I agree with Broomstick: unconscious bias. I’m reluctant to call it “racism” which does imply malice, but I am surprised that the editors didn’t think to add an actress of color if only to avoid this kind of controversey.
The age cutoff for the peice was 30. Zoe Saldana is 31, so she’s too old by Hollywood standards.
I think omitting 26 year old Gabourey Sidibe had way more to do with her being overweight than black. I mean, she is up for an Oscar this year, so she’s more up and coming than any of the women in that photo. But her size is probably going to limit her future career in a way her skin won’t.
Evan Rachel Wood is “up and coming”? She’s been staring in movies for almost 10 years.
These proposed additions may not have even been plausible. The female actors listed all have another few things in common. They’re all under 30, and have been in on average, ten films.
Gabourey Sidibe only has one movie under her belt. Also, in what reality does the author of this piece reside that putting her on a magazine that has a target demographic of underweight, fashion obsessed, celebrity crazed white girls would be considered a good idea?
Freida Pinto, only has one movie.
Zoe Saldana would have been a good addition to the cover, as she seems to fit all the criteria except that she’s 31. The oldest other actress pictured is 27, with the others falling mostly around 24. And who knows, maybe she was offered, but declined.
Can anyone think of some other fresh faces of non-white Hollywood? Maybe Charlyne Yi? I can’t really think of any others off the top of my head.
Mia Wasikowska - Alice in Wonderland
Rebecca Hall - The Prestige, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Frost/Nixon
Abbie Cornish -* Stop-loss, Elizabeth: the golden age*
I don’t think you can accurately say these girls deserved to be there any less then Zoe Saldana.
The biggest hit to Gabourey Sidibe is that she has had one good performance in one movie. Not enough of a track record yet to call her an “up and coming” star. She has the acting chops, so if she can get a few more roles under her belt I think she would be a good choice for a future list.
Because, of course, white is not a “color” :rolleyes:.
Diversity ? There’s plenty of (beautiful) diversity on that cover. Brunettes, redheads, blondes, hazel-haired.
So:
For Mia, a film that hasn’t come out yet, for Rebecca, two bit roles and a decent supporting one, and for Abbie Cornish, two minor roles in bombs. Zoe Saldana: a major role in Star Trek and the female lead in the highest grossing film in history. I’ll grant the 31 years old thing, but people can’t be serious when they say she wouldn’t be more worthy of inclusion but for that.
I wouldn’t accuse Vanity Fair of racism, but they’re certainly unimaginative.
Come now, really?
Are you suggesting that there is no difference culturally between the fact that my roommate and I have slightly different colored hair, and the fact that I can (rightly or wrongly) identify the culture and geographic regional differences between Anaamika and I just on sight?
Sure, white is a color. It’s also the color of power and dominance in America and Europe. What is your point?
Maybe they’re stupid.
What about Aemrica Fererra?
As Eonwe has pointed out, it’s not really the same thing. I note the same thing comes up when people talk about getting plastic surgery to fit in with the mainstream (read: white) culture, and people get all huffy and reply that white people tan themselves now so doesn’t that mean something? I guess it’s different because it’s not like there’s a long history in our culture of black people setting the trend of what is attractive or acceptable.
It’s a magazine cover. Nothing’s unconscious. Even whenZoe Saldana was on the covera while back she was after the fold and the only girl darker than mocha, as well as the woman wearing the least amount of clothing.
Are there racists on staff? Probably. Did someone suggest someone ‘colorful’ and get a stern look or a ‘We’re not sure we want to go in that… direction’? Maybe. Are they factoring in actual sales of past covers or real demands from advertisers when they make decisions like this? Probably (as is often the case with this, everyone’s likely so terrified of messing up they’d rather feature Gwyneth Paltrow again than anyone ‘different,’ even if they have to cite a single cover from six years back of a B-list star of mixed ethnic heritage that sold badly in a an economic slump).
Beyond just being a bunch of pasty, pretty, forgettable girls (nothing against the individual actresses themselves – they can’t control what they look like, for the most part, or how they’re photoshopped), the cover is Boring with a capital B. And it has been done by Vanity Fair countless times, I’m glad they’re finally getting called out on it. Enough with the same boring faces. If they don’t want to go under, they’re going to have to up the ante – and that includes (gasp) acknowledging that their readers both are and aspire to be more than pale white socialites. A Hamptons mixer has more color than that cover.
But would it have been less boring if everything else was the same except the skin color of the actresses? Is it the poses and the clothing or is it just the whiteness?
Also, I can see why from a sales point of view, they’d only put one black girl on the cover and put her after the fold–but why put her in the least amount of clothing? It does into into the stereotype of black=oversexed, but do people really respond to that? If we’re looking at the same people who would rather not even see a black person on a cover, are they also thinking that if they do have to see one they’d rather see one dressed more provocatively?
The woman at the back with the hat is wearing pretty well exactly the same outfit as her. Except, of course, for the hat.
How many non-blacks have been on the cover of Oprah’s magazine.
For that matter, how many non-Oprah folks? 
It’s a bit of everything. The runway model sameness of the girls themselves (which I think is rampant in the industry – if you replace cover models with actresses and aren’t particularly creative, then actresses need to start looking like models – skinny and white), but also in the context of other, very similar covers. It’s hard to get excited about a new crop of ‘fresh’ faces when they look so unremarkable grouped together. Perhaps Hollywood’s fault (an argument I’ve already read), but at this point Vanity Fair can lead as much as follow celebrity trends. If they blame Hollywood, then they’re ceding power and pretty much writing themselves off. ‘We’d love to feature non-white actresses, but there aren’t any!’ only works if you lack foresight or any sort of creative edge. I’d sooner take that argument from a magazine like People – and they are actually pretty good when it comes to featuring non-white celebrities.
Oversexualizing black people is pretty par for the course in fashion spreads and magazines like VF and Vogue. Pretty surprising that she’s not in a leopard print bikini, actually. I’m also not convinced that putting her next to Anne Hathaway and Jessica Biel would have caused the issue to tank (though honestly I have no idea what its sales were like, anyway).
When publishers talk about how covers with black faces don’t sell well, they almost always mean black models. Or, as I mentioned before, they cite some January cover with a black actress from five years ago that didn’t do well as proof that America won’t buy them, ever (while poor sales of Nicole Kidman and Drew Barrymore covers hardly take them out of the running).
I think it was the infamous Tom Ford issue that had several black celebrities, and only the black celebrities, stark naked in their profiles. IIRC there were also some naked white women’s (or girls’) limbs, but they made appearances in profile photos for male musicians and actors.
Thank God! We are reduced to quibbling about whether the cover of a fashion magazine is racist because it has no people of color on it.
Racism must be well and truly dead.
Free at last! Free at last!
Honestly, I did not know GD (or debate in general) could only be of the life-or-death variety. I don’t know what people have been complaining about, recently – hel-lo, the slaves were freed, guys! And everyone knows magazines, TV, children’s books, billboards, commercials, videogames, movies and websites are something mature, educated adults tune into briefly and objectively after they’ve spent their day in reality. If they affect anyone’s perspective or self-esteem, alone or together, it’s only because that person is too dumb to not be manipulated!