Vanity Fair's cover story on Madonna
From "A." <[email protected]> Organization UCLA Date Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:47:10
I think Madonna's reasoning is as follows: people are going to get pictures of Lourdes one way or another, so why doesn't she control who, where, and how those photographs are taken? Her not allowing photos of Lourdes to be taken anywhere makes any pictures one can snap that much more valuable. By having Lourdes' picture on VANITY FAIR, she has decreased the interest in paparazzi photos of her daughter.
A.
From bryan ochalla <[email protected]> Organization University of Wisconsin, Madison Date 31 Jan 1998
I am a little dissapointed that M is showing pictures of her daughter after such a long period of trying to keep her from being seen. However, in light of all of her comments about Lourdes in her new songs and interviews, I am guessing her reasoning is that she is a new and happy mother, and she is very proud of what a great little girl she has. Just as any proud parent loves to show off pictures of their child, Madonna may just want to show us this beautiful daughter she has told us so much about.
From aspen_q <[email protected]> Organization Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Date Sat, 31 Jan 1998
JoshuaNYS wrote:
> By having Lourdes' picture on VANITY FAIR, she has decreased the interest in paparazzi photos of her daughter.No one >has had more photos in Vanity Fair and other magazines than Madonna. According to your logic. there should be no >paparazzi interest in madonna at all. We all know that is not the case. The more famous a person becomes, the more the >paparazzi will photograph them. Madonna has just made her daughter a lot more famous. One mans opnion, joshua
There are a lot more reasons for the paparazzi to go after Madonna - the ONLY reason we want to see a picture of Lourdes is because she's Madonna's daughter. I mean Madonna puts out albums and videos and stars in movies - why should we crave millions of pictures or her daughter? Once some great pictures have come out there will be very little interest in paparazzi photos of her.
andru
From [email protected] (MATTRETT) Organization AOL http://www.aol.com Date 31 Jan 1998
I think it's not the end of the world that M is posing with Lourdes in VANITY FAIR and look forward to seeing the pix, but this seriously undermines all her comments about the invasion of the media and about "my daughter is not in show business, I am in show business, so leave her out of it." Posing with Lourdes in a nat'l magazine will certainly up the ante for paparazzi, since people will become more aware than ever of Lourdes and want to see her from time to time. I think it's an error in judgment and the fact that it coincides with the release of an album does nothing to separate her from the Jackos and Pamela Lees (though I doubt Madonna was paid--as they were--for the photos).
From [email protected] (Richard Vieira) Organization Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Date 31 Jan 1998
JoshuaNYS ([email protected]) wrote:
>i'm sure if we went to her home(s), we'd find some of those pics there. Don't measure Mo's life against our pittly ones. >Speak for yourself. If you have a pittly life its your own fault.
Any life that does not equal Mo's in grandeur is pittly, by my definition. I just have high standards, unlike some people.
> I agree with Phil.I don't think he's saying she shouldn't have pictures of L. in her own home. Just not in magazines. Pride is >one thing. Safety is another. Her pride wasn't so grand that she couldn't wait until ROL needed to be promoted to show pics. >Mo may no longer be Like A Virgin but she sure is Like A Hypocrite.
From [email protected] (ELTacubo) Organization AOL http://www.aol.com Date 1 Feb 1998
>If Madonna wants to show her baby then more power to her. Parents are proud of their children and it's only natural that they >want to show them to people. Everyone I work with always shows pictures of their children to others. It's only natural. Why >should she be denied that privledge??? Hello!!!! Madonna is human . . remember?????
I know,seriously, you're all making such a big deal out of this. it's normal and natural and it's no big deal-- it's not like she's doing an article on her daughter. getsomething better to talk about.
RIck
From [email protected] (PHILisHome) Organization AOL http://www.aol.com Date 31 Jan 1998
Whats the difference between selling pictures to a tabloid and putting her baby on the cover of Vanity Fair? Either way they're out there for public consumption. I don't understand your point about her daughter now being a year old. Is there a difference between having pictures taken when the baby is six months versus twelve? Either way, the baby (obviously) has no say and is being used to promote her mother's album. I hope I'm wrong but I have the feeling that the only reason why madonna waited so much longer than the celebrities you mentioned is because she didn't have a product to push. In the end there's only one difference between what she's doing and what Michael Jackson did - the name of the magazine. (Life v. Vanity Fair)
From Jeremy <[email protected]> Organization IBM.NET Date Sat, 31 Jan 1998
"I hope I'm wrong but I have the feeling that the only reason why madonna waited so much longer than the celebrities you mentioned is because she didn't have a product to push."
What about Evita?
From [email protected] (Rick Westover) Organization Triton Technologies, Inc Date 31 Jan 1998
Just another article on the upcoming Vanity Fair issue. This one comes from the Mr.Showbiz page. They seem to have some facination with Madonna as articles about her hit their page every other day or so. Enjoy! Why does 3/3/98 seem so unbelievably far away?
--Rick
From [email protected] (Jennifer20) Organization AOL http://www.aol.com Date 3 Feb 1998
Yes! Thats exactly what I thought= that she has her moms eyes!! I didnt get to see any of the V.F. cover or coverage- My local NBC took E.T. out to show the Timberwolves basketball game :-( Im sorry, but they suck.. Yes, I live in thier state, but I would have much rather seen E.T.!!!!!!!! I cant believe I didnt get to see it!! :-( I was mad!! Anyway, I saw a picture of Lourdes on the web months ago- and wow, she sure does have her mother's eyes.. Lovely little girl. Im going to go and look tomorrow if it is in my local magazine mega store...
Can any of you post what they said exactly about it? I would be VERY greatful!! Thank you!
Jennifer
From Niels Dekker <[email protected]> Organization NLnet Date Tue, 03 Feb 1998
Hi Madonna fans,
Check out the British newspaper Daily Telegraph (no tabloid!), today, Tue 3 Feb 1998!
It contains a preview of the coming Vanity Fair cover story.
Regards from Amsterdam,
Niels Dekker
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 01:58:50 -0800 (PST) From: caulfiel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: )|(: Re: MADONNA - MARCH "VANITY FAIR" COVER!!!
On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Branko Bavrlic wrote:
> Okay, I love Madonna and everything but WHY is Lourdes gonna be in there? I thought Madonna was against this kind of >thing. Does anyone know why she had a change of heart? Branko
Madonna and company will *have* to defend questions like that. And she'd better have a damn good answer, considering how much drama she caused over proclaiming Lourdes off limits to photographers and the public ("I'm in showbusiness, not my daughter." Um... okay, sure.)
- -Keith "I Just Graduated, Wanna Give Me A Job?" Caulfield
Check out my homepage at http://www-scf.usc.edu/~caulfiel
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 05:16:32 -0500 From: "--> GOURMET <--" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: )|(: Re: MADONNA - MARCH "VANITY FAIR" COVER!!!
caulfiel wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Branko Bavrlic wrote: Okay, I love Madonna and everything but WHY is Lourdes gonna be in there? >I thought Madonna was against this kind of thing. Does anyone know why she had a change of heart? Branko ........ >Madonna and company will *have* to defend questions like that. And > she'd better have a damn good answer, considering >how much drama shecaused over proclaiming Lourdes off limits to photographers and the public ("I'm in showbusiness, not >my daughter." Um... okay, sure.)
And she certainly does have a VERY good answer. Madonna is against random asswipes from Hard Copy and the like invading her privacy, taking candid shots of her whenever the fuck they feel like. She has never allowed or condoned that. What she is doing for Vanity Fair is allowing a hand-chosen photographer, Mario Testino (someone she clearly has a good relationship with), to photograph her and Lourdes in posed photographs that all parties involved have had a hand in choosing.
Madonna is in CONTROL. And that, as always, is what matters to her.
G O R D O N
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:44:46 EST From: [email protected] Subject: )|(: What exactly is it about the "Vanity Fair" shoot?
In a message dated 98-02-11 13:18:15 EST, [email protected] writes:
<< Although I think being photographed for Vanity Fair with Lourdes is a cheap (and, of her own making, hypocritical) publicity stunt, >>
Alex, First, let me say that most of what you said about popular music, Madonna's influence, her lyrics, and her music is comparable to what I believe, although these topics are very subjective really. Unfortunately, popular music is definitely not the foreground of innovation. Often times, I've wondered if she just gave it all up and didn't have as much to lose, whether or not she would write more thought provoking lyrics. I'm not saying that her songs aren't thought provoking, many are, but MORE thought provoking. Now, back to my original point, let me say that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what makes you think Madonna being photographed with Lourdes for "Vanity Fair" is a cheap, hypocritical publicity stunt? I know Madonna said that she would "let people see" Lourdes when she was older, but a lot of people thought she meant several years older. This being said, is it just because she posed with Lourdes when she had a new album coming out? What if she had instead chosen to pose with Lourdes next summer (1999) when she possibly might not have any projects coming out? Would you still think that it would be just a publicity stunt to keep her in the public eye? In a way, if I hadn't started seeing pictures of Lourdes with Madonna, I might have started to have "Mommie Dearest" type thoughts about their relationship. This isn't necessarily a reflection on Madonna, but rather on all of those nasty Hollywood family horror stories I've heard. I've read several people's opinions on this subject and everyone seems to have a different one, which is just fine. However, we'll probably never know the real reason.
Chad
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:50:28 -0500 From: "Alex Snell" <[email protected]> Subject: )|(: Re: What exactly is it about the "Vanity Fair" shoot?
Now, back to my original point, let me say that I'm not necessarily
> disagreeing with you, but what makes you think Madonna being photographed with Lourdes for "Vanity Fair" is a cheap, >hypocritical publicity stunt? I know Madonna said that she would "let people see" Lourdes when she was older, but a > lot >of people thought she meant several years older. This being said, is it just because she posed with Lourdes when she had a >new album coming out? What if she had instead chosen to pose with Lourdes next summer (1999) when she possibly might >not have any projects coming out? Would you still think that it would be just a publicity stunt to keep her in the public eye?
I don't really want to get into a long battle over this issue b/c ultimately I don't care that much about it, but I'll try to briefly outline how I feel.
Madonna is extremely astute about using the press to her advantage, despite her complaints about the press--which complaints are actually attempts to use the public's contempt for the press to her advantage. When Lourdes was born and she was doing publicity for Evita, the party line was "I am the public figure, not my daughter; my baby will not be photographed." Indeed, Madonna *generated* press for herself by stating so adamantly that she was going to shield Lourdes from the public eye: that was news, news that was specifically timed and manufactured to sell a product (Evita. I'm not saying Madonna timed her pregnancy to maximize publicity, but she certainly took advantage of the situation). Go back and read all the gossip sleaze from that period.
Now Madonna has a new album to promote and needs to generate press again. Instead of "not my daughter" it seems the party line has changed to "not without my daughter." (That's a weak attempt at a joke.) What better way to generate new press than to take the opposite tact she took a year and a half ago and publish the "exclusive first photographs of Madonna's daughter." This worked: you've read the gossip sleaze spread as far as Time magazine (no accident--Time Warner). When confronted with the contradiction by Sischy in the Vanity Fair article, at least she extremely deftly deflects the question entirely instead of trying to excuse what is blatant hypocrisy, for which there is no excuse if you make any pretense of having standards or morals, which Madonna certainly and very publicly does. I take that as her acknowledgement that she's applied a double standard; she's smart enough and cynical enough to know that in this sick culture prostituting your child is how you do business. I'll take amorality over pretentious high-mindedness from Madonna any day.
Having said that: to answer your question, yes, I would have found it more acceptable had Madonna been photographed with her daughter at some random time rather than as a product tie-in. In that case, she would have been catering to the public's interest in seeing her daughter (news) rather than using her daughter as an advertising vehicle for her album (sales). Of course, anyone with any awareness of marketing whatsoever would tell you that wasting the press generated by publishing the "exclusive first pics" of Lourdes with no corresponding that people can like Pavlov's dogs go out and purchase is idiotic. That should tell us all how pervasively the amoral rationale of the market and constant selling has drenched our culture.
I guess there's still a (very small) part of me that would like to believe that there are some things in life that are sacred enough that you draw the line at trying to extract some sort of profit or gain from them. Like your own child. The fact that Warners/Madonna coordinated video marathons with MTV and VH-1 to coincide with the birth of Lourdes was truly disgusting and a low-point in Madonna's business judgement, in my opinion. But that's life as we live it in this great free country of ours. Madonna is certainly no worse than anyone else; I do not hold her to higher standards than I do any other public figures or celebrities. However, when she does act in a way I consider inappropriate, I'm going to point it out since it is Madonna that I am interested in and this is a Madonna list.
See you later,
Alex
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:10:08 -0600 From: "Candy Perfect Boy" <[email protected]> Subject: )|(: Re: Re: What exactly is it about the "Vanity Fair" shoot?
The way I see it (when i'm trying to ignore the obvious: cheap, hypocritical publicity stunt) is that in the past year (and 1/2), she's mellowed quite a bit. The vow to keep Lourdes out of the public eye was made by a Madonna that was, at least publicly, very hard in her tone and making a loud statement, like she always did, like she always has. And i think that (keeping Lourdes out of the spotlight) is what she intended to do.
But I think in the last year and a half, with Lourdes in her life... she's let loose about a lot of things, something you can feel in her tone in the recent interviews. Maybe she wants to share her daughter with the world. She is a beautiful child after all. Anyway, i think Madonna has mainly just "lightened up" about a lot of things. She doesn't necessarily come off so bold anymore. There's more of a softness to her since Lourdes' birth, and maybe the photo spread is a result of that.
However, this could be (and probably is) all just in connection with her new project and the promotion of it. No denying that the timing of Lourdes' "coming out" looks like a publicity stunt. The same with the new image, the softness, the spirituality.
Maybe it's a little or a lot of both.
Peace, Aaron
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:40:45 EST From: [email protected] Subject: )|(: What exactly is it about the "Vanity Fair" shoot?-Response
In a message dated 98-02-11 18:32:09 EST, you write:
<< The way I see it (when i'm trying to ignore the obvious: cheap, hypocritical publicity stunt) is that in the past year (and 1/2), she's mellowed quite a bit. The vow to keep Lourdes out of the public eye was made by a Madonna that was, at least publicly, very hard in her tone and making a loud statement, like she always did, like she always has. And i think that (keeping Lourdes out of the spotlight) is what she intended to do. But I think in the last year and a half, with Lourdes in her life... she's let loose about a lot of things, something you can feel in her tone in the recent interviews. Maybe she wants to share her daughter with the world. She is a beautiful child after all. Anyway, i think Madonna has mainly just "lightened up" about a lot of things. She doesn't necessarily come off so bold anymore. There's more of a softness to her since Lourdes' birth, and maybe the photo spread is a result of that. However, this could be (and probably is) all just in connection with her new project and the promotion of it. No denying that the timing of Lourdes' "coming out" looks like a publicity stunt. The same with the new image, the softness, the spirituality. Maybe it's a little or a lot of both. Peace, Aaron >>
I remember somebody printing something about Madonna continually being hourded by the press still trying to get pictures of her daughter and she did the shoot to get them to back off her daughter. The product tie-in is just wise marketing, we all know very well Madonna is on top of that. It's rare for Madonna to grace a cover without promoting anything, she seems aware that it's a waste of time. She's a very busy person, there's more productive things she could be doing. What's the point? On the same note I think it's cool that Madonna did the shoot free of charge to a respectable magazine who have always supported her and had stunning photo shoots and articles of her. At least she didn't sell Lourdes out to some tacky British magazine for big bucks like Michael Jackson and Pamela and Tommy Lee. How tacky! I think Madonna handled this sensibly with a lot of class and plain old business sense. Would we expect it any other way from Madonna? Fil.