Reading through this...
The interview with Dwayne Johnson opens with talk of his social media posts about becoming President, I wonder if that will go any better for him than the last man who talked to Vanity Fair about his presidential ambitions (Beto O'Rourke).
There's a fairly optimistic piece about David Zaslav, the man at the head of a media merger, and on the fourth page of the feature, Vanity Fair discloses its commercial connection to the situation (Advance owns Conde Nast as well as having majority shares in Discovery, the latter being one of the companies run by Zaslav).
There's a short piece about Gore Vidal taken from Alan Cumming's new memoir. People always knew Vidal could be a “bitter old queen of a certain age”, so this article by Alan on an encounter with him just sounds like an excuse to shoehorn in a mention or two that Alan Cumming is now also an author and novelist as well, don’t you know. The problem is that the piece, printed here, is being seen in isolation - you could probably read Alan's memoir and see each of his anecdotes coming together to form a merry picture of Hollywood, but Vanity Fair choosing to reprint this particular section seems like a decision to chip away at the bottom of the statue of an aged male literary figure who was lionised - and who once roamed the pages of the magazine itself.
(Look back to 2010 and you have Christopher Hitchens casting his critical eye over Gore Vidal in his Vanity Fair column, in a way that identified the man's faults in thinking, but didn't try to diminish the man himself. There is a subtle difference.)
There are the usual political articles, as long as you remember that, according to this magazine, Democrats are flawed people but still the good guys, and Republicans are flawed people but essentially monsters, and are often literally illustrated as such, just in case the articles themselves didn't make that clear.
One of the longer features in the issue was one I was most looking forward to reading - a 10+ page article about the FBI's discovery and handling of an archaeological stockpile in the private possession of a man in Indiana, which included many sets of human remains removed from burial sites around the world. But it's quite a flat retelling of the incident, which I can understand if you're trying to discuss the sensitive issue of repatriation of human remains, it's not like an art heist where you can take liberties and introduce tension into the story for effect.
The piece entitled 'A Ballet Company's Dance of Death' is the incident involving former dancer Ashley Benefield, looking the name up will give you the gist.