I’m not a regular reader of Vanity Fair but I could become one if a friend of a friend keeps passing along her used copies. I’m reading September 2009 right now and it is, ohmygod, September 2009.
The thing is, I like the gossipy, insider stories but I don’t understand the ads.
I like reading about rich people gone bad or celebrity people who died or about a TV show called Mad Men where they pretend it is 1962 so well that 1962 seems to be whole story, although I don’t want to go back to 1962 because, apparently, everyone smokes, even the pregnant ones. But then the ads, the ever-present ads, crop up again.
There’s someone named David Yurman. His name is in white letters on the left-hand page and a naked woman wearing a hat and some jewelry is on the right-hand page. I’m guessing David is either into hats or jewelry, but I’m not sure and I’m not going to his website to find out, although I admit that is sloppy journalism.
Then there is a woman wearing a nice hat, a woolly looking black suit and fingerless gloves sitting on what appears to be an ice flow. The word CHANEL is written beside her. Oh, and I just noticed, the woman is wearing jewelry too. I do remember a perfume called Chanel Number 5 but I’m guessing this ad is not about how the model smells.
Because of all the press she got, I do recognize the half-nude photos of Mick Jagger’s daughter. She’s advertising Hudson jeans and the ad even says that.
The most challenging ad for me is for Louis Vuitton. The model looks like Madonna and she’s wearing Madonnaesque clothing and showing off her purse. I know, or imagine, they are selling the purses (two different pictures, two different purses) but I don’t know if the model is Madonna or a Madonna look-alike. If it is, will Madonna be ticked?
There are ads in here I do understand. There’s an ad for a Chevrolet Camaro. It’s a car. I get it. Then there are a number of ads for Calvin Klein Jeans featuring male and female models. The male model looks like Jesus. So, I wonder, is this more look-alike or is Calvin Klein in onto something here?


Salon.com
Comments