Absolutely Fashion: Inside British Vogue - is anyone watching?

[Queenbean]

?

I'd love to work there.
People are what you make of them.

Great for the CV and as training.

I used to work in (book) publishing in a mainly female office and the atmosphere was great/really friendly. Agree they all seemed quite depressed at Vogue though.

I'm Looking forward to watching it tonight on my night off

I couldn't figure out if they looked uncomfortable because of the Vogue atmosphere or because there was a creepy unnerving guy loitering awkwardly in their office all the time.

They were all extremely uncomfortable being filmed.

I thought the women working in the office seemed quite nice and friendly

Just think the presenter didn't get anything out of them

I would've thought that Mossy in her white jumpsuit in a pic bathed in sunshine would've been an ideal cover pic. Wonder why they didn't use it

Yes! Watched it last night. Love behind the scenes docs on the fashion world.

Alexandra Shulman is a formidable woman isn't she? I was in agreement with her re. the cover. The cape shot could have worked if it had been better posed but as it was it just looked a bit messy.

I thought the women at Vogue seemed pretty nice!

I was waiting for Saffy and Edina to appear....

I agree that Lucinda Chamber seemed much warmer and more appealing than Shulman. This seems to be mirroring the situation with American Vogue where Anna Wintour is..............intimidating and Grace Coddington seems altogether more likeable and far less stuffy. But I suppose you don't keep an editors job in such a cutthroat business for as long as Wintour and Shulman have without being pretty hard-nosed.

Yes. I enjoyed it but agree the dynamic was weird. Like if had been forced on them.

Why agree to it if you don't want to do it? They should have organised stuff for the crew (passes for shows etc) and briefed them better.

Eg I can understand why thus crew wasn't welcome on the Kate moss shoot. I used to assist a big fashion photographer. Shoots are hard work and the photographer and stylist are trying to create the right atmosphere. Having visitors / observers often upsets the dynamic and many photographers don't like them.

But vogue staffers know that, obviously. They should have briefed the doc crew, sent someone with them who lies see with the photo shoot team who told them when to back off and when to leave.

Likewise the cover shot: the vote was cheap. Shulman should have called out her team for not thinking commercially. Nicholas Colerdig le agree with her for that reason.

But then, the Rhianna cover drama. Shulman should have handled the documentary maker better. Talk about it on camera, don't talk about it on camera, but don't half talk about it, then stop and get stroppy.

It looks like vogue media management sucks. But maybe the crew refused to be helped with passes etc and are now presenting it as the Vogue team being exclusionary.

That said, the atmospher was similar to lots of my time in fashion. Now guidance before on the dos and donts, then either a rollicking, or no more work ever, if you get it wrong. A bit of manners and management would go a long way.

Also thought the non interview with Mossy was v revealing. You do know how many covers, Kate, and you are proud. So own it.

I used to love Moss. But now I wish she would age with more grace.

Her behaviour, aping a teenage enguene, only confirmed that this is a blind spot for her. She didn't come over as a grown up.

I really enjoyed it. The presenter was a tad irritating, but I quite liked the understated style. At least there was no gratuitous gushing.

I thought the "discussion" on the KM cover was quite telling. Why weren't the employees asked to justify their opinions? Was it because Shulman's opinion was the only one that counted regardless of the opposition to it?

She did seem quite sullen at times, so why did she agree to the filming? Was it to give her the satisfaction of saying "I'm not telling you, because I'm important and you're not"?

And why was the KM cover dropped? .

KM was dropped to make space for Rihanne and to piss off AW, at least that's what I gathered.

It was explained badly, but the impression I got was that KM was meant to be April and R was meant to be May.

But then they got wind that Vogue US was also doing R for May. So they quickly gazumped them and pushed R to April with the excuse that you shouldn't have R on two different covers in the same market in the same month as it'd badly affect sales. Cos people might look at both side by side and buy the US one instead.

Course it would massively piss off AW as who's gonna be interested in their May Rhianna cover if they've read it already in the UK version the month before?

I must say I though the if there's anyone apart from KM, who is a bit predictable as Vogue cover by know, who will make me not want to buy a magazine, then that is Rihanna.

Or Rita Ora.

Thanks. That makes sense, now. I thought KM had somehow stopped it.

Don't think they moved up RhiRhi specifically to piss off AW. Rather Rhianna on both covers could / would harm Uk sales (as the Uk looks to the US and US vogue is widely available here) whereas
The reverse is much less likely: the home market for US vogue is much larger, and inward looking. So most of their readership wouldn't even notice uk vogue having the same cover star the same or previous month.

Normally this wouldn't happen, Rhi's agent should have turned down the second offer (whichever it was). But you can't say no to Anna Winter. And possibly US Vogue planned their Rhi cover for later on and then moved it up for other reasons.

Also they sidnt drop the KM shoot, they swapped it, so it runs the following month

I watched it and thought the working environment of the magazine was pretty horrendous. I understood what Lucinda Chambers was saying when she talked about the old atmosphere.

Having worked in journalism and media for years (and at editor level), I was also pretty shocked at the unprofessionalism of Alexandra Shulman. She just seemed moody, slightly unpleasant and very passive aggressive -- as though she is very insecure despite her years of success.

When there was the cover meet, I just thought ... why not be upfront and say "The flag won't sell." Knowing the stats for flag covers, why did that cover get so far in the process anyway? Why did there have to be all that strange passive aggression? And the look of utter self-satisfaction when her choice of cover was seconded by the head of conde nast?

And I have to say ... it's time to reconsider Kate Moss. She's had a great career and with careful management, she could work for years but the presentation has to be different. I feel like I've seen that Kate Moss cover on magazines for the last twenty years. It's boring.

And why are they doing a Rolling Stones themed story? The Stones are in their 70s. It's old cultural history. Would Vogue have done a Ragtime-themed story in the 1960s?

werks I agree with the passive-aggression. Shulman DID come across as insecure, somehow.

I thought KM came across badly in her "interview". She somehow looked different. Raddled. I think she looks great in most photos, but not so great in all of them. I thought the Union Jack photo was awful.

I don't know about the Rolling Stones' relevance either. They almost predate me, and that's saying something.

That Jaime(?) looked positively terrified at the mention of Wintour finding out about Rihanna being on the UK cover!

Can't wait for next week.

I was surprised at how frumpy ms.shulman looked, at least AW, despite her dated hair, seemed to dress for her position as head of THE top fashion mag.

I didn't buy that Rihanna issue. I did buy the old Stones clothes issue, but the shots weren't that interesting. The article said See the exhibition only 30 quid a ticket in 700 words.

It was meant to be Let's do a Double yes Double Icon thing with Mick 'n' Kate but all you kept thinking was Ewww, is Mick really as skinny and short as Kate Moss - turns out he wasn't, they just bulldog clipped her into every outfit.

Lucinda Chambers is a fucking genius. I really admire the silent prophecy thing great stylists have.

I didn't like the 'homage' to The September Issue - it felt lazy and obvious. Would have preferred to see a little less of Lucinda.

The cape cover was hideous. Too much Union Jack, a horrible pose and KM looked tarty. By contrast, even in the untouched images for the other cover she looked amazing.

Although I felt that what Alexandra Schulman said about using KM as a symbol was interesting, I agree that she didn't come off well from this episode. Passive aggressive, often inarticulate, charmless...quite different to the woman I've read about in interviews that she's done. I wonder if certain people at Condé Nast pressured her to do the doc for PR?

I'm surprised at how frumpy Shulman was too, belladi. She just didn't look the part, to me.

I love AW's look and the hair is her trademark, even if it's a dated style. She has a strong, kick-ass look, whilst AS looks kinda meh.

Maybe she dresses for comfort or/and feels she has nothing to prove?

I've never seen Mary McCartney being interviewed before watching this - I thought she came off well.