Vogue Paris June/July 2006 : Jennifer Connelly by David Sims

[susie_bubble]

Oh dear....now that I can judge...... it IS a terrible cover.

But the insides look interesting

 

[Faith Akiyama]

I stand disappointed (With the cover so far, at least) - they could've gone a lot of different directions with Jennifer, but why not a darker route? She is known for portraying dark, intense characters with such perfection...it would've perpetuated amazingly in a photograph of the same style

 

[iluvjeisa]

Cover doesn't look too good, although I like what I can see of the top/dress. Contents, though, sound very promising.

 

[lolita_sweet_91]

she really takes after hilary rhoda a lot!

 

[forzasesillee]

Another evidence that actresses on covers are stuck to boring close-ups or boring poses (sharon stone, nicole kidman, demi moore... only exception is Madonna). Stcuk with a blah cover for two months!! Does anyone know anything about the eds?

 

[Nelly Cat]

It would've looked slightly better had she kept her mouth closed.

 

[Choccie]

tim walker !

i gotta agree ,sure jennifer is beautiful etc...but its just a boring cover!lets be honest!it would have been so kewl if Tim Walker had of done the shoot instead of sims!think of what he would have done !!! I think that alot of fashion photography especially covers are just the same thing over and over,they should make the covers more exciting,because thats what is gonna make u buy it.

for example id magazine last month with lily cole on the cover.amazing so simple but so striking,it made me wanna buy it!

 

[lacy99]

I don't mind it actually. It could have been so much worse.

 

[Choccie]

i know its not exactly crap but more that it doesnt give me anything like it could have been anyone on the cover.Its wierd how strict magazines are on covers u know ,only certain poses usually with plain background.Just think its time 2 move on and experiment.What do u think?

 

[Kanna]

the cover is just.....

 

[kimair]

wow...
i guess i'm the only one who likes this cover...
i just remember her us vogue cover (pic from iconography.net)...

now that was horrible...
she's a gorgeous woman, and i'm glad the focus is on her face...

thanks for posting!

 

[OriginalSin]

^I prefer the US Vogue cover =/

 

[peacelover142002]

^Me too.

 

[testinofan]

mee prefer the Vanity Fair 2002

 

[meidude]

Connelly is beautiful on the cover.

 

[Cosette]

wow...
i guess i'm the only one who likes this cover...

No no! I like it quite a bit.

 

[littlemissmagic]

No no! I like it quite a bit.

I like it, too. It looks like she's posing in an ed, and I like the soft, muted look of the cover. At least she's not smiling like an idiot like most celebrities do, for example, that random TV star blonde on the cover of Teen Vogue.

 

[arlekindearrabal]

I think I like model covers better cause when an actress is on the cover, I immideately think "aha she must be endorsing her new movie", not that the creative director actually choose her. Smells pure business. Model on covers somewhat works better for creating the dreamworld fashion is about.

totally agree

 

[adorefaith]

i like jennifer....but i dont like this cover

 

[Whitelinen]

I've been pondering this for a while now..... because I think it's getting a tad ridiculous how people cry out in aghast as soon as they sniff out an actress being on a cover of a magazine....

Does that mean an actress by profession is not worthy to be on a cover? I know the vast majority here would prefer models as opposed to actresses. But what if an actress is AS photo-genic as a model but just happens to be an actress. For example, if Mischa Barton was a model instead of an actress and she was on the cover of Vogue, would we be boo-hooing over her being on the cover? Isn't it better to judge a cover by its aesthetic merits rather than the person's profession? An actress on a cover can look just as good as a model. I've seen bad covers from both sides. Is a bad Gemma Ward cover a whole lot more preferable to a really great Cate Blanchett cover?

Jennifer Connolly was a model prior to being an actress - but oh deary me....she entered into the realms of being an actress and ergo she can no longer grace magazine covers??? I actually think the model:actress ratio on covers is still pretty much weighted on models if we count ALL magazines - mainstream and independent, and with publications like Vogue, being THE mainstream fashion magazine - it's not surprising for them to venture into celeb land every now and then.

I don't want to offend but seeing as this Paris Vogue cover hasn't even been posted yet.... I think people are a little quick to judge.

You have a point, but one thing that takes appeal from actresses is that they are so famous, we "know" so much about them, they have a certain public image.

I don't get why Vogue Paris cannot use French actresses in their covers if they want to use actresses. Most of the Hollywood actresses are boring and talentless.

About the Jennifer Connolly cover:

I don't think it is very bad, but it isn't very good either. Her facial expression is wrong, plus the hat is very,very ugly. I still do think this is better than the Sharon Stone cover.