Vanity Unfair?

[valancy_s]

This short article about Vanity Fair's latest cover is quite interesting. My first thought was, "Well, as much it stinks, VF can't help it if this year's It Girls are all white waifs." (And it's clearly more noticeable because of the choice to put them all in super-pale pastels.) But once the article started suggesting other names I realized

Comments

[steve_mollmann]

I don't know why I read comments on the Internet. Most of the ones on that article make me want to stab my eye with a knife.

[valancy_s]

I hadn't looked at them, and now I have, and now I want to stab my eye with a knife. THANKS.

[breathingbooks]

I think it would be defensible given that it's celebrity and not actress (Saldana doesn't seem to have the It presence yet) if the list were people who had already hit a certain level of personal fame, since all the younger crop that I can think of are white (sad but true). But it's up and coming, which is generally supposed to be broader...

[valancy_s]

Yes to your last sentence. With Saldana playing the female lead in TWO major blockbusters this year, I think she's a lot more "up and coming" than several of the young women on that list (a couple of whom I couldn't even place).

The only justification I can think of is that maybe she's over their age limit for "young Hollywood." Not that she looks it.

[breathingbooks]

I agree that I recognized her name and not those of several others, but I'm not quite sure Avatar counts. Star Trek, however, was definitely awesome and well-grossing. :D

[smyleykyley]

I didn't read the article (but I am still, apparently, opinionated enough to have a comment) but I looked at the picture and, damn, that is kind of creepy actually. All those thin white girls looking so identical. Yuck. It's all self-fulfilling, you know? Vanity Fair is picking, for the public, the "it" girls just as much as those girls have a pre-existing reputation, you know?

[thepresidentrix]

Exactly. If Vanity Fair is representing itself as merely reporting the state of affairs, not helping to define it, well, that is ridiculous.

[thepresidentrix]

And here's a question: why doesn't Vanity Fair think Gabourey Sidibe, for example, needs to be featured as a Hollywood presence that's up-and-coming - here to stay? She's very high profile at the moment, legitimately talented (which is not to say these other young women are not), a noticeably fun, scintillating personality when she makes public appearances, and is becoming notorious for her (to many people) inexplicably unconditional self-acceptance and comfort in her body. You'd think that would be a four way recipe for fame, or at least for an extended moment in the spotlight

[valancy_s]

Yes, the Yahoo article mentions her. The thing is, I can see that Vanity Fair wouldn't include Sidibe, because they are a shallow magazine (by definition! it's the title!) and she would stick out uncomfortably in their hideous waif aesthetic. That's why I mentioned Saldana, who is conventionally beautiful and anorexic enough to fit right into this group - except for her skin color. And certain to continue to get roles in Hollywood.

I wonder if Vanity Fair even realizes they *have* a responsibility?

[thepresidentrix]

I doubt they do realize. But a) I'm pretty sure we all have a responsibility not to play for racism's team, so to the extent that Vanity Fair does so year after year, I think there is a failure of responsibility regardless of whether they see it (and I happen to think the same about sizeism, but a lot of basically decent folks get a pass on this one, because it's not widely regarded as wrong), and b) the responsibility I had in mind was actually more of a journalistic one. This piece is, no doubt, fluff, however carefully it was or was not constructed, but it purports to predict who will be up and coming - successful - in the coming year(s). In other words, it's *supposed* to be more than just a 'people we think are pretty' or 'people who all happen to look alike' piece - even though it would also be wrong to feature only white women in that kind of story, too, (and despite the fact that such exclusions happen more or less routinely). Because there is an element of prediction and judgment here, however, leaving out all the women of

[valancy_s]

I didn't mean that their shallowness EXCUSED anything. In fact I think that kind of exclusive focus on a certain type of beauty is inexcusable. I just meant that even if you assume a sizist attitude, that doesn't explain the racism.

Maybe what they'd say about Sidibe is that she's having her 15 minutes now but is not likely to get many roles in the future? *shudder*

[saralinda]

In the accompanying article, Vanity Fair writer Evgenia Peretz calls out the young cover stars by their best attributes: "downy-soft cheeks," "button nose," "patrician looks and celebrated pedigree," "dewy, wide-eyed loveliness," "Ivory-soap-girl features."

Ugh. Guh. *VOMITS PROFUSELY* Fucking Vanity Fair.

[saralinda]

And WTF: "Downy-soft cheeks?" Huh?

[valancy_s]

Right? Creepiness! As my roommate just pointed out, it's great that as if sizism and racism weren't enough, they had to throw in some classism with "patrician" and "pedigree."