Vanity Fair, Shame on You!
|
Posted by Guest Blogger April 5th, 2007 |
By Guest Blogger Jennifer Mattson
So, what’s up with Annie Leibovitz’s April Vanity Fair cover and the fact that no one seems to be remarking on how incredibly sexist it is?
The Sopranos cover photo shows a naked woman, her back to the camera, being grabbed with one hand by a completely clothed and coldly disinterested James Gandolfini, who is standing next to show creator David Chase. The blonde is depicted as nothing more than a body; she is fully nude except a pair of blood red pumps.The photo is the epitome of the male gaze. We, the viewer, stare at her, an object, displayed in front of us for our viewing pleasure. Can you say “woman as commodity?”
Adding insult to injury, this faceless woman isn’t even given the dignity of a name. In the photo credits all she gets is a tag that mentions she is “a friend” of Tony’s.
For those who want to argue that’s it’s somehow okay since a woman took this photo, let me just lay that argument to rest. It’s not okay for either gender to objectify women. And it doesn’t make it any less real, either. (Likewise for the argument that this kind of photo isn’t new — just because we’ve seen this before, too many times, doesn’t make it any more acceptable.)
In the age of Hillary, where women seem to be making strides in so many fields, it’s a good reminder of how the underlying currents of sexism are everywhere, so much so, that although this magazine is on hundreds of newsstands across the nation, no one seems to have even noticed a problem. Such images are so ingrained in our psyches that they have become invisible. To even point them out has become a hard sell. I wonder, what would Jean Kilbourne say now?
Guest Blogger Jennifer Mattson is a journalist and former producer for CNN and NPR. Her work has appeared in USA TODAY, The Boston Globe, The Boston Herald, CNN.com, The Women’s Times and The Women’s Review of Books.
April 8th, 2007 11:35
I did a google search for Gandolfini and Vanity, looking for some outrage regarding this cover. It seems to be at every grocer and drugstore counter I wait at these days. The newstands are always pretty much a place for the objectification of women, but this magazine cover really gets under my skin.
April 10th, 2007 12:12
i am so glad you saw and responded to the sexism of this cover. when i first saw it, i was shocked.
i know annie leibovitz tries to convey the kernel of the person or event in the image she shoots,but there were so many other ways she could have gone.
my ruler for sexist images is this: would a man
in place of this woman work as well? if it’s
laughable,it’s sexist.
April 13th, 2007 19:22
I’m just relieved that others find this as offensive and shocking as I do. I reject the Soprano’s show for feminist reasons, so this cover didn’t surprise me in the context of the show’s content. What never ceases to shock me is that it is, like the first response stated, on display in evey grocery store I enter.
May 8th, 2007 22:25
The angle of the dangle will not rise until you get into the submissive position. What’s laughable is your dumb crusade against the nature that has been in place since Adam & Eve. DUH. But you all go ahead and share your sexual shortcomings with the world. LMAO.