Archive for the ‘condé nast’ Category

there's no such thing as overexposure in the music industry but it sure exists in the film industry

Sunday, July 19th, 2009

here’s part 2.

so currently who are the most overexposed actors in hollywood? well, tom cruise and katie holmes were at the top of that list, but now it seems they’ve gone into hiding. or they’re careers have taken a u-turn of ben affleck proportions.

when tom cruise was with his boyhood publicist pat kingsley, she kept him on a tight leash and forbad journalists from asking him about his, um ‘religion.’ or so the story goes. his image was carefully managed. then he tossed his p.r. person under the bus and hired his sister, whose also a member of his, um ‘church.’ that’s when we got the image of tom cruise jumping on oprah’s couch declaring his ‘love’ for katie holmes as he did a michael jackson and found a ‘host’ –um , surrogate mother for his alien love child.

now this brings us to robert pattinson. can you not enter a supermarket or pass by a kiosk without seeing his fangs and uni-brow? this goes to show actors– be careful with those tween films. and prior to agreeing to be in an adaptation of a novel, do your frickin’ homework. tom cruise didn’t prior to bullying his way onto another vampire film, ‘interview with a vampire,’ and this most likely left lasting damage on his career.

but anne rice fans are far less intense than ‘twilight’ ones. perhaps because after 10 or 15 years of having read her books they had come to the realisation that well, vampires just don’t exist.

or perhaps this is due to the writing style. any tom dick or harry –or basically, tina, doreen or hermione can pick up a 500 page stephenie meyer novel and read it on a flight between london and berlin, except perhaps for dakota fanning. this in turn leads to perhaps a form of rabid fandome and screaming hormonal teens not seen since duran duran and wham (before george michael came out of the closet).

in part 3 we’ll discuss how to reverse overexposure without going MIA, which leads to underexposure of jared leto and colin farrell proportion –which is basically career ending. would this entail avoiding all publicity for your films except for junkets? should robert pattinson turn down the looming ‘vanity fair’ cover? should his publicist actively lobby for him to NOT be declared people’s ‘sexist man alive.’ should he avoid the teen choice awards and all comic book related conventions let alone the ‘twilight’ fan conventions and the upcoming ‘twilight’ cruise? we say pattinson should let someone else play edward cullen in the third ‘twilight’ film, ‘eclipse.’ like that’s ever gonna happen.

bella swan –we mean kristen stewart, is a tad overexposed too. but since she’s been acting since at least ‘panic room,’ and guys tend not to chase girls down the street seeking autographs and she hasn’t got big boobs (so the male contingency of the paparazzi aren’t interested), she’s probably okay for the moment.


barcelona and reverse culture shock

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

design city of europe? hmm. i’ll have to have a word with the editors of ‘wallpaper magazine’ and ‘monocle’. it was okay, although the workshop i attended was first rate. shame about the faux beaches though. but its always great to dodge the dreary days of northern europe.

reverse culture shock
i try to visit the u.s. at least once every 18 months. people talk and move faster than they do here. most conversations have to be pre-packaged into some sort of entertaining soundbyte to grab a person’s attention, while here you have to prepare yourself for a lengthy, detailed discussion about something fairly mundane. in the u.s., if i say ‘that’s too bad that you have to work on the weekend’ the reply is generally ‘i’m lucky to have a job.’ while here it’s more like ‘yeah, that really sucks.’

there are 150K empty apartments here
but for some reason, people outside of the country still insist on buying property and erecting pricey apartments. do you really need a 450K loft that allows you to elevate your car so that you can park directly in front of your own front door on the 5th floor? this is the city of bicyclers and a city with a 15% unemployment rate, i’ll be curious to see how ‘quickly’ that building fills up.

vanity fair deutschland the weekly failure?
still losing 165,000 euros/week? probably. and as the euro appreciates (1= $1.43), this could only get worse. although i think they’ve graduated from 10 ad pages per issue to 15 or so. they don’t seem to be able to take their own photos either. i’ve counted at least 4 covers (and i’m not really paying attention) that previously appeared on various conde nast publications in the u.s. including W and the original Vanity Fair. it seems the editor (who incidentally has a PhD in philosophy) is leery of putting non-native english speaking people on the cover.

english people leaving the uk in droves
apparently last year, about 385K people left the uk.
people site a variety of reasons including rising
crime rates and rising prices. although the rising
prices have allowed the same people to sell their
homes and relocate to barcelona, amongst other places.

condé nast closes jane magazine

Tuesday, July 10th, 2007

as of this morning, condé nast has closed jane magazine. more details can be found on the new york times, women’s wear daily, and the new york sun. it’s the end of the hipster era.

deconstructing vanity fair germany part 1

Friday, July 6th, 2007

Julie Delpy at Berlinale
well, i just picked up the new issue of vanity fair deutschland. das neu zeitschrift fuer deutschland. and i would like to of course, pick the whole thing apart. on a one hour train ride on DB, while the powers that be weren’t on strike. i pulled out germany’s weekly publication, vanity fair as well as a pen and a notepad. then i counted. what was i counting? ad pages. and unless my fingers were too fast. i counted exactly 8 ads. dolce and gabanna, cerruti, something with jens lehmann and oliver kahn in it, a double-paged spread from american express, a mobile phone operator, Duismann (a german book store). there were the obligatory advertisements from condé nast, which owns vanity fair. but i did not count the ads for AD(architectual digest), Glamour, or GQ in my final total. like i said, maybe i missed a page or two. but i’m pretty sure there are less than 10 ads in the current 162 page issue.

lindsay lohan is on the cover. but somehow the photo doesn’t look like an exclusive photo. but i can’t confirm this. paris hilton gets 4 pictures in the magazine, one double page photo for an article called ‘Sun for the Stars,’ then a smaller version of the same photo in the table-of-contents, and yet another one with in the story. she was on the cover 2 weeks ago.

tom cruise appears twice in the magazine. he’s in the ‘Sun for the Stars’ piece. there’s a double-paged spread of him and the spawn of l.r. hubbard frolicking somewhere. then there’s yet another article about prince william. last week’s cover was of princess diana and included a small photo of prince william and kate middleton.

there’s an article about tom cruise and the count von stauffenberg movie. the article includes a photo of bryan singer and tom cruise in berlin, a smaller photo of the count, and a picture of tom cruise and nicole kidman with sky du mont, one of germany’s most respected actors. the article seems to be all about promoting the film as being good for germany’s image. tom’s publicist must of put pressure on the editors because tom cruise is widely despised in germany because of his strange obsession with scientology. the article includes a quote from florian henckel von donnersmarck, who won an oscar earlier this year. the quote was pulled from an editorial the film director wrote for Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung. and basically says that having tom cruise play the role of von stauffenberg would be good for germany’s image. uwe wolff, who wrote the article writes ‘mit Valkyrie, werden rund 40 Millionen Euro in den Filmstandort Deutschland investiert, 500 Jobs geschaffen, auch für deutsche Schauspieler wie Daniel Bruehl und Armin Mueller-Stahl.’ translation. ‘with the film valkyrie, 40M will be invested where the filming takes place, 500 jobs will be created, also jobs for german actors like daniel bruehl and armin mueller-stahl.’ but tom hasn’t mentioned whether or not he’ll be erecting a scientology tent at the babelsberg studio set. we can only hope he doesn’t try to convert daniel bruehl.

o.k., so i was discussing how the magazine seems to be misreading germany. no one in germany likes to discuss there being an elite in the country. anyone with the word ‘von’ in their name is hissed at. der spiegel details this in its article. the article says the ‘…the problem is the magazine’s point of view.’ while popular celeb magazines take the piss out of celebrities, vanity fair, der spiegel notes, ‘…often prefers to shut itself out from its readers by associating itself with the world’s rich and powerful.’

how else are they out of touch? on one of their in/out pages, someone from their photo staff has found the dowdiest photo of julie delpy (above is a more accurate photo of delpy, which i took of her earlier this year) and slapped her image with the word OUT because she made a derogatory comment about quentin tarantino. the comment was made in a comical way. it’s about how poorly tarantino treats women in his films. yet, delpy’s directorial debut, 2 Days in Paris,(which stars herself and daniel bruehl), is doing quite well in germany. her little film has been in the top 10 for about 3 months. and all of the reviews have been infinitely positive.

for some inexplicable reason, the majority of the images in the magazine are of english speaking celebrities. the same is true for russian vogue btw. for vanity fair deutschland, the aging kate moss and the aging george clooney are seemingly favorites. they’re both in the new issue as is the basketball player tony parker (nobody cares about basketball in europe). the guest editor, rainer schmidt of the magazine talks about ‘the hollywood elite’ in his editorial without even a hint of irony. the magazine also bills itself as a new magazine for germany’s new elite, again without any hint of irony.

aside from the first issue with til schweiger dressed in a cowboy outfit rubbing his hose, i can’t think of another issue that’s had an actor from the german speaking countries on the cover. this brings me to another point, which i will, in a simone de beauvoir way mention now, but only get around to discussing later. basically, i want to tell the editors, it is perfectly okay to put danny bruehl or franka potente on the cover or michael ballack. they could even put roger federer on the cover. these people are all well known in german speaking countries. if the editors want a more european perspective. then put topical political stories on the cover. zapatero could be interesting. if the article runs for more than 2 pages. or what about the twin leaders from poland?

but perhaps the magazine’s fascination with american culture is a way for condé nast to try to minimize anti-americanism and anti-britishism by filling the magazine with the cultural elite of both countries so that everyone in germany will decide that they want to marry prince william, go partying with prince harry, and have a laugh with george clooney and leonardo dicaprio. without a bit of irony.

vanity fair german includes a mix of fashion, celebrity, and politics. just like vanity fair in the u.s. and the version in italy. ( i saw the italian version the last time i was in italy, it was about 10 pages. but perhaps it has improved.) but in the german speaking market (except for perhaps switzerland), this is not the same audience. people either want their hard political stories that go on and on in great detail for about 10 pages or they want a celebrity magazine and pictures of glamourous politicians from france are okay. note, i said france, not german. there are no glamourous politicians in deutschland. although it might be okay to put ursula von der leyen on the cover, despite her name having ‘von’ in the middle. she’s the 3rd most popular politician in germany, according to stern and she’s telegenic. but no. vanity fair just continuously runs photos of klaus wowereit. whose national popularity is quite low considering his city is 6 billion euros in debt. that’s almost 1 trillion dollars.

the political stories should run a minimum of 8 pages and include lots of charts because i’m convinced focus’s biggest readership comes from the people who have to camp out at their doctor’s office for two hours waiting to take advantage of their socialized medical system.

vanity fair german version having problems?

Thursday, June 28th, 2007

is it true that vanity fair deutschland is having problems? spiegel online seems to think that the 50M euro experiement with a weekly version of the popular american brand isn’t working. a few weeks ago i saw an ad for the magazine in a sunday issue of the tabloid BILD.