Vanity Fair Cover Stirs Race Debate

(with no Black, Asian, Latino actresses)

February 1, 2010

Vanity Fair has never been a Benetton ad or a rainbow coalition or a demographic equal-opportunity poster. In fact many perceive the magazine as being homogenous to the point of being homogenized, unadventurous and bland. Its upcoming March issue, which features Hollywood and the latest It-girls, seems to maintain some loose traditional criteria: white and slender.

While the magazine also has a reputation for stellar writing and provocative reporting, when it comes to Hollywood, the magazine's ability to be "in-depth" is an illusion. But who's missing? And why should we expect more from Vanity Fair's coverage of Hollywood? It isn't exactly trying to mirror a PBS round table. The pair of glasses its editors are peering through are beloved and trusted, and are likely never to change. And that's the way they like it.

Whose job is it anyway?

Does Vanity Fair have to bend? What about Ebony? If they do a Hollywood It-girl spread should we demand the full buffet?

Since we're still reveling in a 12-month period that has delivered Mo'Nique's award-winning performance in Precious, Kathryn Bigelow's history-making turn at the Director's Guild of America awards, and, last but not least, Barack Obama as our sitting president, maybe we got the false sense that everything from this moment forward should be about absolute truths (whatever those are), 50-50 splits, mixing it up and stripping away old standards.

As for trotting out the real talent — well, that's always been a fairly subjective task. The real question is whether or not Vanity Fair should have played the 'smart card' for the simple sake of appearing politically correct and found someone (even if it looked painfully obvious that the actress in question was a nobody, especially considering that many of the actresses they chose are hardly household names). In a day when most magazines are trying to wrap their heads around declining ad sales, dwindling readership, burgeoning websites, competing online activity, and a recession, Vanity Fair doesn't seem concerned about alienating anyone. Or pandering. They set the mark and beat to their own drum. If you don't like it, so goes the saying, don't buy it.

Mmmm...

Blame-gaming Vanity Fair leaves the elephant monkeying around in the kitchen. Studios (and complicit audiences) make stars who then get recycled through the press. Zoe Saldana (31), star of Avatar, which is pulling in a few pennies, and Gabourey Sidibe (26), star of Precious, which has gotten some decent buzz, have not been left out of the game. But when it comes to peppering the pages of Vanity Fair with actresses of color who are twentysomething and skyrocketing to the top it, uh, is a little daunting. Surely the next Penelope Cruz is out there. And the next J-Lo. Or Whoopi Goldberg. Asian actresses: you have an outrageous mountain to climb that will undoubtedly be conquered.

And everyone else is still just gaining traction. Ethnically diverse talent has to continue to pour out of the woodwork, find the right vehicles, get the right backing, get the right marketing and then wait for the seeds to disperse and grow. If Mother Nature has it anything to do with it, there's going to be another new season...NewsSip

More Soda