I am so glad you posted about this -- every time I see it in the checkout line, I practically blackout from rage. And then I think, is there something I'm not getting here? How can this picture exist? But then, I feel the same way about Black Snake Moan, and that hasn't yet proven to be a sad joke, either.

I think I did a decent job raising awareness with humor yesterday.

It was in the break room in my office. I said, "Man, why can't we get more male nudity like that on the covers of magazines?"

After some conversation, I said something to that extent again just so the newcomers could again be challenged to think about all bodies as things that should be equally prone to sexualization and equally undeserving of objectification.

That's what I think, anyway. And did.

I love Vanity Fair's articles & political coverage (Except that unfunny, brain-donor Chris Hitchens), but some of their covers really bother me. This is one of the worst covers I've seen, aside from the one with naked Scarlett Johansen & Kiera Knightley & the inexplicably clothed Tom Ford.
Besides that, I just really hate The Sopranos.

Will probably wait till BSM comes to video to check it out. Still want to see it. James Gandolfini is hot. That picture is not. It's awkward and baffling.

What do I think? I think ew.

It's been a while since I've seen a woman that thoroughly thing-ified.

I agree with the magazine. It's very male-dominance oriented, and, plus, I never liked the series anyways for this reason.

My Dad, who doesn't think women should be allowed to manage or supervise or men in the workplace and has beaten all six of his previous wives, owns every released season of The Sopranos.

I really love Annie Leibovitz's work and at the same time I agree with everything you said.

It's not about Vanity Fair. Magazines put anything you can think of on the cover just to grab an eyeball. If any other photographer had done the picture, a reader might say, "Well, one more tasteless magazine cover to add to the pile," and move on. But Leibovitz has a major rep. She has her art historical claim to fame, her relationship with Sontag and her ability to photograph a person in a way that establishes a long-term public visual identity where that person is concerned. She's done John and Yoko and Keith Haring and a hundred other memorable portraits. I'm not sure what this is a picture of. Maybe it was just a photo job for money.

See, Michael, I kind of disagree with you re the eye-grabbing thing. Magazines won't put just ANTYING on the cover. You'll never see a mainstream magazine showing, say, a creepy guy looking longingly at a hot young naked frat boy. You will see a mainstream magazine doing this where "sorority girl" is substituted for "frat boy." These magazines don't rely on shock value; they rely on the ability to titillate in a very conventional, masculinist way.

I think this magazine cover proves the link between sex and violence. I see the "sexy" cover and it makes me want to commit violence against VF.

Interesting image - particularily because of Leibovitz's street cred - it is just too blatent to not be trying to comment about the hype-sex and violence of The Sopranos. It is the ultimate show of male privledge - so privledged it is outside the law, though there is that struggle between the two as the noose tightens around Tony and family. I think there is more to this image then just the surface objectification - I think it critiques (or attempts to) the whole thing by being so blatent.

or maybe she did for just the cash. who knows?

Well, is it more or less insulting when it's George Clooney?

Pretty much typical fair for Vanity Fair, then, because, again, we have the male staring right at us, with the woman a faceless accessory. In the Sopranos setting she appears to be there for purposes of sex and power, but in the Clooney setting, it seems to me that she is there as an expensive and luxurious piece of arm candy. "Oh, well, we men are here to squire you ladies around, look away from the camera and enjoy being led!"

There were photos of the model inside, but all the text referred to her (my copy is at home) diminutively.

Also note that Clooney's store is called Dancing with Danger. What is the danger, exactly?

I'm glad you're posting about this too. Vanity Fair is notorious for having covers like this one.

Annie Leibovitz is brilliant, I'm sure she could of come up with an appropriately Soprano-ish scene that didn't include a faceless, naked woman.

Well, considering the context of the show - it's about members of a criminal organization that routinely do very evil things - it's not an altogether inappropriate image to use to represent it. It's certainly a representation of male dominance and female submission, but I don't know if it's wrong to use such a picture on a magazine cover about this show, any more than it would be to show a scene of a murder.

Great... Lets glorify organized crime and objectifying women at the same time.

Way to go vanity fair.

What amuses me is it apparently wasn't enough for the model to have her face hidden and be posed naked with clothed men--they had to stick her in 5-inch-hooker-red-fuck-me-shoes, too. Clearly, without those she just wasn't objectified enough.

So very classy.

Hey, if you think that cover is bad, check out this picture. It was from the infamous Tom Ford issue, with a blurb about Topher Grace right beside it.

Well one thing that everbody has to pay attention to is that the mob is violent. Another is that it is entirely run by men and always has been. Now I'm going out on a limb here and saying that the federal government can't enforce equality in the work place in an organization of such a shady nature.

They crack down on the mob due to various other illegal activities such as racketeering and gambling. Civil rights just aren't something that's going to come from a court of law for a crime family.

They way they do business is the way they did business when they started. Back in the 1800s or when ever society treated women as objects. Never hear of a God Mother do ya?

I think it's silly to get up in arms over this picture due to the type of show that this is about. It's a mob thing, it's going to have men in control and in charge and doing bad things either violence or sexual. This isn't a fairy tale where everything is equal. It's cime.

Well,
1. It's a very striking image, which is what Annie Leibovits creates.
2. Of all the complaints, I don't see anybody suggesting that it, somehow, is misrepresenting its subject - the television show "The Sopranos." It is, after all, a show about privilege, and that idea is what is exuded by this photograph.
3. The photograph (here) is supposed to tell a story, not advance an agenda (outside of selling magazines).
4. In fact, one could make the argument that what this photograph is doing is to reduce The Sopranos down into its basest elements, sex and power. When you can sum up 6 seasons of a television show in one image, I think you're doing something right.
5. Now, one can make the argument about whether it is appropriate to base a show on privilege and sex, but regardless, when your job is to document that show (either visually or through words) to avoid difficult subjects is to be disingenuous.

To sum up, I don't like the show, and the photograph is well-crafted to capture the elements of the show I don't like. To jump down Annie Leibovitz's throat for shooting what is there is to miss a bigger point.

K

April must be the month for nudie covers. Check out this months' Wired.

I think it's silly to get up in arms over this picture due to the type of show that this is about. It's a mob thing, it's going to have men in control and in charge and doing bad things either violence or sexual. This isn't a fairy tale where everything is equal. It's cime.

Except it's not crime. It's a television show about crime, which means that this is indeed a type of modern fairy tale, or a fantasy, if you prefer. And I think it's naive to think that the mafia isn't glamorized in these kinds of shows and movies. So the question for Annie Leibowitz/Vanity Fair is, do we want to use this cover shot about The Sopranos for the purposes of further glamorizing female objectification?

I believe that Tony Soprano's visits to a shrink were also a major aspect of the show at one point--but there isn't a therapist on the cover.

I personally have less of a problem with the Wired cover. The model is nude, but her gaze is straightforward and direct, and her posture and expression seem to me to say, "This is me, deal with it." In short, clothed or unclothed, she comes across as a person and not a decoration.

The photograph (here) is supposed to tell a story, not advance an agenda (outside of selling magazines).

See, Kevin, I think you have it a little backwards here. There's a reason this photo is on the cover and not in the pages -- indeed, there's a reason it's on a magazine cover and not in a contemporary photography exhibit. I would argue its PRIMARY motivation is to sell the magazine, and by extension the story contained inside. Absolutely there are ways to interpret the photo that makes it an interesting social commentary, but even if that's what Ms. Leibovitz intended, given Vanity Fair's track record with this sort of thing I think it's absolutely valid to criticize the appearance of this photo on its cover.

Now, if this photo had showed up on, say, Ms. Magazine -- then I might be more willing to accept that it could be meant as commentary.

This is slightly related:

I was watching America's Next Top Model (I know! I know! Don't judge me my guilty voyeuristic pleasures) last night and the theme of the photographs was murder. So, women with blood, gun shots, bruises, choke marks around their necks all the while posing as "high fashion". As a survivor of domestic violence I am livid and disgusted.

Just as livid as I am looking at that Vanity Fair cover. Yuck.

LawFairy,

You may be right. I try to make a list in my head of the intellectual cream of print magazines that would put a young naked frat boy in the arms of an older guy wearing a suit on the cover.

The New Yorker? Nope.
Esquire? Nah.
Mad? Not naked. They would probably do an altar boy, though.
Cosmopolitan? I wish they would.

As a matter of fact, I would love to see some magazine mimic this cover exactly, only with an older, dressed to the nines, obviously successful woman (maybe even with a cigar and the same facial expression) with her arm around a naked younger man with his back to the camera.

Yeah, you're right. As a matter of fact, when I read your post, the first thing that jumped into my head were the live action magazine covers from "My Own Private Idaho." But that's not quite the same male demographic as Vanity Fair.

I agree with Kevin and maz.

The attitude and subject matter that the cover portrays aren't nice or pretty or PC, but I think the photograph does do a great job of symbolizing the show. It is certainly striking.

Not that I'm for glorifying misogynist, violent attitudes, but the Sopranos are part of our culture, and Vanity Fair is not going to ignore something so ubiquitous.

I think the fact that this photo has struck a chord with feminists and with men who want to emulate Tony Soprano et al is symtomatic of women's continued "otherness" is our collective psyche.

On another note, did anyone else notice how huge that woman seems? I mean, she quite literally seems larger than life.

The problem for me is not whether "the Sopranos" can be accurately represented by this picture, but that there's no thought about how this show, or George Clooney, or the Wired topic, could be portrayed without the woman-as-object. I think it's lazy, and it creates a climate where women are devalued and occupy the victim class.

Last night I worked on sewing projects with the tv on. I randomly watched three shows that had female main characters, but portrayed violence to women (and only women). The first was America's Top Model, where the models were given an assignment to appear in a photo set looking dead. After the photoshoots, they got really weird comments like "You made being dead look hot!" It was surreal. Then I watched two crime/mystery shows, with female main characters. One had a teenage girl who had set up an escort service on the internet and got strangled by her friend's dad, and the other show portrayed a couple different male serial killers who attacked and tortured women.

Each one of these shows, alone, mght not be that bad. But it seems like the vast majority of shows portray women as victims and/or sexual objects-- last night was not an anomaly. But they don't have to! The crime shows could have been just effective portraying male victims or even female victims without a sexual element. The model show didn't have to choose that topic for a shoot. But we're so accumstomed to woman-as-victim, that people see no reason to be offended, no reason for script-writers to change things. The VF cover could have accurately portrayed "the Sopranos" without the naked, faceless woman, but it probably would have taken more effort on someone's part.

All these portrayals fit into and shape society's conception of women-- and to me, that is the bigger point.

That is odd, teddy. It does look as if she's at least head taller than Gandolfini. Even without those stupid shoes.

jm: Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the America's Next Top Model show...coincidentally, I was sewing too. :)

"You'll never see a mainstream magazine showing, say, a creepy guy looking longingly at a hot young naked frat boy." - Law Fairy

I don't think I've seen anything exactly as you describe, but I have seen some ads that seem creepy in the way you describe.

For example (all about as safe for work as the original VF cover):

http://www.citycynic.com/im/00272playstation.jpg
http://www.desperateblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/mischabartonbebe028lw%5B1%5D.jpg
http://www.thomaslockehobbs.com/2004/04-08-31-01.jpg
http://www.adrants.com/images/mischabartonbebe030wp.jpg
http://entrylevelheiress.typepad.com/entrylevelheiress/images/mischadominatrix.jpg
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/dolce_gabbana_ads4.jpg
http://www.queerty.com/queer/gabbana01.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/LifelessAssociate/foto10.jpg
http://www.manchic.com/photos/uncategorized/dandg2006_1.jpg

I have always hated this kind of male-power shit, and I hate it even more when it objectifies women in the process. From my point of view those are the only two things that cover sums up, power and women as possessions. Others might look at it and see more than me, or say they are large parts of the show, but I dont care about the Sopranos and I dont like that cover either.

Also, as if there wasn’t enough ego dripping from the front cover already, it proclaims the Sopranos "the greatest show in TV history". Just like I always thought about the Godfather, I fail to see the attraction in all that mobster bollocks, so it certainly wouldn’t get my vote for that title.

I agree with you, EG. Suggesting that this cover (or even the show) is a realistic representation of the mafia and not a glamourized Hollywood version seems pretty naive.
I sincerely doubt men who are in the actual mafia spend a lot of time sitting around smoking cigars with naked women posed decoratively in their laps. I think if they did have a naked woman in their lap, they wouldn't be fully clothed themselves, and they'd actually be paying attention to her, rather than treating her like furniture or a fashionable accessory.

What baffles me about things like this is what must the model be thinking to allow herself to be used as a prop.

KevinQ writes:
Of all the complaints, I don't see anybody suggesting that it, somehow, is misrepresenting its subject - the television show "The Sopranos." It is, after all, a show about privilege, and that idea is what is exuded by this photograph.

No offence, but you are off by a mile, here. The analysis isn't about whether or not the image is accurate. It's whether or not the image is appropriate or necessary.

Another cover portraying the show just as well could have been done without objectifying women and suggesting violence towards women.

Phlegmatic, I'm so with you there. I've TRIED watching The Godfather and I can't get through it. What puzzles and slightly troubles me is that virtually EVERY MAN I'VE EVER MET raves about the movie. To hear these men talk you'd think Marlon Brando was Jesus, Mohammed, AND the Buddha reincarnated and wrapped up in one person. Creepy and squicky all around. I can't think of ANYTHING nearly so ubiquitous where women are concerned.

To call the Sopranos the "greatest show ever" is a slap in the face to some serious high-quality shows that manage to (gasp!) be incredibly entertaining and thought-provoking and not glorify violence (especially violence against women).

I read The Godfather, and, eh. I watched the first twenty minutes, and was pretty well sucked in, but not so much that I didn't want to turn it off and get on with something else.

I find it hard to believe that The Sopranos is OMGTHEGREATESTSHOWEVER! I mean...really? Better than Buffy? Better than The Honeymooners? Better than The Twilight Zone?

I am so glad I'm not alone in my hate of this show (and ones like it)!

I do not understand the obsession/masturbation over shows like "The Sopranos". Enough of the mobster thing, enough of the glorification of violence, enough of these patriarchs who represent what is ugly about power.

To argue against Kevin's point, I believe the whole reason Feministing and other feminist organizations exist is to speak out against domestic violence, the objectification of women, and general male dominance. I don't think anyone here is arguing that The Sopranos represents those things, but I believe the essential question is whether or not normalizing those things is okay.

And it's not.

Oh, and to add to the whole let's-call-out-The-Sopranos-for-what-it-really-is debate, no series will ever top M*A*S*H for me.

Come to think of it, what's up with all the sexism on HBO?

The Sopranos, Entourage, Big Love, that Old West show I can never remember the name of... all VERY sexist. Meaning, to my thinking even moreso than your average TV show.

I didn't like "Sopranos" much either, or "The Godfather." And I can't stand the objectification of women by men. It degrades the women and the men who do it. But I do watch boxing on cable TV. Should I be conflicted about the boxing? I'm not. It seems like art to me.

That being said, it probably would have made more sense if they had put Tony's psychiatrist on the cover.

If you take away the woman (and please do), then Tony looks severely constipated.

Word, Xana.

TLF, 'cause HBO can get away with it. No advertisers who realize they at least need to pay lip service to the idea that women are people (cleaning, child-rearing, white, and married people, but still).

And, ikkin, the best show of all time is clearly "Strangers with Candy."

ikkin said, "I believe the essential question is whether or not normalizing those things is okay. And it's not."

Absolutely correct, I agree that objectification of women and normalization of violence are not good things. In my earlier comment, I was attempting to argue against what I saw (correctly or incorrectly) as an attack against Leibovitz for taking the photo.

I believe that the taking of the photo and the decision to use in on the cover are two different issues, and can be talked about separately.

In most photo shoots, several different scenes are shot, and different angles are taken, to give the client a range of photos from which to choose. I assume (but don't know) that this was one scene among many shot by Leibovitz. As a photographer myself, I can only hope that there comes a time in my life when I can capture a subject as fully and completely as Leibovitz has done here. I stand by what I said before, that this image completely captures The Sopranos.

That being said, it is right and good to question Vanity Fair's choice to run this photo to advertise their magazine, though we all know why they did - T&A sells magazines. But it's a cheap and lazy way to do it, and hopefully if we keep calling attention to it, we can get it changed.

K

Michael, agreed. And using the shrink would send MUCH more of a message than the current cover. It would make people pause and think about the decision to emphasize that aspect of the show -- it would invite the readers to play psychiatrist and question the lifestyle choices of the central character. THAT would have been thought-provoking and revolutionary.

This? Same tired old bullshit. No thought required, move along. VF went the lazy route, and should be ashamed of itself (but, of course, won't be).

This cover is stupid, but I actually do like the Sopranos. (or did, it has gotten kind of boring for me lately) It is a violent show, and it has shown violence against women, but it does question that violence. In one episode, Tony tells his psychiatrist that he loves her. After trying to resist his advances by saying something about professionalism, she tells him that his treatment of women is horrendous. He calls her a 'cunt' for saying that, which succintly illustrates Dr. Melfi's point. Actually a female media studies professor wrote an article about the underlying feminist message in the Sopranos, but I don't remember the cite.

Wow. I'm really surprised by the number of comments here hating The Sopranos. I have to ask, is this hatred based on extensive watching of it? Cos, well, I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the show - I've only watched a few seasons, not all of them - but when I watched it, I loved it for its interesting and multidimensional characters. Maybe some people watch it and think it's a glorification of mob life, but I really, really don't. It depicts a lot of violence and misogynist behaviour, but depicting that emphatically does not mean the same as endorsing it, surely. And IMO, The Sopranos doesn't endorse that behaviour, it merely explores it.

For the record, The Godfather left me bored and this mag cover left me as uncomfortable as any misogynist mag cover, but I had to defend the Sopranos...

Wow. I'm really surprised by the number of comments here hating The Sopranos. I have to ask, is this hatred based on extensive watching of it? Cos, well, I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the show - I've only watched a few seasons, not all of them - but when I watched it, I loved it for its interesting and multidimensional characters. Maybe some people watch it and think it's a glorification of mob life, but I really, really don't. It depicts a lot of violence and misogynist behaviour, but depicting that emphatically does not mean the same as endorsing it, surely. And IMO, The Sopranos doesn't endorse that behaviour, it merely explores it.

For the record, The Godfather left me bored and this mag cover left me as uncomfortable as any misogynist mag cover, but I had to defend the Sopranos...

sorry for the double post, but I wanted to go a little further with what I said.
Anywho, the premise of the show (as everyone knows) Is a wiseguy going to psychiatrist because he is having panic attacks. Tony soprano is depressed and anxious, but because men are not allowed to show feelings, his depression becomes rage and fustration. Yes, the show is violent, but there is an undercurrent of anxious masculinity that I think is interesting. That said, I think it would have been much more revolutionary, and on point, for Vanity Fair to have a cover shot with Dr. Melfi standing and Tony seated.

The Sopranos makes me sick. This picture makes me sick. The end.

Wow.

I have always liked Annie Leibovitz's work, and I am a huge fan of the Sopranos. I also consider myself a pretty staunch feminist, so I'm not sure how I feel about this cover. The Leibovitz fan and the Sopranos fan in me says, "Cool! Vanity Fair's got the Sopranos on the cover. I'll have to read the article," while the feminist in me says, "Oh, for crying out loud. Is that really necessary?"

I have to wonder if it possible for these two parts of me to coexist, or if I am destined for some kind of weird feminist/pop culture junkie multiple personality disorder?

I will take a second to defend the Sopranos. It is one of my favorite shows, and even though it depicts all kinds of violence, mayhem, and misogyny, I echo the sentiments of some of the other commenters in that I don't think the show actually goes so far as to condone any of that. In addition, I think the Sopranos has some of the most incredible, three dimensional, complex female characters I have ever seen on television. Dr. Melfi, Carmela, Janice, Adriana, Meadow, and even Tony's mother Livia are all fascinating and are all women I would like to have in my life. (Well, maybe not Livia -- she reminds me too much of my narcissistic father.) The women are as finely rendered as the men are, and the depiction of the way they navigate the admittedly unusual world they inhabit is one of the most compelling things about the Sopranos in my opinion.

That doesn't really take the edge off my feelings about the cover, though. Come on, Annie, use your imagination next time!

The Sopranos, Entourage, Big Love, that Old West show I can never remember the name of... all VERY sexist. Meaning, to my thinking even moreso than your average TV show.

Law Fairy,

I'm not going to defend HBO because quite frankly Entourage is sexist as hell and they know it.

But it's based on a show about four young men, one of which is characterized as a successful Hollywood heartthrob and women throw themselves at him. As far as the portrayal of young Hollywood men, it's almost spot on. I work on a small TV show and you wouldn't believe how the guys on our show hit on female extras and generally berate female actors for not being "hot" enough.

I don't watch the Sopranos so I can't comment on that but the cover is just crappy.

Big Love is set in the world of polygamy, which has never been done before, and HBO took a risk with that one because they could (and did) offend the Mormon community. However that's a reality of this world (underground polygamy) and it often is misogynistic as we all know (child brides and everything, which the show has addressed).

Deadwood is set in the wild west, and women, sadly, were treated like crap. Though they do have some strong female characters, namely Calamity Jane. I can't fault them for that because it actually happened, the same way that women are portrayed as property on Rome.

Showtime has a slightly better portrayal of women, with shows like The L Word and Weeds.

To all you critical hypocrites!! Ms. Leibovitz has the right to choose what she will photograph to earn a living and to provide for her needs. The lady in the photograph also has the right to choose to be a model and appear in this or any other photo to earn her living and provide for her needs. They are empowered and liberated feminists and should be supported in their freedom and choices!

Ultra, I'm nominally in the "industry" (entertainment law) so I'm absolutely not surprised to hear how the female actors are treated. And absolutely, I can understand having a show that portrays this and other sexist communities.

But, just like tracing doesn't count as "art," neither does simply SHOWING this stuff and not doing anything thoughtful or creative with it. HBO, as a modern artist, has a responsibility to engage its subject on a more critical level than it does. I don't think it's even just laziness (which is bad enough); I think it's a conscious refusal by HBO to question the inequalities in our society. HBO's reality/documentary-type programming is highly voyeuristic and very pro-mainstream-sex (some of its stuff makes the Red Shoe Diaries look like a kid's show -- move over, Skinemax). HBO makes a CALCULATED DECISION to perpetuate sex myths and stereotypes. And then we reward it with Emmys.

Makes me sick to my stomach.

(note: to those who love Sopranos, I'll admit I've never really watched it, so it's possible it does a better job of being thoughtful. I have, however, watched the other shows I mentioned and they're horrific. Big Love in particular is pretty creepy to me -- it goes to lengths to SYMPATHIZE with these characters who subjugate women).

wingnut, um.

Okay, yeah, sure.

Also a hundred percent beside the point.

Nice try, though.

A sort of wondering thought at people who say that while The Sopranos shows misogyny, violence against women, etc. it doesn't condone it: what show that portrays those sorts of things does condone it? I mean I wouldn't think that one usually sees anything on television that's saying directly "Hey go ahead and hate and beat women, it's perfectly fine!" We're not talking about a documentary on domestic violence here, we're talking a fictional drama, so isn't it in a sense condoning that sort of behavior by the very nature of what's being depicted and glamorized?

Ok, I have a tangent. My city council announced last week that they are erecting sculptures on lamp posts on our main street this spring, of a murder victim/prostitute who worked and died here. We have a notorious red light district. This is being done to 'celebrate our history.'

Since it is in fact historically accurate that she died here, etc. is it wrong of me to freak out? I think it is gross and sends a message about violence against women (especially sex workers) being ok.

(I know this post has nothing to do with the Sopranos per se.)

Law Fairy

Who should be the arbiter of the actions decided upon by these women? You? Who provides the filter through which their decisions should be run?

kpsisu... that's just weird. "celebrate [your] history"? By erecting sculptures of a murder victim?

Actually, in a certain light it's absolutely hilarious. But still bizarre. Have they thought this all the way through?

We have a lot of bars and strip-joints- and a lot of tourism. Back during prohibition the city was a lot bigger and kind of a hideout for mob types.

I don't imagine that it has been thought through- the people I have talked about it with locally have all been like 'I would say something but I don't want to lose my job/have my mailbox bashed in.'

I think it's a conscious refusal by HBO to question the inequalities in our society.

I understand what you're saying but why should they have to do that? They're not societies police. And HBO puts on shows like The Wire, which has racially diverse casts and deals with issues of race and class bluntly as a black person. As a black person I appreciate that they took the risk of keeping The Wire on the air, as it's a show that deal with complex issues within the black community.

I think you're going after the messenger here. It's the producers/creators of a show we should be questioning. Why aren't they doing more to question societies views?

Then again that's shaky ground for me because everyone is different and they have a right to create entertainment that they want to see. As I grow in the industry that's what I'd like to do and I can't throw stones at a white man because he creates a show about the Mob, or he creates a show about Mormon polygamy. That's what interests him. I can't fault them for that because if I ever get to create a show I don't want people bitching at me for it being to female centric, etc. etc.

I can't blame white producers for creating shows about white people. That's what they know and understand. It would be great if we had more diversity, especially more women in charge like Shonda Rhymes. Say what you will about Gray's Anatomy but Shonda is the first black woman to have a drama show go a full three seasons and she staffed it with diverse writers/actors. As far as the writers go, they'll be promoted into creating their own shows in the future and that's good for business because it will only add to the diversity of television.

HBO's reality/documentary-type programming is highly voyeuristic and very pro-mainstream-sex (some of its stuff makes the Red Shoe Diaries look like a kid's show -- move over, Skinemax).

I'm not a fan of some of their documentaries either, especially Cat House, which really is an excuse to show T&A (as if they needed one).

HBO makes a CALCULATED DECISION to perpetuate sex myths and stereotypes. And then we reward it with Emmys.

Sadly, for the first time, I'm going to have to outright disagree with you here, (unless you work for HBO and know something I don't) I can't see them sitting in their offices twiddling their thumbs and trying to come up with a means of degrading over half their audience. They had Sex and the City and Six Feet Under at one point, now they're going through their macho phase with two out of four of those shows ending. As far as "Entourage" goes, Jeremy Piven has been the only cast member to receive an award and that's for his acting. I think you'd agree that most people within the industry think Entourage is a craptacular show and it's not funny.

Deadwood has been canceled after only two seasons (it was supposed to go five) and The Sopranos is ending this year. HBO will be forced to find new shows--especially with competition from Showtime--and perhaps they can be encouraged to buy better products.

I don't know if you've seen their pilot buys for this year but they have True Blood from Alan Ball with a female lead and two others that don't seem to be based soley around male violence so perhaps we'll get a better variety of shows from HBO this year.

Hopefully they'll make it to air. ;)

There is at least some relation of the naked woman to the show: much of the action takes place in a strip club.

Hey Tabitha91, I'm pretty sure the website you are talking about is: http://www.barnard.edu/sfonline/hbo/index.htm

They do a feminist interpretation of The Sopranos, Six Feet Under and Sex in The City. REALLY interesting analysis. Yeah, when I saw the cover in the supermarket yesterday I was like "WTF?" I think a really subversive twist would have been the female shrink seated in a overstuffed leather chair with white coat, clipboard and a cigar with her own "Godfather" expression and Tony standing behind her. Mix up the power roles a little, THAT would be subversive. But then guys wouldn't want to wank off to the cover and therefore it obviously is not an option.
/snark

The Simpsons is clearly the best television show ever. ;)

Lisa Simpson is my hero.

X-Files will forever be my favorite show. :) LOVED that show!! (first several seasons anyway...)
And I must add, it is interesting to see just how many people are aparently NOT smarter than a 5th grader :)

X-Files will forever be my favorite show. :) LOVED that show!! (first several seasons anyway...)
And I must add, it is interesting to see just how many people are apparently NOT smarter than a 5th grader :)

And I must add, it is interesting to see just how many people are apparently NOT smarter than a 5th grader :)

Do the people who watch the show count;)

Ultra,

I guess my view of things is that when you're as powerful as HBO, you have a social responsibility to not have a net negative impact on society. Perhaps I'm being unfair, as you've pointed out some good things they do as well... but it should be noted, at least, I don't reserve all of my wrath and indignation for HBO alone. You could probably paint most of Hollywood with that brush ;)

I actually don't think Sex and the City was a very good show for women... it definitely had positive aspects to it -- i.e., showing women as independent-minded individuals who could enjoy sex and relationships, whether together or separate -- but at least as often it regurgitated "girly" stereotypes. I understand that a show has to do things like that to some extent to stay afloat, so I don't totally condemn HBO for SATC -- but I wouldn't quite call it a woman-power show either.

As for the calculated decision, I guess what I mean is that HBO is most definitely making calculated decisions in what it decides to air. I certainly don't think the execs are sitting in their offices thinking "how can I perpetuate patriarchy today?" But I do think that they are or should be aware of the message their shows send, and THEY are the ones who decide to air negative messages nonetheless, in service to the Almighty Dollar. So that's what I mean by "calculated decision."

I don't work for HBO, and they aren't one of my clients, so this is totally an outsider's perspective.

I have not seen what they picked up -- hopefully next season will be more pro-woman :)

After reading through all the comments I have to say I find myself agreeing mostly with Kevin and the "this photograph captures the show very well so if you don't like the photograph you probably don't like the show" crowd.

It certainly objectifies the woman and is using her as an accessory, and just screams male privilege. But the few times I've watched the show, that appears to be what it is about, which is, I imagine, why I could just never get interested in it.

But it is a hugely popular show, so I don't know if I hold it against the photographer for portraying it this way, or for Vanity Fair for running the cover. It all just seems very appropriate to the show, for better or worse.

Yeah. I can't comment for the creators of SATC however I know in season one they caught hell for the women not being "real" women and instead being gay men played by women so maybe the "girlieness" that they kept dipping into was a means of saying, "See! These women are GIRLY, they're WOMEN !!!! They're not men in drag!"

At the time it was really difficult for people to accept that there are women out there who *did* act like that (casual sex, graphic discussion of sex, etc.) and they looked for any excuse to disprove of the show. I didn't watch it on a regular basis (I was too busy watching Queer As Folk;) so I don't know all that much about it.

Then again, I'm only speculating.

Dang it UltraMagnus, I was REALLY hoping no one would notice :) doh! (Spelling was never my thing, 5th grade or otherwise :) ) I thank The Great Whatever everyday for spellcheck.

Jesus H. icefishing Christ. That picture literally makes me feel sick to my stomach. Based on my experience working at a newspaper, though, I doubt that Annie Leibovitz had much input into what was done with her photos after they were shot -- granted, I haven't seen the pictures inside, but she may well have shot that one never expecting it would be on the front cover, or even used at all, and it might be her least favorite out of the bunch. But still, yuck.

I'm also getting really bloody sick of all these magazines and advertisers thinking they're being soooooo cutting edge when they publish images of objectified, degraded women. Like, wow, dudes. You're doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS 1,933,235 OTHER PUBLICATIONS! Go you!!! Way to break ground and show how gutsy you are by following the other lemmings off a cliff! I mean, seriously, if they wanted to be cutting-edge, daring and provocative, they should do what some other posters here suggested, and objectify some men for a change. But of course, objectifying men makes men hideously uncomfortable and we just couldn't do that because it's too daring and gutsy, even though that's what these yahoos claim they're shooting for. Not that I endorse making men unhappy, too, but just that if advertisers and magazines want to be considered so intrepid and creative, they should at least do something to earn the title, other than telling us how intrepid and creative they are.

I love this site, however I am mystified at the disdain for the VF cover after viewing this:
http://feministing.com/images/fullfrontalfeminism.jpg

Seriously, unless the pic on the book is the author, or is contextually relevant to the subject matter rather than an unidentified accessory to aid the attention-seeking efforts of the author, why put a naked proxy for American anorexic standards of beauty on the cover of a book meant to CHALLENGE society's rather antiquated views of women?
Am I missing something here? Why not a more realistic-looking woman? why no nudity at all?

An author with legitimate things to say should trust the content of their writing - not a cheesy gimmick that merely enforces the stereotype of Naked-Youthful-Skinny-Girl = Book-Sales-And-Attention.

Well, I would suggest watching the Sopranos rather than letting Annie Leibowitz tell you everything you need to know. I think that blithely asserting that the Sopranos has a negative impact on society (or the brilliant Deadwood) without watching it treads dangerously close to other forms of media criticism we wouldn't agree with, such as from Focus on the Family or the Catholic League.

Also, I think the picture is gratuitous because Tony isn't particularly a womanizer, nor is the strip club (with the exception of a one or two episodes cited in one of the Barnard articles) integral to the show.

"Well, considering the context of the show - it's about members of a criminal organization that routinely do very evil things - it's not an altogether inappropriate image to use to represent it. It's certainly a representation of male dominance and female submission, but I don't know if it's wrong to use such a picture on a magazine cover about this show, any more than it would be to show a scene of a murder."

I agree, Doug S. It's a show about a male-dominated crime family. Of course you're not going to see women treated respectfully.

And the violence in this picture is all open to interpretation. I don't see it as inherently violent. I can see how it can be interpreted that way.

I'm not a big fan of censorship at the moment, as my school has just banned Ranma 1/2 (Anime comic for teens/young adults.) from the library for nudity. Just nudity. And only breasts and buttocks from what I've read. The whole manga section is going to be scrutinized for any nudity. If one person can censor one thing just because it personally offends them, then almost anyone can.

Making decisions about what pictures to run isn't censorship; for every photo shoot that gets set up, dozens of ideas for others get set aside. For every picture that gets run, hundreds get tossed out. And the question is, why choose this one? Why is this the one that makes the cover?

That's not censorship; that's analysis.

I have to come out of lurking to say this.

I really like the Sopranos, precisely because it highlights and critiques grossly violent and sexist attitudes towards women (and other groups and people in general). It also seeks to show how these views are internalised by the characters, and to show their coping mechanisms, especially those of the women. It seems fairly obvious to me that the show does not aggrandise violence or sexism/racism/homophobia in any way. This is a show about horrible people and how they cope with being so horrible.

The VF cover is in the same vein, and I cannot have a one-dimensional reaction to it. Of course it is a shocking image! It is an image highlighting the violence of these attitudes, naming them as extreme, and does not seek to normalise or gloss over their presence to make them acceptable, which is fine by me. These attitudes are not acceptable, but they exist in many forms, not often in western countries as extremely as portrayed in The Sopranos. If anything, I celebrate the fact that this image is so shocking! Because it means that people are shocked by this blatant, sexualised violence against women.

The notion that this image should be censored because of its violence, in my view, highlights the fact that endemic and patriarchal violence against women is swept under the carpet, glossed over in public policy, a 'private matter', someone else's problem.

Considering the erudite and multi-layered feminist commentary on words and imagery that members of this site and other great feminist women provide, I was bemused by this reaction. The fact that the Sopranos is a commercial show and that VF is a commercial magazine does not in my view alter the legitimacy of this message.

I find the image interestingly constructed and poignant.

Isn’t it funny every time we try to criticize a sexist image somebody has to bring up censorship? If we were advocating censorship we’d be trying to get the government to *force* VF to change the cover.

It is an image highlighting the violence of these attitudes, naming them as extreme, and does not seek to normalise or gloss over their presence to make them acceptable, which is fine by me.

I disagree with you; I don't think it names these images as extreme, and I think that not only does it try to normalize them, but it actually glamorizes them. This photo is one of many, including that wretched ad for Nip/Tuck a while back, and the almost grosser Tom Ford VF cover a while back that pair powerful clothed white men with naked submissive white women and cast a sheen of glamor over the whole thing. I don't think the image is supposed to be particularly shocking; I think it's supposed to be eye-catching and to sell, because naked women are used to sell everything from cars to yogurt in this country. But that's not shocking; it's par for the course.

What would be shocking and unusual in this context would be, as others have said before, if it was a naked man.

The cover is a cover.

I'm actually really big on First Amendment Rights. As long as the parties involved are at or above the age of reason and mutually consenting and nobody gets tortured, maimed or killed either physically or psychologically, it's all OK with me.

The thing that disappoints me is the banality of it. Everything in the media is so retro these days. If you're determined to apply the maxim, "Sex sells", then do it with a little imagination.

I was looking for the picture of the nude woman popping out of a Chiquita banana that I first discovered in my college art history textbook, but I had to settle for nude women on cigars, soft drinks, candy bars and toothpaste.

http://wwar.com/masters/r/ramos-mel.html

If you're determined to apply the maxim, "Sex sells", then do it with a little imagination.

And also, recognize the fact that sex does not automatically equal naked women. Men can be sexual objects as well.

EG,

I agree completely.

The biggest problem in that regard is that people haven't yet figured out how to make a lot of money from naked men.

I've got some ideas, and they all involve concentrating money and power in the hands of women!

By the way, Michael, I've really been liking your posts.

Thanks, EG.

Just so you know, my biggest influences have been women. I was lucky to have the Mother that I did. And the teachers and mentors that I did. Over the years, my best bosses have been women - competent, open-minded, intelligent and successful. I've been fortunate.

I disagree with you; I don't think it names these images as extreme, and I think that not only does it try to normalize them, but it actually glamorizes them.

Look, that's fine, but I outlined the reasons for my point of view against this view. What's yours, apart from the fact that it "is"?

EG,

What I was getting at:

Any way that I can help concentrate money and power in the hands of women - I'm game.

Well, you outlined reasons that, to my understanding, seemed based on the complexity of the television show, which is of course very important, and I bow to your knowledge, as I've only ever seen a couple episodes, and never felt any desire to see any more.

But I don't see anything in the image itself that expresses the kind of complexity you're ascribing to it. It is visually very much like the other images I cited above, using the dark background, into which the men's dark clothing seems to blend, with a terribly bright light focused on the perfect whiteness of the naked woman's skin. You have the clothed, business-like men with intimidating looks on their faces, one of whom is holding a cigar, long associated with wealth and power. I just don't see the complexity you're claiming the image has. I don't see how it's shocking. I don't see how it comments on or undoes the objectification it's displaying.

That's not really a comment on the show itself, which may do all those things. I don't know; like I've said, I saw a couple episodes, and I didn't find them interesting enough to track down more.

That last was a response to arlee, not Michael.

And Michael, I got that loud and clear!

While I agree (per many of the comments here) that the cover is incredibly objectifying to the woman it depicts, I do have to take into account the absolute intentionality of the photograph. This is no blundering Maxim cover, but instead is a complex depiction of a show that evinces, with censure, the degredation of women. This is not a simple picture. It has a context (which one may or may not like, granted); given what The Sopranos is and is about, I'm not sure that it could be better represented. The look on Gandolfini's face is one of joyless vacancy, and the hand that clutches the woman seems almost compulsive in it