Vanity Fair October 2009 : Jacqueline Kennedy by Jacques Lowe | Page 2 | the Fashion Spot

Vanity Fair October 2009 : Jacqueline Kennedy by Jacques Lowe

Always loved that photograph, i will certainly buy this because i love her.However i agree that with the passing of Ted they will do another cover with him, most probably.So it is a bit to much.
 
This picture has already been printed in Vanity Fair. I am fairly certain that either this shot or one from this series was used.

I don't mind dead celebrities but I feel as though they're really beating a dead horse with this one. They do a Kennedy cover every year like clockwork and with the death of Ted (RIP) I feel they will do another one next month. Its not as though these people aren't iconic and worthy of their own legend but the formula is stale. Its tired.

I can think of many younger stars who are talented and could use the kind of mammoth hype a Vanity Fair cover can provide. I was just talking with Faith the other day about the good ol' days when you never really knew who to expect on the cover of VF, there would always be some random nobody who managed to land a cover and it would spark all this debate. Nowadays not so much.
 
This magazine is rapdily going down the toilet. They have to keep reaching back for the past when the present is right in front of them. Ridiculous.
 
This cover is everything I've raged about before. I don't care about the Kennedys, although I can't put up too much of a fight about Jackie because I can see she's an eternal obsession in terms of style, but I think I might combust when Ted gets his. And I really don't care about the politics, because at times, the politics showed no care for me. And that's putting it politely.
 
It is unbelievable how wide-apart her eyes are. Looks creepy.

Thank God for that hair and wardrobe.
 
oh god, I haven't checked any VF thread for a long while... is it possible to have anyone alive on the cover?

I agree Luxx, I think next month we're going to see the last Kennedy...
 
What's with the dead folks on the cover? Maybe next month they can actually put live person on the cover.
 
I wouldn't mind one Kennedy cover a year - and one dead celebrity - because there will always be the fascination with that dynasty, and there are always new revelations being published in books about old Hollywood stars. I wonder if it's simply been bad timing, that several deaths have occurred on top of their existing editorial schedule, but if so, it's a sign that maybe they need to move away from that template, because people are only going to continue dying - and you can see from people's reactions here that issues discussing the dead can only go on for so long before they lose their appeal.

Part of me does think... the old Vanity Fair would have had someone like Britney Spears on the cover by now, spilling the beans about their life, and looking tremendous. Instead, they gave us Jessica Simpson with not much to say. And I really think they missed something by not making the Mad Men feature a cover story.

I'm a subscriber, so "dead cover overkill" isn't going to change anything for me. But if I was buying it... well, I wouldn't.
 
Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I've always had a really hard time understanding the value of the Kennedys. Okay, I can understand the importance of ones who were involved in politics, etc. but I just find it hard to "get" the fascination around them.

They are the closest thing to royalty over here. The Kennedy's are extremely rich and do whatever they want...basically they are the American dream.
 
And what are Vanity Fair going to do if Jimmy Carter dies next month? (Not that I wish death upon Jimmy Carter)
 
^^ They do these cover stories months later usually. Or even years. The Ted Kennedy one will come n about 6 months I think for instance.
 
^^ They do these cover stories months later usually. Or even years. The Ted Kennedy one will come n about 6 months I think for instance.

I think that is very noble of Vanity Fair, waiting months after the the death, when the media attention has cooled down. It shows that VF is not exploiting the death of someone to sell copies, but is truly celebrating their life!
 
Vanity Fair just did a big article on Ted Kennedy in June. So maybe they will wait a bit for a cover... if they even give him one.
 
VF’S KENNEDY MYSTIQUE: If you’re wondering why Jacqueline Kennedy is on the cover of the October Vanity Fair — just after the death of her onetime brother-in-law Sen. Edward Kennedy, inconveniently timed for a monthly — it’s useful to remember that a Kennedy cover is now an annual tradition at the magazine, for the simple reason that it usually works.

In November 2007, “Unseen Camelot,” a package led by a Richard Avedon cover shot of John F. Kennedy and his wife, was that year’s best performer on the newsstand, with 459,169 copies sold, more than 100,000 more than the same month the year before. The Robert F. Kennedy cover in June 2008 was also a top seller, with 445,048 single-copy sales, but given that RFK shared the issue with a notorious shot of Miley Cyrus, it’s hard to determine which drew more readers.

Vanity Fair has a page on its site that compiles the nearly two dozen Kennedy features it has run in the magazine and online since 1999, many of them book excerpts.

“It’s a combination of their general attractiveness, their charm and their accomplishments,” said Vanity Fair editor in chief Graydon Carter of the Kennedys’ appeal for his magazine. “And for us at Vanity Fair, there is their central position in the last half of the last century — a period we have an ongoing interest in.”

Maybe it’s not just the Kennedys. In a fast-moving, fickle and overloaded entertainment landscape, few stars have as much enduring claim on the public’s imagination as dead ones from a less-cluttered past. In 2008, a Kennedy consort and fellow claimant for the nostalgia buy was Marilyn Monroe, who sold 476,937 copies of the October 2008 issue, second that year only to Angelina Jolie. The Monroe story, like this month’s Kennedy story, was written by Sam Kashner.

The more recent dead have also been cover favorites. The covers of the last two issues have been devoted to three dead people: Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett on September’s, Heath Ledger on August’s. Their sales figures are not yet available.

wwd / september 2, 2009
 
I think that is very noble of Vanity Fair, waiting months after the the death, when the media attention has cooled down. It shows that VF is not exploiting the death of someone to sell copies, but is truly celebrating their life!

That is not the reason. They usually put together the covers months ahead. Usually.

Look at how they 'exploited' Farrah and MJ. They totally used their deaths to sell copies.
 
That is not the reason. They usually put together the covers months ahead. Usually.

Look at how they 'exploited' Farrah and MJ. They totally used their deaths to sell copies.

Right after I posted, I throught of the Farrah and MJ covers. I guess mabye my whole analysis of that was incorrect. I guess what I was more trying to get at is that VF is interested in the Kennedys whether the rest of the media is or is not. Also the August issue of Heath Leadger was years after his death (possibly they decided to run that as the cover because a celebrity fell through). But usually they do a Kennedy cover a year. JFK and Jackie in 2007, Bobby in 2008, Jackie in 2009, mabye Ted in 2010?
 
By that time, I wonder if the general assessment of Ted - which has been quite positive at the moment - might take on a different tone. People generally don't like speaking ill of the dead (or the ill) but once a certain length of time has elapsed, then people can start speaking their mind. Vanity Fair might still be in the mood to eulogise him, but I wonder how things will level out in the long-term assessment of what he stood for and what he did.

I'd be very interested to read an even-handed view of that, because there's bound to be lots of things we're not really aware of. For good and for bad. The overshadowed brother, but the one who got to live his life out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't like that shot-sorry but I think it's really unflattering :unsure:
(I don't think they really used Farrah and Michael's deaths as bad as it may seem. yes, it probably was to help sell covers, but Vanity Fair is a cultural magazine and those two are both huge cultural icons, so, yeah, when cultural icons pass away, it makes sense for a cultural magazine to put them on the cover.)
Not sure why they had to put Heath there though-hard to tell if he'll be a cultural icon.
The Kennedys are American cultural icons, although it is a bit annoying that they get a cover every year

sorry for the rant-just sharing my thoughts!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
216,525
Messages
15,342,422
Members
90,209
Latest member
randorando
Back
Top