Who would have thought it would take a serendipitous juxtaposition with politics to confirm that Tinseltown is so totally over? Vanity Fair’s March issue is traditionally devoted to Hollywood — what with the triple-velvet-roped Oscar party, and all — but this year’s book anoints the politicians stars, while demoting Left Coasters to a very secondary role. Now, Hollywood brass might point out that Vanity Fair had little choice but to put the new president on the cover as soon as the printing schedule would allow. These same people might also say that Graydon Carter & Co., devoted many more pages to the movie industry. All true — but.
The fact that Vanity Fair went with the prez, rather than the Hollywood Issue-usual, money-making T&A in These Economic Times, is a pretty clear demonstration of what is sexy right now (never mind that the cover photo is two years old and that there’s been a glut of Obama covers). Moreover, scanning the content of the magazine’s seven Hollywood stories, the only conclusion to draw is that the place is finished. Four stories are about the glorious past — including super-agent Sue Mengers and, I kid you not, “The Godfather” — and two are about the current, crappy corporate state of the industry. And while the requisite Annie Leibovitz photo essay features some amazing, if necessarily familiar talents, it’s depressing that half “The Risktakers” team is dead (Heath Ledger). Sadly enough, the glitter group isn’t even better looking than the president’s peeps (shalom, Rahm Emanuel!), and the difference in the diversity quotients is embarrassing. The cool thing is this: Come 2016, we know who’s gonna bring change to Tinseltown and I can just imagine who his right-hand will be: Mr. Ari Gold Emanuel.
Or maybe this issue was really about Annie Leibovitz. Given the fact that she basically shot the whole thing, it’s tempting to wonder whether we’re going to see many more all-Annie issues, what with that $15.5 million loan for which she pawned her life’s work. So much for any kind of visual variety in the next decade or three. Sigh.
Sometimes the internet’s democratization of fashion totally sucks. Exhibit A: The fall of the department-store fashion director, those ballsy clairvoyants with zero bottom-line responsibility whose high profile, near-absolute authority and institutional backing brought us such talents as Marc Jacobs and Donna Karan at the start of their careers. Chronicled in today’s Styles section, the demise of the fashion directors isn’t just about insidery divas losing their jobs. It’s about the huge loss shoppers and fashion-philes experience when the money guys buy without direction from gutsy dreamers obsessed with finding and nurturing the next new thing. Without these people, you get a homogenized selection of safe merch, instead of the avant-garde clothing we need to make us happy in such a stressful era. Tragic.
