Vanity Fair‘s March issue features nine fresh, pale faces of Hollywood on its cover. They are, from left to right, Bright Star‘s Abbie Cornish, Twilight‘s Kristen Stewart, An Education‘s Carey Mulligan, Dear John‘s Amanda Seyfried, Frost/Nixon‘s Rebecca Hall, Alice in Wonderland‘s Mia Wasikowska, Zombieland‘s Emma Stone, Up in the Air‘s Anna Kendrick, and The Wrestler‘s Evan Rachel Wood.
They are “the new Hollywood” for a new decade, according to the cover line. But which one will we still be talking about in 2020? That’s the question, along with why Oscar-buzzed Kendrick is relegated to inside the fold. (Because they couldn’t have two Twilight actresses on the main cover and Kristen is the bigger sell? Or because Anna’s brunette hair was needed to balance out the image? I only had to look at the photo seven times before I detected the hair color pattern… It does actually balance out the photo, doesn’t it?) Poll!
They could have include some women of color.
my thoughts exactly! maybe someone like zoe saldana?
She would have been a great choice. She’s very “it girl” this year, what with Star Trek, Avatar, and some stellar red carpet choices.
Zoe was in the 2008 Hollywood issue, but it would’ve been nice to see her on the cover since she’s been so big this year. Star Trek AND Avatar and she’s not even mentioned.
I think Zoe’s much bigger than the girls on the cover of this issue. But it’s definitely sad that Vanity Fair shows no diversity with this issue. Sad, but so not a shocker…usually there’s at least one. Almost never on the front cover. Almost always on the inside fold…
Love love love Anna Kendrick and Amanda Seyfried. Kristin Stewart is way overrated
Saldana would be nice (or, for that matter, Gabourey Sidibe.)
Even though Zoe was already featured in 2008, Emma Stone was featured just last year. It wouldnt have killed them to do a repeat. What about Frieda Pinto? She’s got that Woody Allen movie coming up. Or even Zoe Kravitz who is in that new movie with Chace Crawford shown at Sundance.
And, let’s not forget that Kristen Stewart and Amanda Seyfried (who I love, btw) were already on a hollywood issue cover. Where are the women of color? No blacks, no hispanics, no asians. WTF!
Except she’s pretty awful. Maybe when she’s in a good movie that isn’t a giant bowl of popcorn fair.
to celia – yes, zoe was in the 2008 cover but so was k.stewart and amanda s.
The 2008 issue with K-stew and Amanda was not a Hollywood issue. That was just similar to the issue they released last month that featured the Disney stars: Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, etc. The 2008 Hollywood issue had EMILY BLUNT, JESSICA BIEL, ANNE HATHAWAY, and AMY ADAMS on the cover.
THIS IS young hollywood. Zoe is in her thirties, that would be why she isnt on this cover!
I know! These girls are so pale, do they ever see the sun?
i’m sorry VF is hardly a racist mag. they chose the girls they thought were “in” for 2010. it’s crazy to me that so many of you think they should include someone JUST because they’re black or hispanic or asian. does that mean someone should be included JUST because they’re white??? wouldn’t you call that racism? someone below me commented “these girls are so pale, do they ever see the sun”? can you even imagine if i said of a woman of color, “she’s so dark, does she ever stay inside?”. maybe they’re ale because they don’t want skin cancer! i am SO SICK of this politically correct BS. VF chose the girls on talent. you may not agree but it’s not your mag. deal with it.
i’d love zoe saldana to be there, but probably doing more late teens early 20′s age-actors. i do agree there should be some women of color. like the girl from precious!
Zoe was in the issue last year.
I don’t see any black women under 25 in hollywood who has something coming out in 2010. I know it’s sad and unfortunate but it’s not VF Fault. Go complain to the director and the catsing departement in hollywood. Go ask screen writer to give interesting part to colour people. And before someone jump on me i’m black. And sad that we don’t have more interesting part in hollywood. But i won’t blame VF for it because they are not the one hiring these girls.
Aha! Alice… you speak wisely. I totally agree with you re Zoe Kravitz. And good point re Frieda Pinto. Such a beautiful girl…
I agree. I think she’s great.
I like little anna
umm..zoe was already on this cover last year..the fold out..last year was more colourful with Zoe, America Ferrarra not all pale girls like this year
Zoe Saldana, for instance.
I thought that, too, but i think she was already in 2008′s hollywood issue. But they should have put some color in to this one, definately.
Zoe is hot too
Wow, didn’t realize that I would be so unknowingly beaten to the punch by so many people. It’s clear that she should’ve been recognized.
She’s not young.
She’s 31. Since when is that considered not young?
Uh Celia, since this is Hollywood. Haven’t you noticed all these girls are under 30? It’s called YOUNG Hollywood for a reason.
Young Hollywood or not, Zoe Saldana LOOKS younger than the dark haired girl in the middle.
Mike, she’s only 3 years older than Rebecca Hall (who is also awesome, BTW). But if not Zoe, then how about some of the girls from Glee? Lea Michele? Amber Riley? Jenna Ushkowitz? Naya Rivera?
Jezebel points out that exact fact! Way to go Vanity Fair.
http://jezebel.com/5461571/young-hollywood-is-white-thin?skyline=true&s=i
David Bowie was the “Thin White Duke”. So, new Hollywood is “Thin White Chicks”. VF does not appreciate people with melanin in thier skin, adipose tissue on their bodies or apparently, Y chromosomes. Very narrow view of people with talent.
Exactly what I was thinking. This is definitely a Fair issue alright. They usually try to sneak in atleast one token black or hispanic actor. They didn’t even try this time. All these girls look exactly alike.
token black or hispanic? WOW, that’s such an awful phrase
Hey, but it’s true. If you go back and look at their past issues. They always have at least ONE hispanic or black person. But JUST one. Not two or three. Just one to keep things “diverse.”
Women of color? What is this, 1920?
Actually whatevs, WOC is the correct term. Maybe you should go dig around on some social activism blogs and you’ll see it everywhere, trust me.
Women of color implies many different races. It’s the correct term.
Oh, ok. I’ve heard many black people be offended by that term but if you say it’s correct, so be it.
—– of color is a BS term!
Yea, no kidding. We’re all “of color” and going out of their way to find a non-caucasian actress would be more racist and annoying than not coming up with one. Zoe Saldana shouldn’t be here since she isn’t fresh-faced or remotely talented at acting.
I would have said black but I wanted VF to include Latino and asian women to so the term seemed appropriate.
That doesn’t bother me. Don’t know why it’s such a issue. Most black women can’t act anyway.
Why not change WOC to what it really means? NWN: Not-White Women. Really, we’re talking about Hollywood and Vanity Fair. The 9 hot young thangs they chose this year happen to be white. Should they bump someone off just to appear more multiracial? If the selection is based on merit I don’t care what color they are. Neither should you.
MIKE, that generalization is so offensive I can’t even fully express my anger. Actually many black actresses CAN act, but they are not even considered for any of the roles these actresses get…and definitely not dark skinned black actresses with african features. We exist I promise you. We are intelligent, well-spoken, beautiful, creative people. Our projects also don’t get the same type of publicity and recognition. These performances exist. You just don’t see them because you do not care to look.
MIKE: In this country, we honor Freedom Of Speech, so you have a right to your opinion. Now please allow me to express my opinion: YOU’RE AN IDIOT. Thank you.
Wow, yeah….WTF Vanity Fair?
Another WOC to choose would have been Gabourey Sidibe. Or does her dark skin and less than ethereal looks not fit in with the other nine?
But she’s only been in one movie–all the other women have been in several, most of them coming out this year. But I do think we haven’t seen the last of her and she may very well be in next year’s.
Considering that every girl on that cover is the same exact shade of lily white, she’d stand out like crazy. Here’s to wishing she did! And why is Evan Rachel Wood on that – she’s already sort of a big thing, no? At least in the indie/mid market level.
i really don’t think kristen stewart is ethereal… she looks like a druggie. couldn’t they have washed her hair?
I’m pretty sure it’s not her dark skin and less than ethereal looks that don’t fit in with the other nine. . .
less than ethereal? you’re being too too kind. of course she’s talented, and precious was a deeply touching movie, and she was perfect for the role, but get real. unless they make precious 2, the industry will never look her way again. wish it was the same for stewart… save yourselves some time and throw her into rehab now, you’ll be thankful later.
on the article, there are pretty much no “stars” that got started in the past 5 years that have had any staying power. which one will be “it” in 10 years? come back in 2 and ask if anyone remembers them
She’s fat and fairly normal-looking. Perfect for “Precious”, but that’s not a recipe for success in Hollywood.
Yea Jane and all of those movies sucked! Kristen Stewart? Hahaha. The only actress on this cover that’s truly award-winning material is Evan Rachel Wood.
yes – there is only diversity as to HAIR COLOR
Really! I love that this comes out in February, too. We just took a step back Hollywood!
Good point Sara!
yup sara – bad choice of month.
What does February have to do with anything? Valentine’s day is only for WOC or something? That doesn’t even make any sense!
February is black history month.
LOL, allie, awareness fail.
really? the only thing you can think of about february is valentine’s day? and then we wonder why women have trouble earning respect. thanks, allie.
I was thinking the same thing! All these girls look the same to me…I know there are some blacks and latinas that could be on the cover
Like who?
While I think that it would have been good to not just have white actresses, I think it is offensive to say that they all look the same because they are white. If that point of view was toward anyone BUT white people, it would flat-out be considered a racist comment.
Felicia has a point. The “they all look alike” thing was a bit insulting. I agree that the group should be more diverse, though. (Mostly unrelated: Kudos to all these girls for resisting the pressure to spray tan! We should ALL embrace the skin color we were born with, from the palest white to the deepest brown.)
Like Gaby S. from Precious. Like Freida Pinto from Slumdog who is currently shooting a Woody Allen film (last time I checked). While we’re at it. Where are the men? Taylor Lautner anyone? The cover lacks diversity in race and sex.
Thank you that’s what i noticed. What about “Precious” star Gabourey Sidibe or Zoe Saldana, she has like 3 movies coming out in 2010 and had a great year in 2009. Typical “Vanity”
Zoe was on the cover last year people. This Why this issue never progress go complain to the right person. The director, the casting people, the screen writer. It’s not Vf who is making these girl what they will be next year but people who are hiring them. Go complain to them and it will be more effective.
Zoe Zaldana is in her 30s and therefore too old for the “new” hollywood title. Silly but true!
yeah, except that most of these girls look 10 years older than theyre real age. give me zoe any day of the week over these prematurely aged girls. and what about freida pinto??
I knew someone was gonna make it political. Get a life.
Yep, or some women that are not size 0 & under.
Where’d they find a Henry Darger photograph?
I have to concur with everyone here. There are some repeats there, so I don’t see why they couldn’t place Sibide, Saldana, America Ferrara, Devon Aoki, or other beautiful, talented young actresses of color of Hollywood.
What are you smoking??? Devon Aoki??? Have you seen DOA? Come now… that’s a stretch. She would be the blemish. Ridiculous.
Must there ALWAYS be women of colour on EVERYTHING?
I fail to see why someone like Evan Rachel Wood, who has been around for a while, should make this list when Zoe Saldana doesn’t. She was in two of the biggest movies of the year and has a lot of projects coming up. Gabourey Sidibe is getting nothing but rave reviews for her role in Precious. Why shouldn’t she make this list when Carey Mulligan does? They’re both getting strong reviews for an indie movie. Why shouldn’t they both be profiled?
There are caucasian women on EVERYTHING. Why can’t there be a woman of color on EVERYTHING?
God, I know, they’re totally EVERYWHERE you look in the mainstream media. Come on, let’s give white people a chance to be represented!
You are delusional. 90% of the images we see are of white women. That’s a fact. You would like to live in a world in which we NEVER see women of color.
Well, that would be NICE, since white people are on everything. They ought to be joined by the people who make up the entire rest of the world.
Maybe because whites are actually the minority! Heaven forbid we actually include someone who is not white in the Hot in Hollywood issue!
…except as this article proves, the opposite is the actually true.
I agree I agree I agree. Also, haven’t we BEEN talking about Evan Rachel Wood for nearly ten years anyway? Shouldn’t that say something about her ‘staying’ power…and unlike Stewart, she can act….and isn’t Rebacca Hall and bit older than everyone else?
(I do think we’ll still be talking about Amanda Seyfried, and if Anna Kendrick can continue to get roles, her too).
Rebecca Hall was born in 1982… she’s still under 30 and incredibly talented.
Super hot cover. Good choices.
classic Vanity Fair though- white white white
That’s the first thing I thought. No disrespect to the women they chose. THey are all talented. But I think the bigger problem is that there isn’t alot of women of color to choose from.
That was my EXACT first thought, WTF? How about Zoe?
So weird, they’re all so PALE! They definitely someone with a little more flavor! A spicy latina lady, or a dark chocolate honey. Not to mention someone with a little more meat on their bones. The only person that really lights up the page is the beautiful red-headed Emma. Otherwise, BORING!
Yeah, Emma’s gorgeous.
There’s nothing wrong with being pale. There IS something wrong with the glaring lack of diversity.
Apparently there are not any women of color who will make an impact in movies for the next decade… Lame, VF, very lame.
Jennifer Hudson is under 30 and already has an academy award – unlike all of the actresses on the cover – but apparently since she’s black her academy award isn’t good enough for VF.
I’m assuming they’re counting Hudson as having already arrived.
I am white and I agree. That is just not right.
Boy, where’s the “none of the above” option?
agree
Was going to say the same thing.
“It” girls are always white, I’ve never seen that label on anyone other than a big-eyed white girl, not saying they are not good actresses, but because of this prejudice, I could care less who the “it” girls are
How about Gabberey sedebe for the fold out cover..I mean it s a fold out cover.She’d fit if they get rid of the other7 girls and make room for her
That would be nice, but they are all quite hittable. That’s the key criterion.
GREAT IDEA! VF HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS – GUESS WHO WAS ON THE 2000 COVER – PENELOPE CRUZ – SHE’S THE ONLY ONE WE’RE STILL TALKING ABOUT. WHO TALKS ABOUT JORDANA BREWSTER, WES BENTLY OR SARAH WYNTER? MY ODDS ARE ON SEYFRIED AND STEWART.
New Hollywood? Looks more like Old Hollywood. It is 2010. Shame on you Vanity Fair! Where are the women of color?
I’m gonna guess the white one.
I’ll one up you and go with the skinny one.
Yeah, the pale emaciated one.
No, it’s the one with the pouty lips.
Which one?
How about the one in beige.
Or the airbrushed one.
These replies are hilarious!
You guys are great. I was so sad when I saw this article. I’m glad that I’m not the only one who had similar thoughts. I just couldn’t get pass the sameness of the spread. I like all these actresses but couldn’t they find at least one other woman with a darker shade or a size 6?
I say the one sitting on the grass who looks like she needs a sandwich
Just one sandwich?
Like, say, for instance…Zoe Saldana?
Just because she’s been in two blockbuster movies doesn’t mean she has the acting chops to compare with these girls. How hard is it to act like a blue alien?
Zoe Saldana has terrific chops as an actress — I’ve been watching her career for a long time. She could be as art-house and twee as any of these cover girls, if the only black people in art-house, Vanity Fair-type movies weren’t being portrayed as victims all the time. Saldana is way too tough for that.
“Just because she’s been in two blockbuster movies doesn’t mean she has the acting chops to compare with these girls”
Up until your last sentence you could have described any one of these actresses and Kristen Stewart in particular.
Zoe has actually been acting for a long time and has been in some pretty successful movies. It’s just in the last 12 months that people are starting to notice her. I would say Zoe actually has staying power. These girls will be on the “where are they now?” list in 10 years.
3 Blockbuster movies last time I checked. Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Trek, AND Avatar.
She’s great on the small screen as well. Zoe can do it all. They just have to give her a chance instead of giving the parts to all the Caucasian girls.
they could have, but apparently Vanuty Fair likes pale boring white chicks. I think Kendrick and Seyfried have some real talent. Not sure about the rest
Evan Rachel Wood has already been around for several years. I mean, she made her splash back in 2003 with Thirteen and really was great. I could see her still being talked about in 10 years.
exactly what I thought! She’s been around for years.
Yeah! And she’s two folds back?!
Kristen Stewart too–though somewhat dull in the Twilight Saga, she is really great in the indies–> Adventureland, Cake Eaters. I see her being more of a Maggie Gyllenhaal type in staying power, though; occasionally a mainstream movie, but mostly indies.
is she really GREAT though? I find her to play the exact same role in each movie she’s in. Somewhat dull, imho.
Have I see Adventureland??? My answer is ‘yes’ and I can’t believe I wasted my money it. I totally agree with Ann. She plays that exact same “awkward, touches hair all the time” roll. Kristen Stewart is a horrible actress. Every time I watch her I have to brace myself for some kind of stuttering seizure. It would be interesting though to see her in Runaways…
Mulligan will most likely be nominated for Best Actress this year for “An Education”
Rebecca Hall is the standout for me. I first saw her as Rosalind in As You Like It (on stage in Boston). She’s incredibly talented, and more of a legitimate “actress” (vs “celebrity”) than any of the rest of these women.
Argh! Jealous. I’ve heard her Rosalind was amazing. Although she’s not quite *as* well known as some of the other girls, I can see her having a Cate Blanchett-style career, transitioning between stage and film effortlessly.
So you mean to tell me that there is not one actress of color worthy of being labeled “it”?
I’m not sure about Zoe Saldana, because, as people have already said, she was on the hollywood 2008 issue, but what about Gabourey Sidibe? She’s in the Carey Mulligan-Anna Kendrick group of breakout indie stars with massive Oscar buzz. But I guess she just wouldn’t fit in with the skinny, white look they have going.
give Gabby her own cover!
She’d need the whole thing.
If you’re really gonna take it there Niix, then I should point out that they had to pick 9 of these girl in order to fill up the page.
Size has nothing to do with talent, just like skin color. That’s the point everybody is trying to impress upon those like you who seem to think that you don’t deserve to be on a cover of a magazine if you don’t look a emaciated ghost after a collagen injection.
I cannot honestly believe that these are the cream of the crop. I haven’t heard of half of them and the other half either peaked a few years ago or I don’t consider talented (KS, I’m looking at you) These girls are popular (at least the ones I’ve heard of) because of their franchises or twitter or because of their odd choice in men. (only reason I know who Evan Rachel Wood is.) Is this really the best we could do?
Mila Kunis would’ve also been great. I know she’s been around for awhile, but she’s just not starting to hit her stride. She just starred opposite Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman and now she’s making a film with Natalie Portman.
America Ferrera had a great film career prior to Ugly Betty and now that the show has been canceled I’d definitely look out for her in a big way! She’s gorgeous and sosososo talented that, unmistakably, she will be the face of new Hollywood.
Also, this isn’t about new people and giving them props, it’s about who will still be stars in 10 years. For example, 10 years ago I bet we would have seen Katie Holmes, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, etc…for this same cover with the expectation that one of them would be actively making quality, well-attended films currently.
In actuality, none of them are. Gabourey Sidibe has talent that every one of the women on the current VF cover wish they had. Unfortunately there just aren’t that many QUALITY roles available for a woman of her size. It’s a widely known, unfortunate fact of Hollywood. I would LOVE it if she were still around making films in 10 years, but I don’t think it’s realistic.
J-Hud’s follow up to Dreamgirls was an embarrassing role as Carrie’s BFFL assistant in SATC. Then she went back to music RULL quick, even though she’s such an amazing actress.
this wasn’t meant to be a reply, was going to then attempted to make it into a general comment when i refreshed the page…my bad!
*just NOW starting
Nope! These ladies obviously have the acting skills, I can’t think of any women of color that acts as well as these young ones. YOUNG is emphasized here.
The definition of “young” in this thread is starting to bum me out. I know Hollywood has a double standard with men’s/women’s ages but it would be nice if the audience didn’t buy into it!
I’m a big fan of Rebecca Hall’s work. I think she’ll be around for a long time, on Broadway if not in Hollywood. Besides Rebecca, I think think Anna Kendrick and Emma Stone have the talent to become mainstays.
Looks like they made a typo. It should be Aryan Fair.
Oh Man, you are the man.
As much as i like Zoe Saldana, i think she is overexposing herself. Star Trek and Avatar this year, and then i was at the movies yesterday seeing “edge of darkness” and i saw previews for “Death at a funeral”, “the losers”, and “takers”. And i think she was in all three previews.
Yeah she should stop taking so many paying jobs :p Wait…you were serious?
Ya maybe it sounds stupid to say she should stop taking as many jobs that pay her between 5 and 10 million. But what I mean is that sometimes you see so many of these young people who you just get sick of in two years. Orlando Bloom comes to mind, he did have some talent and I think Saldana could be great as well, but many times they do so many movies that their filmography gets so watered down. All three of those movies i mentioned could be pretty good, all 3 could also be garbage.
It happens when all the work an actor does comes out in the same year doesn’t mean she deliberately tried to release all her work in one years. Heck I remember one year Jude Law had five movies that came out in the same year then we didn’t hear of him for another year. It just happens that all the movies came out in the same year. Same can be said for Zoe.It’s something that they can’t control, the release date of the film.
Zoe Saldana isn’t overexposing herself–she’s taking a lot of roles. If she was constantly in the tabloids stumbling drunkenly out of clubs and having all kinds of scandals and stuff, then she’d be overexposed. As it is, she’s a talented actress who is accepting lots of roles. As long as they’re good roles, I don’t see a problem with it.
I agree but only if they are good roles. Avatar and Star Trek were huge so good to go. But the verdict is still out on death at a funeral, takers, and the losers. Takers looks absolutely terrible.
In VF’s defense, Zoe Saldana was on the Hollywood Issue cover two years ago as an “It Girl.” Having said that, it’s definitely a shame that they’re all white.
Yeah but ERW has been on the “new hollywood” covers more than once. So what about that?
I was talking specifically about the Hollywood Issue, which comes out in March (formerly April). Evan Rachel Wood has never been on the cover of an HI before (see http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/hollywood_covers_slideshow#slide=1). That isn’t to say that you can’t be on an HI more than once — it’s just that if you get picked for a second time, you get mixed in with a more accomplished crowd (i.e., Cate Blanchett in 1998 vs. 2001).
Yeah… she was on the cover with Hillary Duff, Lindsey Lohan, and he Olsen Twins… HAHAHAHA. What doosie that cover was – where are any of them now?!
what about Gabourey Sidibe?
I hate to sound harsh, but is she really going to be an “it girl”? As great as her performance was, what sort of versatility in roles will she be offered?
If you compared how dark and depressing her character was to her personality in real life, which is full of life and bubbly and happy, I think she’ll be able to do lots in her future career. She just needs to have the opportunity.
That also points to the double standard of not including women of color, or, for that matter, women of size. Carey Mulligan also simply had one critically acclaimed performance (in a movie less widely-seen than “Precious”) yet she deserves inclusion? Also, I could poll 100% of my friends and find zero who’d seen Bright Star. Just saying. This is a pretty narrow list of “it” women.
It’s not that what you’re saying is harsh – it just happens to be criminally untrue. She’s already attached to another film and a Showtime comedy series. So maybe you’re the one with the limited thinking, not the rest of us that are fans.
@Ethan. Carey Mulligan has been doing British television for some time now and she actually was pretty much raved for her performance as Nina in the Theater Play THE SEAGULL, not only she was raved in London but also in New York when the play moved to Broadway, she got great reviews.
Her work in the Charles Dickens adaptation BLEAK HOUSE was also very good. She has been doing good work for years now.
To mdw225: I’m not saying that overweight people should be excluded. I myself, while not fat, am not Hollywood thin. I am pointing at the accepted way things are in the world. When would someone of her size be offered the lead in, say, a romantic comedy? She is immensely talented, but my fear is that she will only play roles made for overweight girls. That’s what I mean by versatility. And if you’ve ever taken a sociology or women’s studies class, you’ll have an idea of what I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s right though.
ethan, I am from UK and I can tell you this is not Carey Mulligan first critically acclaimed performance, she was raved for her work on theater for the PLay THE SEAGULL and also got great reviews for her work on British Televiosion. This maybe her first leading performance, but the girl is good.
CMU – you asked a hypothetical – “is she really going to be an it girl?” And the answer is, if a probable oscar nomination, critical acclaim, enormous amounts of press and two greenlit projects are any indication, the answer is yes. And be careful with presumptions – I happened to be a women’s studies major five years ago. If you had asked me the question you posed before Gabourey came along, I would have said no. But in the case of this actress, your “realistic” view of the world does not apply. And it happened not to apply Jennifer Hudson. Or Mo’Nique.
mdw225: I didn’t presume that you HADN’T taken a women’s studies class. I stated that you probably would have discussed such issues if you had, in fact, taken such a class. And there is a difference between “respected actress” and “it girl.” The term “it girl” usually refers to very attractive women with broad sexual appeal. Would you consider Kathy Bates, for instance, an “it girl”? Not many would. And the actresses you mention are exceptions to the rule. For each one of them there are thousands of chubby girls who have been rejected because of their looks. One actress will not change an entire society’s views on what’s attractive and what’s not. That is something that is generations in the making.
By the way, here is a recent Harper’s Bazaar article in which they declare that she is reinventing what it means to be a Hollywood It Girl.
http://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/fashion-articles/gabourey-sidibe-precious-interview-0210
That’s a nice article and all and I’m very happy for her success. But that’s a headline, used to grab people’s attention. It did nothing to explain how society in general is changing views of what is valued and accepted as attractive. She seems like a wonderful, confident woman and I applaud her. I’m just saying that the social norms aren’t going to change so dramatically in the next ten years. She will still get cast in different types of roles than the girls on the VF cover. She will still be considered an overweight actress, not just an actress. It’s a shame, but that’s how our country runs.
If you’re looking for examples of overweight women who are offered a variety of roles, look no further than Queen Latifah. Since apparently your only standard of being an it girl means that she can have a lead in a romantic comedy (which I find laughable and ridiculous, but sure whatever), then she’s had the lead in several of them, and also musicals and dramas. I’m not saying that Hollywood has rallied around actresses of color and actresses who are not considered “Hollywood thin.” What I’m saying is that Vanity Fair deliberately excluded Gabourey who could definitely fit the criterion of an actress who raised the bar and created significant buzz about herself in 2009 and has a promising future to look forward to. The reason why I linked the Harper’s Bazaar article in the first place is because a similar publication to VF, which often falls into the same pitfalls of Hollywood standards of beauty, chose to recognize Gabourey anyway! Because you cannot talk about young actresses with significant buzz in ’09 without talking about her! Also, what makes you think all of the actresses on the cover will be offered versatile roles? If Amanda Seyfreid is any indication, that’s a no. I love her on Big Love, but on the big screen she has been the same person. So versatility is apparently not an indication of who VF chose to include as well.
There’s no way they would include her. She clearly doesn’t match any of their requirements (pale skin, pale hair, skinny body, depressed expression,etc.)even though she has more talent than all those girls.
I agree. I’m still pulling for her to win Best Actress.
I’ll say it again: Rebecca Hall is pretty freaking talented. Just because she happens to also be white and thin doesn’t mean her talent is any less impressive. I completely agree that Gabourey Sidibe should be included here, too. She is phenomenal, and much more deserving of recognition than, say, Kristen Stewart. (Does she really need another magazine cover?)
In my opinion, it’s really hard to judge who will still be It in 10 years. People’s acting styles change, and their careers will also be determined by their choices.
But, I think that Anna Kendrick gave a great performance in Up in the Air, Carey Mulligan was good in An Education, and Kristen Stewart gave very good performances in both the Runaways and Welcome to the Rileys.
What a huge arse missed oppurtunity not to include Gabourey Sidibe.
I know she was like the newest actress to really hit the scene this year.
What a bunch of crabby, aloof, pasty faces staring back! And the tan socks…oy Where’s the joy, ladies?
I guess I’d have to go with Amanda Seyfried?
This is definitely THE palest depiction of what the heck NEW Hollywood is…very disappointing.
What the fk is wrong with pale? Better than fking orange fake tan!! Idiot!
THANK YOU! My god, these girls have beautiful skin, pale or not! In fact, who even cares? I hate girls with bleached, straightened blond hair and fake orange cancer-box skin…I guess people want Snookie from Jersey Shore to appear on this list or something…
Meet Audrey67, your typical VF reader (or so they think): So racist she doesn’t even realize she’s racist. All the color references are about race, not tan! Blonds … never the sharpest tools in the box, sigh.
How about Rutina Wesley??? (in case of Regular African American Female Allergies….)
Audrey and Aaron — It’s about skin tone, not fake tans. Notice there are no African-American women or Asian or Hispanic women there? Or mixes of any of the above? Only white girls? This is the face of new Hollywood? A plain vanilla view of the world? This is not to detract from the women shown–they are beautiful, but they’re not the only kind of beauty in Hollywood today.
What was VF thinking with this throw-back cover? There’s a reason I didn’t renew my subscription years ago.
Jeeze, learn to read between the lines!
Wow, the hatred. I agree they should have not just picked pale white girls, but I’m actually glad to see that they aren’t spray tanned. I’m pale and have been teased forever about it though, so I guess I’m just glad to see a new (less cancerous) trend in skin tone.
While I agree that there are plenty of talented women of color who belong on that cover, as an extremely pale girl I’m glad to see the make-up artists didn’t drown them in spray tan.
Wtf? Don’t you ever think pale people are “of colour” too? Stop looking at the effing colour and look at the people. Just because they aren’t black doesn’t mean they shouldnt be appreciated? If there was a cover like this with all black people I wouldnt get on here and be like “where are all the whites?” And if I said something like “a plain chocolate view of the world” I would get crucified. Its such a double standard. I get that there are no people “of colour” but, come on, don’t trash pale white people
I call bull***, Audrey. You honestly think skinny white girls don’t get ENOUGH ATTENTION in this world? And you’d be the very first person to whine if it was all black girls — though, the day VF runs a cover of black girls looks likely to arrive in about the year 3010.
KRibbons, you are correct. These women are beautiful and talented. They should be appreciated, but we live in a country founded with one of the most horrendous histories of racism. This racism is still SO prevalent today. Because so many different kinds of people see and read this magazine, including young people struggling to find themselves beautiful and normal, depicting a bunch of girls that look very similar is irresponsible. I was one of those young people who never thought she looked right because I never saw people like me described as beautiful or shown in movies and magazines. It is just as bad as having unbelievably skinny models. It promotes a false sense of truth. Because there is diversity within the talent found in this age of actors, it should be shown. There is no reason for it not too be. The pale woman should sit side by side the african american the hispanic and the redhead. Our country is so diverse. The talented population of our country is so diverse. It is sad then, that this magazine had no desire to promote and illuminate this diversity. It was a lazy and negligent decision.
So, to sum up this entire comments section. Pale = okay. Utter lack of diversity (and absence of Gabourey Sidibe) = NOT okay.
Funny that the writer of this post didn’t point out the glaringly obvious lack of non-white people. Of course, when was the last time EW had a person of color on their cover? (Blue CGI aliens don’t count)
To be fair, I think the first sentence “nine fresh, pale faces” alluded to the whitewash.
LOL..
ROTFLMAO, LOL!! Sharp ….
Yunjin Kim was on the Lost color, but you have to look hard to find her.
Monique. January 8th.
Hooray, black people… you get to be thumbnail size. And here’s a mule too!
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Anna Kendrick’s father african america?
If EW is so racist, why are u on this site, moron. Some people…
Jeez – YOU are the racist. Why don’t you go to an Aryan Nation site since you hate black people so much. That way you will only have to look at white people, just the way you like it. If you had your way, black people would still be in chains. Read a book so you won’t be so completely ignorant.
I agree, no latinos as well
Umm this weeks cover has the cast of Lost….. pretty sure they are not all pale thin or white.