I still don't 'GET' Vogue or the fashion industry...

I thought Bea Schaefer (Anna's daughter) was an exceedingly lovely, level-headed girl, too. She seems to respect what her mother does, but has a realistic attitude about the fashion world as well. I suspect Anna's "armour" masks quite a bit of defensiveness about what her family (her siblings and her daughter) think of her career. She says her siblings all think what she does isn't serious (I forget her exact words). And her father was a newspaper journalist, though he's the one who directed her into fashion.

Andre Leon Talley is the campy fellow. I, too, think he is ridiculous, and I really wonder how much influence he has at Vogue, or what he even does for that matter. His title is editor at large, but his name is near the very bottom of the masthead. He didn't seem, in the doc, to be much involved in putting the magazine together. He did dress Jennifer Hudson for the Oscars the year she won for Dream Girls, and the outfit she wore (an unflattering gown with a even more unflattering little cropped, high-collar jacket, metallic, I think) was universally derided. I'm not sure why anyone, other than himself, designated him an a fashion arbiter.

Since Wintour is at the helm of the most read fashion magazine in the world, that gives her clout over the entire industry.

remember the designer thakoon that was mentioned near the front half of the movie? He was chosen by wintour as a new talent to watch; she lead him into a gap contract and a consulting position at Mango (a spanish clothier company, which apparently pays as well as a editor position at vogue or as creative director of a fashion brand). Her decision to appoint him towards these positions puts his designs on the market, in which readers will read and buy his works. ( i think thats you "blue sweater" moment.)

as for the dynamic of grace and anna, its a symbiotic relationship that works well for the magazine. grace is overflowing with art and talent, but the magazine cant really run on running spreads on houte couture ad nauseam. Coddington herself says that her point of view is very much in the past, and she is comfortable staying with that point of view. Thats why she, unknowingly, needs Wintour to edit her. If the magazine was entirely her point of view then its just a book of pretty pictures. Wintour runs the business end and lets the creative people do their job. She has the final say on edits because in the end she has to sell cloths through the magazine. there was that one line when they where doing the run-through for the 1920's shoot; she said she wants most of the cloths to be ready-to-wear. Even though coddingtons entire shoot is amazing, if it doesnt sell a product then whats the point.

Wintour has to be decisive in her job. Dealing with highly creative people with strong points of views; who dont know how to edit themselves, she needs to be the one with the direction to know where to go.

In brief, the fashion industry needs to advertise in order to increase consumption. Just like MacDonald's doesn't rely on customers deciding for themselves to buy their food; they create specials, toys with purchase, movie tie-ins, seasonal offerings (the St. Patrick's Day green mint-flavored milkshake, unavailable year round), anything to make people think of their product and desire it.

Fashion is just clothing, a necessity. It's a big industry in the USA and provides employment to thousands of people. To increase the amount of money people would spend if they just replaced worn-out goods and bought necessities, the advertisers created luxury goods (status), new designs (fear of appearing unsavvy of the trend), clothes which work together or are easy to care for (convenience and time saving), flattering styles (beauty)... It uses the same points as any salesman and appeals to the human desire for change (and status and attractiveness and competition, etc.).

Even isolated, primitive cultures without fashion magazines enjoy creating adornment. The designer/fashion magazine culture is no more hysterical and self-conscious than, say, the tobacco industry.

I don't "get" it either. Anna is a good business person, but so are thousands of others. She's not unique or particularly special, and there are many good business people who also manage to be warm... the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Vogue is just a bunch of photos of models wearing garish costumes that are inaccessible and irrelevant to the majority of the population. Really, can they blame people for not taking them seriously?

I mean, there's nothing wrong with it, no more than there is anything wrong with comic books, but I don't think either of them contributes anything enduring to society. Poor Anna, whose family finds her career "amusing" -- well that's more charitable than I would be.

Nitekat01...and everyone else


I get what you are saying...I love to look at magazines, at the unbeleivable creative forces in fashion, and just marvel at the vision of the people who make these fashions, do the hair/makeup, photograph them, etc. I also dream about what it would be like to actually wear something like that, or even to be in a store where couture is sold. But that's exactly what it is for many, many of us: a dream. Most of us cant, and never will be able to have fashion like that, so it always makes me wonder WHO exactly is Vogue's real audience? It seems to be an inner-circle clique of celebrities, wealthy people, socialites, and models who really get what's going on in these magazines.

But, I do think in all the fur, crazy feathers, bizarre wigs, gaudy accessories there does lie some hint and truth as to what the fashion will be for -for all of us- next season. For example, in "The September Issue" a lady said in the very beginning "it's all about jackets, not coats" which, of course always rings true in the fall. This issue came out in 2007 and now that it's 2010 I can look back and say "Hmm bright bold colors (like those in the tights) did make a comeback around then" and feathers seemed to be a big fall thing accessory around that time. I guess what I am trying to say is there are teeny bits of normal fashion we can pull out of the crazy couture fashions of Vougue and use in our every day lives. Doesn't have to be a $10,000 ostrich feather jacket by Oscar De La Renta, it could be a $5.00 fake feather hair clip from Forever 21.

Another thing that clicked with me while watching this movie.....every single aspect of the fashion industry seems to revolve aruond total bitchiness. From the expressions on the models faces as they go down the runway, to the photographer, to Grace having to defend her photos at ever turn, down to Anna herself. It seems like a very dog-eat-dog world, which again, most of us are not that way. Makes it seem like high-fashion and beauty is only attainable for people who are completely mean and shrewd. I think that's another reason why many people feel so disconnected from the fashion industry.

@nitekat01 I still don't get Vogue or fashion either, even after watching this. It amused me when someone would say that a photo was perfect or hideous, when to me it looked neither.

But there was one quote that stood out to me like a sore thumb, it was about how "fashion is this world of play and make-believe." I think that might explain the appeal of fashion. Kids like to play dress-up, and fashion is the grown-up version of it.

I don't get the fashion industry, which is OK because the fashion industry doesn't get me. But I was hoping for a little more insight and momentum in this documentary. I give this film 5/10 stars.

What is there to get? The magazine is important to the fashion industry due to its prestige. Getting your clothing inside the magazine is an honor and creates a platform. Which in turn leads to more money.

As far as Anna's decsion making, I don't know. I don't think she has an art or fashion background. She is more of a publisher/editor. But I am sure she goes by instinct, because she knows what looks good and or sells.