - like Roseanne's two covers, Brooke Shields and a live turkey, Jack Nicholson's covers. I think VF is doing that thing of "even women with a body like Amy Schumer's can still be attractive to men!" because you know, that's what matters

True! I think the most recent fun/quirky cover was Bill Murray's December one. And that one was shot by Weber, which says a lot. This is a failed attempt if it was intended as a parody purely because Annie's photography is essentially rather serious. Anyway, I'll not have sleepless nights over VF's treatment of female celebrities. They very often resemble that staunch-minded baby boomer, simply refusing to attune to the times. And as long as top celebrities such as Amy, Katy, redhead Amy etc etc will oblige to be portrayed like this, why would Graydon ever see the need to alter this antiquated direction.

 

[blueorchid]

I'm not sure they were trying to do a parody... This is exactly how Vanity Fair frequently shoots their female stars, undressed sexpot glamour. I don't think Leibovitz is capable of doing irony or has any interest in it... And long gone are the days when Vanity Fair had ironic, funny covers - like Roseanne's two covers, Brooke Shields and a live turkey, Jack Nicholson's covers. I think VF is doing that thing of "even women with a body like Amy Schumer's can still be attractive to men!" because you know, that's what matters

I agree. I find it so awkward when magazines try to parody themselves. Like... do they get it?? What are they trying to prove? "tee-hee magazines make women look stupid when they pose like pin-ups, even though we do they same every second issue"

I did laugh at the Trump quote!

 

[narcyza]

It's NOT even funny..

 

[GlamVal]

the most awful pathetic cover I've seen on Vanity Fair.

 

[dfl-001]

It's like a VF parody of itself.
Like that line from Family Guy referencing The Godfather movies, ' It insist upon itself.'
The Donald Trump quote to the right clearly sums it up.

 

[RanThe]

I actually don't mind the cover at all! Amy looks good, but I can't stand her and don't think she's funny at all.

It might pop on newsstands with all that red, like Vogue's May issue.

 

[jeffandtheworld]

VanityFair facebook

This is great haha!

 

[OllieJE]

her facial expression is awkward , it seems that she's speaking to herself this is ridiculous

 

[happycanadian]

hahaha. love it.

that pic should've been the cover.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

I like it. They're clearly making fun at the way women are usually asked to pose.

Yeah but she actually has to pose for this photos, so it kind of defeats the purpose. Why would anyone subject herself to take this awful pictures. She does not need this, besides she's not even funny.

 

[honeycombchild]

This is the 'sisters' issue and inside we have portraits of Stella & Mary McCartney, Haim... and yet on the cover we have Amy, on her own. No sister. Why dedicate an issue to the idea of 'sisters' (which is a weird idea in my book anyway) only to then not follow through to the cover?

 

[dfl-001]

Sorry, but that picture looks like a bad PSA for venereal disease.

 

[Benn98]

(which is a weird idea in my book anyway)

Lol, it is quite a random idea. Probably those features will only take up a segment of the magazine, they always seem to do that with themed issues lately.

The last shot of Amy....well, missed opportunity, if you ask me. Where's the crazy expression to accompany the idea of her privates on fire? And it seems Annie is a fan of Sylvia Stickles famous line in A Dirty Shame!

 

[tigerrouge]

I have my subscription issue open before me - there's an ad for the centenary issue of UK Vogue on the inside back cover, but it's just a collection of 20 covers from its history, and no shot of the new one.

Anyhow, this is a thin issue (138 pgs) with no supplement. The colours are bold, but the cover is cluttered. There's so much going on, the visual cues get lost, and the idea that it's a mild parody might not be that obvious to a lot of people seeing this on the newsstand. Amy Schumer might be omnipresent in the US at the moment, but she's yet to make the same impression in the UK. Not everyone will know who she is, but it was the same (or much worse) with Megyn Kelly, so Vanity Fair doesn't care. Is it a case of one magazine NOT pandering to a lowest common denominator?

The theme of sisters is thoroughly covered in the contents, it's not a case of it being one article, it's nearly the entire magazine. I get the impression that this is an intelligent way of covering the theme of nepotism, reminding us that it's always been with us, with the only difference being the stature of the celebrity. We're now worlds away from Jackie Kennedy and Lee Radziwill, or Olivia de Havilland and John Fontaine, and there are interviews with each surviving sister inside the issue. Plus a few mentions of the Mitfords, and the Queen and Princess Margaret. The photographic portfolio of sisters is more like something you'd get in Tatler.

There are hardly any ads in this issue (the UK edition), so it's not something that I'd have bought. I dont mind Amy Schumer, but if I were to pay almost £5 for a magazine, I'd be expecting real glamour for my money, not a piss-take of it. This feels like a filler issue even before we get to the lean, long summer months, where not much seems to happen in magazine world.

 

[Benn98]

The theme of sisters is thoroughly covered in the contents, it's not a case of it being one article, it's nearly the entire magazine. I get the impression that this is an intelligent way of covering the theme of nepotism, reminding us that it's always been with us, with the only difference being the stature of the celebrity. We're now worlds away from Jackie Kennedy and Lee Radziwill, or Olivia de Havilland and John Fontaine, and there are interviews with each surviving sister inside the issue. Plus a few mentions of the Mitfords, and the Queen and Princess Margaret. The photographic portfolio of sisters is more like something you'd get in Tatler

Tigerrouge!! Golly, nice to see you again.

Thanks for the overview. Interesting point re the whole 'sisters' issue. Olivia and Joan are both stellar actresses, and then there's the whole Redgrave dynasty as well, so yes, nepotism and 'sisters' has always been with is. The difference to me is that even the lesser sister of these two examples most certainly pulled their weight when it came to making their mark. For every coattailing sister there is a Mary McCartney, whose vegan activism endeavours preceded Stella's, or how Savannah Miller was the true mastermind behind Sienn's ill-fated fashion line.