Vanity Fair 'The Hollywood Issue' 2017 by Annie Leibovitz

[Les_Sucettes]

They look like debutants, hate the styling.

And can someone please, please pension off Leibovitz!

 

[Breathless]

Explain to me how majority of you can point out and rant on and on about Lupita but don't have a dawn thing to say about Emma, Amy or Natalie in the same comment? Something about that seems a little odd but I won't bother to say what it is.

 

[Melancholybaby]

^Emma, Amy and Natalie all have performances with Oscar buzz this year. The Fanning sisters on the other hand...I don't have the slightest idea why they are on the cover.

 

[Benn98]

^ Isabelle would have been such a nice addition, she was amazing in Elle. Even though the movie itself STILL has me clutching my pearls!!

Hahaha, I saw the trailer and I thought, ooh this ought to be a nice thriller. BIG MISTAKE! Especially if you're a sensitive viewer. It haunted me for days. All that said, I think the battle should be between Isabelle and Viola.

So the idea behind the Hollywood issue is not just to line up Oscar contenders. It's a selection of women who stood out in hyped films over the past few months. They all make sense from that perspective. It's when you bear in mind that this is Lupita's 3rd Hollywood cover, yet she's got only 5 big films behind her name (many of them not even led by her!). And someone dared to compare her with legitimate actresses who stood the test of time, who proved their acting chops and ability to sell varied films and magazines??? Smh! Sorry, there is only one overrated actress on the (main) cover........

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ The movie is seriously messed up!! I was dragged by a friend, and didn't even see the trailer beforehand! Imagine my:

Wow at that Natalie shot, surprised she would pose like that, as well!!

 

[kimair]

i find it funny that everyone is in an uproar over lupita, and i'm like "why is dakota johnson there?"
(that being said, i think lupita's dress is the best...wish she weren't sitting)

 

[Nepenthes]

^Right?? I mean if you're gonna complain about anyone being there.. Love Lupita and that McQueen dress is killer. Viola and Taraji should have been in there.

 

[kokobombon]

i find it funny that everyone is in an uproar over lupita, and i'm like "why is dakota johnson there?"

wait. what?!
I actually had to go and check the cover again, I thought she was a newcomer that I didn´t know about

Save​

 

[KoV]

Lupita looks lovely on the cover and I think when the decision to put her on the cover was made, she had a bit of buzz for "Queen of Katwe". That said, she won an Oscar for her first film role 3 years ago and this is her 3rd appearance on the Vanity Fair Hollywood Issue, despite only appearing onscreen in only 2 films since then, both times in a supporting role (she also did provided the voices for 2 supporting CGI characters). And She has no live-action roles slated for release until Next year, where she has a supporting role in a Marvel movie. So.... there's definitely a disconnect between her film work and the level of publicity she seems to be getting from fashion magazines. I believe she has 3 Vanity Fair Covers, 2 Vogue covers, 2 Marie Claire covers, a W cover, 2 Elle covers, a Glamour cover, an InStyle cover, etc. and that's all starting in 2014. I daresay she's had as many or more cover appearances in the past couple of years as any other actress featured here, but she's made fewer film appearances. Based on her performance in "12 Years a Slave" she's a fantastic actress. I hope she gets more great roles, because at this point she's sort of headed towards overexposure, where she's everywhere but doesn't have the film roles to back it up. Either she's very choosy or Hollywood doesn't have enough roles of women of color. I'm thinking it's the latter.


Dakota Fanning's presence is a bit puzzling as well, but I checked out her IMDb page and it looks like she's got several upcoming projects that look promising, including an HBO show, an adaptation of The Bell Jar, and a few others. So she probably is going to have a big year or two coming up.

 

[Modelspiceuk]

Lupita looks lovely on the cover...Either she's very choosy or Hollywood doesn't have enough roles of women of color. I'm thinking it's the latter....

YES, indeed, she looks absolutely FAB in the McQueen gown, love it.

And do we really need to ask, what's going on with Lupita's career? Heck, it's pretty obvious that hw is not gonna take time to have a dark-skinned beauty feature in its movies, as a LEADING lady. Check out her Lenny letter, online, in which she spells out exactly why she took on the role of the LEAD playing "The Girl" in Danai Gurira's Eclipsed play on Broadway, earlier this year, and for which she was nominated for a Tony award.

And to those who voiced their discontent at Lupita being on the VF cover, dang, then i ask, what the heck are people like the fanning sisters and dj also doing on this fold? And can someone tell me if there are "groan" or "dislike" buttons, please?

 

[Benn98]

.. 2 Vogue covers,

It's actually 3.

And I just realise now that Marion Cottilard never had a VF Hollywood cover. And she had Allied last year...

Anyway, I thought Graydon exorcised all his Trump demons last month.

 

[[Piece Of Me]]

I feel like it's the same faces every year- Emma, Amy, Lupita. And don't get me wrong, I LOVE both Amy and Lupita but Lupita especially seems like a bit of a weird choice for the front cover,. Why not give Ruth that spot? (or Viola, Naomie, Isabelle, Tariji etc.). Although, she does make more sense than Dakota

To end on a positive note, so lovely to see Janelle

 

[TaylorBinque]

I am not here to hate Lupita. She's talented and she's gorgeous but I just feel like she's the industry's darling and it's become overexposed. Why not save her for later when her movies are out. Ruth can obviously take her spot. You can even put Taraji or Naomie who are both in the buzziest movies of the year. Both films are nominated and doing really well commercially. As much as I don't want Dakota to be here, she's so many films coming out and one is 50 shades darker. The Fanning sisters have generated buzz, especially Elle for Neon Demon and 20th Century Women. I would even love to see Annette Bening, who at 58, has given her most nuanced performance yet. The media needs to shuffle up a bit. A lot of stars power come from exposure. But, it's a nice cover. The individual portraits are much more interesting.

 

[tigerrouge]

So my subscription copy turned up today. The UK version comes with a travel supplement, it has a fold-out cover shot of a pier that probably gets more hours of sun in a day than I see in a month... it's Paraty, Brazil. The entire supplement is a South American special.

In the main issue, the cover doesn't look as bad (to me) as it did in the scan - people look tired, but it's because they've been allowed to retain a certain degree of realism, such as undereye circles. Not too much realism, though, it's still a Hollywood cover, and Natalie Portman looks particularly CGI in the group shot. Stella McCartney is the advert inside the gatefold cover.

There's a short piece about the shooting of the cover - and Zendaya is the Vanities girl. 'My Desk' is about Karl Lagerfeld's space, Choupette looks stuffed. A satirical article ponders the making of a movie about Trump, 'the story that won't go away', while James Packer gets a profile. Then it's a bit of David Lynch, looking at the making of Mulholland Drive.

The Hollywood portfolio starts, single shots of the cover girls, which are nice but nothing legendary. A feature explores how technology is affecting the film-making business, then turn the page, and it's John Leguizamo. Another page later, and it's Sidney Poitier, and how he navigated his star status during a time of race riots. Sherry Lansing recalls her father in a short piece, and how she learned a passion for movies.

Mega-lawyer Marty Singer is next to be profiled, then we're in the past again, back to 1931, when Coco Chanel turned up in Hollywood, at the request of Samuel Goldwyn. Composer-producer David Foster is interviewed, plus a look at Michael Crichton's reign, and what happened when newspaper critic Pauline Kael left her job to work with Warren Beatty.

This issue seems thin and insubstantial in the hand, but there's more going on in the contents than I thought. Not the most impressive Hollywood issue I've seen, but still enough to satisfy the regular reader. I would have liked more old-style glamour, but I'm bound to get that from Vanity Fair some other month.

I turned to the editor's letter, wondering how far into it he'd mention Trump's name - it's his first two words.

 

[Deleted member 45369]

I feel like it's the same faces every year- Emma, Amy, Lupita. And don't get me wrong, I LOVE both Amy and Lupita but Lupita especially seems like a bit of a weird choice for the front cover,. Why not give Ruth that spot? (or Viola, Naomie, Isabelle, Tariji etc.). Although, she does make more sense than Dakota

To end on a positive note, so lovely to see Janelle

It just rubs me the wrong way when people want to replace one black actress with another like some affirmative action program. Why can't two be on the cover? Or why doesn't VF do something ballsy for a change an do an All black hollywood issue? Especially after the Oscars So White controversy. It would have been great publicity.

 

[[Piece Of Me]]

It just rubs me the wrong way when people want to replace one black actress with another like some affirmative action program. Why can't two be on the cover? Or why doesn't VF do something ballsy for a change an do an All black hollywood issue? Especially after the Oscars So White controversy. It would have been great publicity.

Oh, that was definitely not what I meant! Sorry if it came accross that way. I just mentioned Lupita because I was surprised to see her land the cover, after not having any real buzz around her movies during the past year. And I mentioned some actresses that I would have loved to see in her place. If it was up to me, I would have had Ruth, Naomie and Viola all on the front cover.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

Not a bad issue. The article about Coco's business into Hollywood is interesting enough, and a story i never heard before. Of course she would be a nightmare, and not want to work from LA hahaha!

 

[Benn98]

The article about Coco's business into Hollywood is interesting enough, and a story i never heard before. Of course she would be a nightmare, and not want to work from LA hahaha!

I don't have my issue yet, but I've heard that Gloria Swanson was part of the reason why Coco never went back to Hollywood. She was apparently not only very difficult to work with, but she also fell pregnant after Coco put her wardrobe together, which meant that Coco had to adjust all the looks. And with Swanson being the queen of the lot at the time, you can imagine she'd get her way. I also think that American cinema wasn't quite ready for Chanel's type of style at the time. Her glamour wasn't as extravagant and OTT as that of Natacha Rambova, Travis Banton, or Irene, who dominated that era.

Also, from what I gather the stars really sort of had the final say when it came to costume designers in the 20's and 30's. Lillian Gish mentioned in her memoirs that she absolutely refused to wear Erté's lavish designs for one of her films, La Bohéme, and she too got away with it. She had valid reasons, but still.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ Yes, yes, yes it's all mentioned in the article. It's interesting, but also Adrian told her that for the movies you have to bring a bit of dazzle, she didn't care!

Swanson did go to her fitting in Paris once, and it was obvious she was pregnant so it all went downhill from there haha. And the US press had it in for her, from the start! But reading this artilce i did think it would make for an interesting movie!