Obama: Hollywood Hero?
Posted by Catherine Favazza - 02/24/09 at 07:02 amAs a fellow, favorite blogger puts it: I have magazine issues.
Ever since I was offered a job as the managing editor of a start-up, national political magazine, I have been a fan and a student of magazines. I subscribed to as many as I could get my hands on, and I’ve discovered a few favorites that I haven’t been able to let go. One of the magazines I still read is Vanity Fair. I recognize that it’s as Left as can be in philosophy; one need only glance at the headlines in the search results for the word “Republican” on their site to know that. Still, the quality of writing is superior to most magazines and I look forward to the playful design of many of their departments.
The most recent issue features something that has gone largely unnoticed by conservatives: President Obama is on the cover of the March issue of Vanity Fair. You’ve likely seen the magazine on the newsstand this month and already know this. What makes this noteworthy, however, is that March issue is Vanity Fair’s 15th annual Hollywood Issue.
The cover says, “Hollywood 2009!” and lists a handful of A-list stars, as if to suggest that there just happens to be a feature about celebrities. But don’t be confused. Turn to page 149, “Chemistry Sets,” for a short, behind-the-scenes description of one of the photo shoots for the issue—and Vanity Fair itself explicitly refers to this glossy as the “Hollywood Issue” (with a capital ‘I’ for Important).
I recognize the extreme popularity of the President. I recognize that this was the first issue completed after the Inauguration. But I’m still coming to terms with the widely accepted view of the President as a celebrity. A friend pointed out to me that he gets depressed thinking that there are people who may have been swayed to vote for Obama because he and his wife dominated so many magazine covers, seen by so many Americans waiting in line at the grocery story last summer and fall on People, Us Weekly and the like.
Like it or not, the union of President Obama’s inauguration and the annual Hollywood Issue (with a capital ‘I’ for Indispensable) is a logical one. The way the editors and photographers fawn over both the starlets and the members of the new administration is almost identical; the famed Annie Leibovitz herself shoots both groups. She photographed more than 50 members of the new administration—proudly displayed with their respective job titles, spanning 16 pages. Across another 16 pages, Leibovitz showcases Oscar nominees and their directors, photographed like lovers more often than not.
The requited love affair between the Left and Hollywood is nothing new, but now, both share the same untested icon.
The bumpy reality of an Obama administration has already revealed itself to the nation; nothing has gone smoothly for the new Commander-in-Chief. Will the President remain infallible in the eyes of Hollywood and the Left?
Popularity: 3% [?]
Related posts:
- A Worthy Opponent?
- Obama’s Online Town Hall: Rally Around This Question
- More About Obama and the Economy
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:56 am
[...] Synergize, Baby Katie Favazza observes the confluence of two of Hollywood’s favorite things in this month’s Vanity [...]
February 24th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Let me preface this with the fact that I do not agree with the notion of celebrity status for any president; even so, I can somewhat understand the need to have created and sustained this peculiar practice. In the viewing of the modern celebrity there is comfort in the public eye due to an active interest that, oddly enough, is paired with passive detachment. Much like the worth of a Hollywood actor is dependent on his or her image and the success of the roles he or she chooses, so too is the strength of a political leader in a democratic society reliant on the public’s convictions that we, the “standard working Americans”, could not in our wildest dreams be on par with them when they are performing at their best. When we watch a film and see an actor as a just the character they are portraying, we are able to feel like we understand and at times strongly relate to this fictional being (see: any character played by Steve Carrell). However, when viewing a celebrity outside the context of a film or show, there is this sense of intimidation, given the amount of money we throw at these people for their ‘talents’, that makes one think that there is absolutely no way that our ‘normal person’ spleens could be as magnificent as say, Angelina Jolie’s. We see the character Barak Obama shooting hoops and think “oh hey that’s cute and average and relatable.” But when he’s viewed in the President Barak Obama scope more often than not people think “my god I would not have the cojones to propose and sign my name to a mind-bogglingly large stimulus plan with absolutely no background in economics or finance and within the first 30 days of my presidency”. I generally think that people feel the warmest safety blanket when they irrationally equate their president the ‘character’ as someone like them or like their buddy next store, yet they always keeping in mind that the president as PRESIDENT is surhumain, like our Hollywood ‘royalty’. It is too unsettling and at times infuriating for us average schmo-hawks to get the idea that we (or even our buddy next store who once put on an ‘invisible fence’ dog collar and got a buck for each shock level he endured) could just as easily be making the same amount of money as these celebrities and in the same token be the person in charge of the free world. Although I am glad to say that I don’t subscribe to this perspective, it saddens me that it seems to be a craze that won’t die anytime soon. In the words of my hero, “so it goes.”