This is the cover of this month’s Vanity Fair. It has the latest “it” young actresses on it. It’s something they tend to do every year, but this year I’m particularly struck by how very very similar all these actresses are. Usually they at least have at least one or two actresses of color to balance out the others. This year they are all seemingly white. With all the mixed-race actresses out there, given that one of the top Oscar nominees is Gabourey Sidibe, it seems as if in the “post-racial” American some say we are living in, thanks to an African American President, it seems inexcusable.
The actresses are: Abbie Cornish, Rebecca Hall, Anna Kendrick, Carey Mulligan, Amanda Seyfried, Kristen Stewart, Emma Stone, Mia Wasikowska, and Evan Rachel Wood. Only a few of these are in what I think of as popular movies, though I tend to see the artier sorts of films some of them are in. I wonder how many of you are familiar with them? Because I go out of my way to see movies I think will be Oscar nominated, I have seen Kendrick in Up in the Air and Mulligan in An Education (both well worth seeing). I can’t quite bring myself to see Precious–I have issues with disturbing movies that make a lot of the Oscar nominated films hard to stomach, and usually get around 4/5. This year since there are 10 nominations, and since the theater that shows most of that type of movie is an hour away I’m not trying to see then all. I’ve seen 3, and will see Avatar on Thursday.
Of course they’re also all slender and dewy and young. They mostly have what I think of as fresh faces, though there’s something about Kristen Stewart that doesn’t seem quite so innocent, and knowing that Evan Rachel Wood is engaged to Marilyn Manson makes that pretty suspect. Those that are showing a lot of skin are showing coltish legs. It’s all very classy, or is it? They’re all challenging the camera and the viewer, but is it sexual? Why does the subtitle of the article describe them as dolls? Some of them are sitting like “broken dolls” but others aren’t.
Honestly the only thing I know about Abbie Cornish is that she’s famous. I haven’t seen her in anything though I’d like to see Bright Star. I’m had to look up who Rebecca Hall and Emma Stone are, though I’d seen then in some movies apparently. Hall was in Vicki Christina Barcelona, which made me want my two hours back, and in Frost/Nixon, which was good but her part was tiny. Evidently I saw Stone in Superbad, but don’t remember her in it.
The others I know better, but I don’t know if they’re the best. Are they the prettiest? Maybe. The smartest or most talented young actresses? I’m really not sure. They don’t have the bad reputations of people like Lindsay Lohan. Maybe they just match the Vanity Fair brand the best?
Peretz, Evgenia. It’s Showtime!: Annie Leibovitz photographs the nine dolls on V.F.’s cover, as Evgenia Peretz explains why Anna Kendrick, Kristen Stewart, Carey Mulligan, et al. are nobody’s playthings. Vanity Fair. March 2010. http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/03/cover-girls-201003
Photo: Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair.
Girls Who (Don't) Wear Glasses 
“Broken Dolls” Your words speak to the urgency of the situation at hand: the fact that women and girls are being presented to the world as “Broken”! Can a CEO of a major corporation be seen as “Broken”?
I have to be perfectly honest: I have no idea who any of these women are except for Kristen Stewart, and I only know who she is because of all the “Twilight” publicity. (I haven’t seen the movie – I’ve just seen photos of her in ads for the film.) The image certainly isn’t as overtly sexual – or sexist – as some that Annie Leibovitz has done in the past (Miley Cyrus’ nude teenaged portrait, anyone?), but the title on the cover cheapens the image greatly. Calling women “dolls” seems odd to me, and the term brings to my mind two possible meanings. Do they really mean that these women are so delicate and beautiful that they are like dolls? Or do they mean “doll” as a term of endearment, as in “Look at these sweet, purdy gals, aren’t they just dolls?” Either way, the term seems to focus on the women’s appearances, not their acting talents. At any rate, Kristin Stewart’s pose looks like she belongs in a seedy underwear ad, and the brunette to the far right is doing her best bedroom-eyes-and-cleavage impression of the women I see on the TV commercials that tell us to “Call 1-900-HOT-DATE to meet local singles tonight!” It could be worse, though (and certainly has been).
How bout those legs? I am trying to figure out if they airbrushed the colt legs on to the ladies or if they were just born like that. On the Vanity Fair website are some behind the scenes shots of the ladies getting ready for the shoot. I browsed through with the simple idea of studying legs. There were 2 pictures that showed Cornish’s and Mulligan’s legs behind the scenes. They looked like solid, good, well used legs. They had legs that looked like they were proportional to their bodies…and both women’s legs are not visible on the magazine cover. Of course the photographer is an artist and wants to capture a feeling: the feeling of innocence and youth and vulnerability and solid legs on a lady does not portray this.
Smith,Krista. Fresh Faces, Bright Futures. Vanity Fair. 1 Feb. 2010 Web. 4 Feb. 2010.
Cornish’s Legs
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/03/cover-girls-behind-the-scenes-slideshow-201003#slide=4
Mulligan’s Legs
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/03/cover-girls-behind-the-scenes-slideshow-201003#slide=6
I think this magazine cover is interesting. The girls are all dressed in way that emphasizes their femininity, an aspect of a woman’s identity that the photographer seems to want capture in these girls. By focusing on how overtly feminine these girls are, the viewer is not threatened by how successful these young women have become. All of these girls have achieved some fame or had significant success in the film industry; however there is nothing about this photograph that would suggest that. They are referred to as “dolls” which suggests that their achievement may be plentiful, but they have no actual power.
I also don’t really know who any of these girls are except for the Twilight chick. When I first saw this picture, the first thought that struck me was “innocent”. These girls all look like innocent, sweet girls from Small Town, USA. When reading your thoughts, especially about the lack of color, I remembered an article I read in People Magazine in 1996 (oh yes,it took a while & looking through hundreds of magazine cover on People.com archives to find it!). The article was entitled “What is wrong with this picture?”. It showed a two page pic of the theater w/ sitting guests during the 1995 Oscars. The guests were overwhelmingly white. The article talked about the exclusion of minorities in Hollywood. While I would like to think that this is not true, the pic was obviously powerful enough for me to associate it with the Vanity Fair pic 14 years later! There are really no rising women stars of any other ethnicity out there? Hmmmm, that seems strange!
People Magazine, What’s Wrong with this Picture?, March 18, 1996 http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20103043,00.html
I am so tired of the so called ‘beautiful people’ and the “it” actresses. They look the same because they are trying to live up to an image. Actually, it is pitiful. As for as diversity is concerned, where is it? The cover of Vanity Fair takes us back to twenty years ago. Why not praise the women for who they really are ? Some are smart, some are pretty, some are not, so what? Recognize the diversity and respect it. Everyone is beautiful in their own way. Again do not sterotype us by posting a picture of women that basically all look alike. Embrase the diversity. SHAME ON YOU VANITY FAIR!
The only women I knew in the magazine cover were Kristen S. and Evan Wood. The girls are all portrayed as if they are innocent well at least in my eyes. These nine young “IT” actresses are obviously successful or at least have achieved fame to be on this cover. However, one thing I noticed is that there is not one person of color on the cover. I wonder why this is.
I really think we need to get over critiquing looks. Who’s more beautiful? Who has longer legs? Women are way too focused on each others looks. There are definitely more important issues here. The lack of diversity in this cover is shameful. The fact that everywhere we look we’re attacked with more images of celebrity makes me angry. Is beauty an art or is it a gift? Why is this gift more valued by our society than experience, talent, ingenuity, kindness and advocacy? Instead of touting actresses, let’s see a cover that features women who actually apply themselves to making this world a better place.