Response - week 5

This week, we watched The September Issue, which, along with The Devil Wears Prada, is one of the two movies Magazine graduates of the University of Missouri School of Journalism need to have seen. Somehow I managed to get my degree without seeing either.

Having now seen the former, I suppose I should first admit (and be embarrassed, apparently) that I had no idea the September issue of Vogue was culturally significant. As someone who would one day (sooner rather than later, employers) work for a major consumer magazine, this seems like something I'm just supposed to know. But as a man who cares more about every other facet of culture before fashion (consciously, at least), you'll have to cut me some slack.

In any case, I suppose I found the relationship between Anna Wintour and the creative director, Grace, to be the most fascinating because it was the most relatable. Obviously Vox is not Vogue, and our editor is not Anna Wintour, but it seems that Editorial as an entity has undue control over design elements of the magazine, whereas Design as an entity has little to no input on the editorial content. There is a comic that I saw a few years ago, but I couldn't find an image online, so my words will have to suffice. Essentially, it's a single frame of a man being executed in a guillotine, and as he pulls the cord to release the blade, the executioner says, "We prefer to call it editing." This was certainly evident in the production of the September issue of Vogue as it was evident when I was a reporter for Vox and now a designer. Of course when I was a department editor, I felt differently.

From a film perspective, the editing is troubling. As many times as it has been said, it bears repeating: a documentary is as much a product of the director as a fiction film. The content is shot and ultimately edited to tell the story the filmmakers want to be told, which is not necessarily the true story 100 percent of the time. This holds true for The September Issue, however the fictional effect is doubled when you consider the subjects. Every member of the Vogue staff, especially Anna Wintour, are media-savvy. After all, they're members of the media. And, after all, documentary is journalism. Wintour et al know what makes a juicy story, and they know how they want to be portrayed and perceived. It's difficult to say how much of the subjective material of the documentary is truly business-as-usual with this understanding.

All that said, there are also moments where the documentarians clearly embellish events through subtle filmmaking techniques. Three-quarters through the film, they weave the narrative of decline for both Anna and Grace together and suggest that both of them are tired of the monotony and constant struggle of their work. These interviews, of course, were recorded separately from the actual events, and their answers are answers to intentional questions. The implied simultaneity of these moments is entirely fabricated. Furthermore, when Wintour listens to one of the staff member's story pitches, the audience is led to believe that Anna is disinterested and tired, when in fact there is nothing to support this. The effect is created entirely by cross-fading the diegetic sound of the meeting room with the non-diegetic sound of depressing music.

Because of all this, it is difficult to decipher what is and isn't true about Anna Wintour's grip on Vogue. We understand that she is very powerful, but we gain little insight on her personality.