You know what the issue for me is? I think Nicole Kidman does deserve better – she’s been a stalwart of the industry for so long that I’d love to see her dressed in a COOL outfit. I know that cool is also subjective, and a borderline ridiculous description to boot, but couldn’t we, just for once, see a Hollywood starlet dressed in an outfit that makes her look, I don’t know, fun and smart and interesting? (As opposed to the two options I feel like we’re currently given: a black tie gown or a lot of skin on show.)
As for the criticism of Nicole’s age jarring with the Baby One More Time vibes of the outfit, I feel as though the underlying message here is that Nicole Kidman has been so successful in Hollywood precisely because she somehow “still” looks like this, which diminishes everything else about her.
Maybe this is just me projecting – because I would absolutely love to see Nicole Kidman with a kind of cool, undone hairstyle; a pair of cropped, wide-legged jeans and a cool blouse by someone like Dries van Noten. (Although I can’t imagine it at all!)
I consider myself at 71 particularly sensitive to ageism, but what this cover looks like to me is: Entertainment. Which is what most of acting is, and what most of fashion is. Also what most of Vanity Fair is.
I actually really like the outfit and the concept as a whole - what I disliked and what I was seeing a lot of other people take issue with was the OTT photoshopping.
The good news is Nicole Kidman won’t be coming to dinner anytime soon, so I won’t have to ask her how she feels about all of this. And she doesn’t give a rats ass what we all think. I’m puzzled with all the wonderful clothes out there that this made the cut. I can imagine the meeting…it was a sensational look on the runway for MiuMiu. And I can hear Katie Grand probably saying how great would it be if Nicole agreed to wear THAT. And Nicole probably saying Ok and she has a hard out at 5. It should be known that she has full photo approval, too. So I think mission accomplished? The biggest question is: will it sell? Will you subscribe? My answer is no. Excuse me while I go back to translating Julia Fox…
If the purpose of this image was to shock, it has failed. If the purpose was to entertain it has failed. What it achieves is to inspire pity! Firstly, that Vogue signed off on such a shoddy, aesthetic mess of a photo-shopping job is mind boggling. Secondly, Nicole Kidman has persisted over many years, in a tough industry that has not always been kind to her, to accomplish great heights and achieve acclaim. We are told(sold!) that going for our dreams and goals will bring us agency, self-empowerment, self-esteem, dignity - and yet this falsified image in which a mature-age woman of skill and ability is constrained within the limitations of a younger, 'magazine ideal' body and little girl clothing trashes all of that and in doing so diminishes NK. Is she ashamed of how she really looks? The question begs, how? why? would NK herself have signed off on this disaster? One thing, it made me thank Kim Kardashian for lifting our gaze off of the idea that having a body like a race-horse was attractive. Love your curves, Kim!
It is bizarre to me that in the 21st century we are still sexually objectifying people. Celebrities, social media influencers, the fashion industry are all still enraptured by dressing up people like dolls. I feel sorry for Nichole Kidman - that she is living in this unhealthy and deluded bubble of the 'entertainment industry'. No doubt this portrayal of Nichole Kidman is meant to be extreme and controversial - but I'm not sure that the result was to have Kidman look like a man in drag?
You know what the issue for me is? I think Nicole Kidman does deserve better – she’s been a stalwart of the industry for so long that I’d love to see her dressed in a COOL outfit. I know that cool is also subjective, and a borderline ridiculous description to boot, but couldn’t we, just for once, see a Hollywood starlet dressed in an outfit that makes her look, I don’t know, fun and smart and interesting? (As opposed to the two options I feel like we’re currently given: a black tie gown or a lot of skin on show.)
As for the criticism of Nicole’s age jarring with the Baby One More Time vibes of the outfit, I feel as though the underlying message here is that Nicole Kidman has been so successful in Hollywood precisely because she somehow “still” looks like this, which diminishes everything else about her.
Maybe this is just me projecting – because I would absolutely love to see Nicole Kidman with a kind of cool, undone hairstyle; a pair of cropped, wide-legged jeans and a cool blouse by someone like Dries van Noten. (Although I can’t imagine it at all!)
I consider myself at 71 particularly sensitive to ageism, but what this cover looks like to me is: Entertainment. Which is what most of acting is, and what most of fashion is. Also what most of Vanity Fair is.
I actually really like the outfit and the concept as a whole - what I disliked and what I was seeing a lot of other people take issue with was the OTT photoshopping.
The good news is Nicole Kidman won’t be coming to dinner anytime soon, so I won’t have to ask her how she feels about all of this. And she doesn’t give a rats ass what we all think. I’m puzzled with all the wonderful clothes out there that this made the cut. I can imagine the meeting…it was a sensational look on the runway for MiuMiu. And I can hear Katie Grand probably saying how great would it be if Nicole agreed to wear THAT. And Nicole probably saying Ok and she has a hard out at 5. It should be known that she has full photo approval, too. So I think mission accomplished? The biggest question is: will it sell? Will you subscribe? My answer is no. Excuse me while I go back to translating Julia Fox…
If the purpose of this image was to shock, it has failed. If the purpose was to entertain it has failed. What it achieves is to inspire pity! Firstly, that Vogue signed off on such a shoddy, aesthetic mess of a photo-shopping job is mind boggling. Secondly, Nicole Kidman has persisted over many years, in a tough industry that has not always been kind to her, to accomplish great heights and achieve acclaim. We are told(sold!) that going for our dreams and goals will bring us agency, self-empowerment, self-esteem, dignity - and yet this falsified image in which a mature-age woman of skill and ability is constrained within the limitations of a younger, 'magazine ideal' body and little girl clothing trashes all of that and in doing so diminishes NK. Is she ashamed of how she really looks? The question begs, how? why? would NK herself have signed off on this disaster? One thing, it made me thank Kim Kardashian for lifting our gaze off of the idea that having a body like a race-horse was attractive. Love your curves, Kim!
It is bizarre to me that in the 21st century we are still sexually objectifying people. Celebrities, social media influencers, the fashion industry are all still enraptured by dressing up people like dolls. I feel sorry for Nichole Kidman - that she is living in this unhealthy and deluded bubble of the 'entertainment industry'. No doubt this portrayal of Nichole Kidman is meant to be extreme and controversial - but I'm not sure that the result was to have Kidman look like a man in drag?