Colorlines Magazine Slams Elle Magazine For Making The Obese Gabourey Sibide Skin Look Lighter On The Cover!!
Gabourey Sidibe is a (Much Lighter) Elle Cover Girl
by Julianne Hing ShareThis | Print | Comment (17View)
Monday, September 13 2010, 6:14 PM EST Tags: fashion industry, Gabourey Sidibe, media analysis
Gabourey Sidibe has landed her first fashion magazine cover, kind of. The 25-year-old ingenue is the solo cover for the October issue of Elle magazine. Starting next month, you can pick up a copy of Elle with Sidibe flashing her pearly whites and glamming it up for the cameras in an emerald green Tadashi Shoji dress.
Except look closely, and you’ll notice there’s something off in Sidibe’s cover photo. Sidibe’s skin is noticeably lighter than usual. Elle clearly couldn’t handle Sidibe’s real skin color, and traded away her actual color for something dramatically lighter.
It’s a common, tired practice, and the routine is well-practiced: beauty companies and fashion magazines regularly lighten women’s skin (and darken the faces of black men), pissed off consumers shout back, and sometimes an apology is issued. But come the next fall collection or election season, photo retouchers are inevitably back to trying to make women of color more attractive by lightening them, and darkening the skin of men of color to make them seem more dangerous and suspect. Color, still, is everything.
And that’s just one thing Elle got wrong with its Sidibe cover. By cropping Sidibe’s cover photo so close, Elle may have been trying to hide her full-figured body—its own travesty—but they only made her seem bigger. Sidibe doesn’t get the standard female cover photo treatment: three-quarters of the woman’s body centered with strong margins of white space on either side of the woman. She gets a uniquely awkward cropped shot.
And I’ll just say what I know you’re thinking: the weave Elle gave her is not doing Sidibe any favors. It’s the kind of unflattering and embarrassingly obvious weave that a fashion magazine should be ashamed to put on anyone. (And Elle’s done it to Beyonce in the past, too.)
Landing a cover is a big deal for any star, more so for Sidibe, whose skin color and wise-cracking smarts and body type make her something of an obvious outsider in Hollywood. Sidibe’s also been famously snubbed by fashion magazines. She was reportedly passed over by Vogue, because she was too big. And in March, Sidibe was left off a Vanity Fair cover of nine young actresses for the magazine’s “Young Hollywood 2010!” spread. The women who made the cut were, you guessed it, all white.
At the time, Access Hollywood asked her about how it felt to be sidelined in favor of five nearly identical pale white female actresses. Sidibe, with her characteristically tough mettle, shrugged it off:
“Was I satisfied? Yeah, well… I mean, I come from a world where I’m not on covers and I’m not in magazines at all,” Gabourey said. “And so I was happy to be in the magazine.
“At first I thought, ‘Hmm, should I be there?” she continued, about the cover shoot. “Then I very quickly got over it. I think if I were a part of that shoot I would have felt a little left out anyway.”
And judging from October’s Elle, it may have been just as well that Sidibe was left off the Vanity Fair cover. The fashion industry clearly gets flummoxed by any woman whose body and skin color are outside American society’s narrow definitions of beauty. In 2007, Vogue also ran an unflattering photo of Jennifer Hudson when they gave her a cover. It’s illustrative of all the ways that when it comes to full-figured women of color, landing a fashion magazine cover isn’t always a compliment. Too bad for the fashion industry; it pays time and again for its racial faux pas with ridicule from the rest of the world. But unfortunately for us, fashion magazines don’t operate in a vacuum. If only the fashion and beauty industries were not a reflection of our culture and our society, our own ignorance. It’d be so much easier to make fun of.
Choptensils Article: Hollywood Doesn’t Care About Actors Of Colour Despite Proof They Can Make Studios Money.
Of Hollywood and ‘the American People’: How Status Quo is Maintained
by Guest Contributor CVT, originally published at Choptensils
My brother is a screenwriter in LA. Has a couple movies to his credit, and he just got what could be his “big break” as he sits down to write – what should be – a “major summer blockbuster” type movie. This is the kind of movie that will likely get a whole lot of hype, splash his name all over the place, and – hopefully – turn into a bunch of work (and cash). And – being on the “inside” as I am – I just got a copy of his first draft.
So I’m reading his script, trying to just let myself jump in, imagine it as a film; looking for highlights and lowlights to give him some feedback for his next re-write prior to turning it in to the producers and all that kind of thing . . . and, well . . . something struck me – right off the bat – that felt a little odd . . .
As far as details go – I’m not really going to give you more than that – because this is my brother, it’s his original work, and I’m not trying to throw him under the bus or get him in trouble with his producers or future employers – so no other identifying information will go out there. But let’s just say the “odd” ness involved race. Specifically, Asian people. Which just so happens to be our race.
It was nothing major – certainly not offensive, really – but it was a form of following the same Hollywood-esque patterns of who gets to “count” – and who doesn’t. You can probably guess whether or not the Asian people “counted” or not.
Now, did this happen because my brother is “one of them?” Does he hate Asian people or want to break them down? Hell no. Of course not. In fact, he has very intentionally re-incorporated some Asian culture into this particular script – something which I doubt a white writer (or other non-Asian writer, for that matter) would have done. One of his favorite original story ideas that he really pushed back in the day involved prominent Asian characters (main characters, heroes, even).
Except, well . . . that story about Asian people? Rejected. The people of color that he’s introduced into his stories? Usually white-washed in later drafts due to the producers’ demands. Or maybe that three-dimensional character he wrote up? Knocked flat before shooting – again, by the producers.
Because Hollywood works like this:
There are a bunch of producers. They’re the ones with the money and the pull and clout to get full movies made and put into the national theaters. As a result, they think they know something about how movies are made. Which, they do.
Unfortunately, these producers also tend to think they know something about “the American people” and “what they want to see” or “what they can understand.” Which they absolutely do not. They think that – because they have made one blockbuster, popular movie – that it indicates what “people want to see.” Of course, when the only options are all pretty much the same, you don’t need my science background and/or a knowledge of variables to realize that doesn’t really mean anything.
But – as a result of this false notion of “what Americans want,” these producers continue to pump out the racist, sexist, classist, bigoted Hollywood “blockbusters” that we all know and love today. Because that’s “what Americans want.”
And, of course, the screenwriters and low-level directors, actors, etc. can’t do much about it. Because money’s involved, and it’s the producers who have the money. I wish I could get more specific, but I can’t believe all the stories I’ve heard about the ridiculous cuts and edits producers have made to my brother’s – and other writers’ – scripts due to this faulty belief about “what Americans understand.” (*1)
So what is the end-result of so many, repeated instances of ridiculously idiotic producers changing every intelligent, thoughtful aspect of my brother’s (and other writers’) scripts? He starts anticipating their ignorance and just keeping it out of the original. The reasons are obvious – it hurts too much to constantly have his creative work trashed by people that have no appreciation for creative thought, or challenging convention, or flipping stereotypes; so my brother saves himself some of the pain. (*2) He lets go a little bit. The even sadder part is – when my brother tries to sell original scripts that are too “different” . . . he simply doesn’t sell them. And he can’t really support a family on thought-provoking stories on paper alone.
Now, does he compromise his own morals to write the films he does? No. Never. But he does end up having to “dumb-up” his scripts for the sake of the imaginary, “low-brow” American public. And he does end up with white protagonists instead of the folks of color that he’d rather have. (*3)
On a larger level – what does this mean? Am I just trying to say that we shouldn’t blame screenwriters for the crappy state of Hollywood movies? That it’s just the producers’ fault that the Hollywood media machine is a major reason stereotypes remain in place? A little bit.
But it’s bigger than that. Because we – people, in general – tend to gauge the prominent attitudes of our nation through our media. When folks are trying to figure out what the majority of “Americans” believe, or like to see, we turn to popular media as indicators. Makes sense, right?
Except it actually doesn’t. Because the decks are stacked against us, as popular consumers of media. Our options – in terms of large-scale media – are extremely limited, and the variety is negligible. (*4) Therefore, what “we” end up choosing is more a reflection of what’s being put out, as opposed to our actual tastes and beliefs.
For example: say I go to the grocery store. I want some fruit. At the store, there are some apples, bananas, strawberries, and oranges. I really want passion fruit. But there is no passion fruit. Somebody higher up decided that passion fruit wasn’t a big seller, so they don’t waste their time, space, or money.
So I end up buying an orange. Then somebody else looks at that and says, “people like that guy really like oranges.” They can say it’s a “hard” statistic because it’s flat data . . . but I wanted a passion fruit. And, maybe – if people got more exposure to passion fruits, were able to try them out because they were all over the place, passion fruit would become a big seller. In fact, if they marketed it right, passion fruit would become a big seller. But they’ve elected to market oranges, instead. And so guys like me buy oranges.
Our pop media culture is the same: a ridiculous minority (a fraction of a fraction of a percent) of people are in charge of deciding what “we want to see,” and they provide for that. The problem is that the majority of these guys are ignorant fools and are completely out of touch with real people. But, because they have the power of money and marketing – they can create the results they need to “prove” themselves right. Again and again.
So are the “American people” really as ignorant and prone to prejudice as we all tend to think, based on what we see on a large scale? Or is it just that the tiny minority at the top creates this ignorance and prejudice as part of this sick cycle of miscommunication?
And I’m not saying that Hollywood producers are evil. I’m sure many of them have decent intentions and really believe that they’re right on this one. Many of them are probably thinking – “I wish I could make an intelligent, thought-provoking movie that challenges the status quo – just once – but ‘the American people’ would never go see it . . . “ I bet that happens all the time.
But when money and power and the public are involved? The right thing and what people really want is seldom achieved. It’s all this strange, twisted feedback loop that reinforces all these beliefs that aren’t true and aren’t what most of us even really want – while convincing us that “everybody else” really wants it. (*5)
So what can we do about it? It starts with just acknowledging that what is out there isn’t what we actually want. It continues, though, with challenging the belief that it is what a majority of other people really do want. With understanding that we’re not the only, special, open-minded ones looking for more – that there are a lot more people like that out in the world, and they don’t necessarily look or talk or dress or vote like we do. But they are out there. And so are we. And if we can come together and find a way to deliver that message? Feedback loop interrupted.
Of course, I do not yet have a (full) concept of how we bring it all together to fight off the weight of exposure, money, and influence that those faulty producers have, but I’m working on it.
Any ideas?
(*1) Outside of the usual, “obvious” stereotype-based cuts we’d all expect, here are a couple quick-hitters to demonstrate just how ridiculous these guys (because they’re 90% male) are:
1) Action movie. Original concept: Good guy battling it out with somewhat-stronger badguy. Badguy is winning. Good guy realizes that he’s not going to survive this fight and that – if badguy gets out of this alive, goodguy’s buddies are in big trouble. So he finds a way to sacrifice himself to take out the badguy. Producer edit: “The film-going public wouldn’t understand why the goodguy would do that, they don’t want to see it.” So, in the actual film, the goodguy just kills the badguy and gets his way, no notions of sacrifice for greater good intact.
2) Psychological thriller. Original concept: Can’t say much without tipping off what the movie was, but the whole movie revolves around mistakes made by primary protagonist and how that hurts those around him. Final lesson which brings it all home and ties the whole plot together involves him losing a loved one because of the main character’s neglect. This loss causes him to finally change. Producer edit: “That’s too sad. People don’t want to see that.” In spite of all the mistakes and the inevitable lesson coming at the end, main character saves loved one with little to no difficulty, all smiles and “everything’s better” at the end. Which just so happens to defeat the purpose of the entire rest of the movie (and make no contextual sense, either).
(*2) And I realize that he “doesn’t have to” do the job he’s doing – but that’s not really the point. Although this is in the context of my individual brother, the same thing happens to every other screenwriter, whoever they are. Somebody‘s going to write these things, and this is going to happen – every time – to whichever “somebody” that is.
(*3) Of course, he seldom actually describes his characters as “white,” but we all know what’s coming when he writes in no specific racial or cultural description for somebody in his scripts.
(*4) And yes – I understand the presence of “alternative media,” but let’s be realistic in terms of the reach and scope of said alternatives. When money, marketing, and exposure is pumped into certain media, we’re just not going to be able to resist it or compete, on a large scale.
(*5) It’s how our government works, as well – but that’s for another day.
(*6) I was going to throw up a photo of John Cho to try to draw more readers, but I – luckily – decided against that particular form of exploitation . . .
Newsweek Article: Is The Obese Black Actress Actress Gabourey Non Threatening To White America Than Beautiful, Slim, & Sexy, Black Women?
Gabby Sidibe: Cover Girl?
By Allison Samuels
A wonderful actress—sure. But putting her on the cover of Elle magazine sends a different, and disturbing, message.
Let me make this point from the very top: Gabourey Sidibe is a wonderful actress. She was pitch-perfect as the abused and ultimately triumphant teenager in Precious and rightly deserved her Oscar nomination for best actress. Watching a smart and talented African-American woman get her due in these racially tense times is something that always makes me cheer.
All of which makes my next observation disturbing, even to me. I hate, hate, hate her new Elle magazine cover, and for many, many reasons. First let’s start with the most important fact of all: Sidibe has done just one movie, yet she’s received beyond her share of press, photo shoots, show-hosting assignments, and magazine articles. Yes, she was nominated for an Oscar, but so was Taraji Henson just two years ago for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The petite, real-life single mother of a teenage son who also appeared in films such as the critically acclaimed Hustle and Flow received her share of love from traditional black magazines such as Ebony and Essence, but white magazines didn’t seem to find her particular beauty or story coverworthy. Viola Davis was nominated for an Oscar the same year as Henson, for Doubt. The veteran performer (who recently won her second Tony, playing opposite Denzel Washington in Broadway’s Fences) received even less mainstream press than Henson did.
So the complicated question is, why Sidibe? What does Elle see in her that it (or any other beauty magazine) didn’t see in the others? There are actually four Elle covers out this month, and it’s hard to argue that Sidibe’s beauty, however you define it, is of the same type as the three other cover girls: Lauren Conrad, Megan Fox, and Amanda Seyfried. Readers of African-American blogs such as Young, Black and Fabulous and Media Takeout.com, seem to think there’s some kind of conspiracy behind it all—a conspiracy to influence what black beauty is and what it means. Some people on the blogs have even suggested the magazine was making fun of Sidibe, whose styling on the cover leaves much to be desired. Just this week, the magazine released a statement defending Sidibe’s cover and described the actress as an exuberant young lady changing the world. Really? And exactly how is she doing that, with just one film under her belt?
It’s really hard to take Elle seriously on this. In an industry that rarely celebrates the more conventional beauty of black actresses such as Gabrielle Union, Sanaa Lathan, or Kerry Washington on magazine covers, are we really supposed to believe that it’s somehow seen the light with Sidibe? Or is it really the fact that Sidibe‘s plus-size beauty is a nonthreatening beauty? It’s a beauty so completely opposite from the white world’s ideal of attractive that it feels safe to give her all the kudos in the world. Somehow, after one film, Sidibe has so beguiled the fashion and beauty industry that reportedly even mega-makeup artist Bobbi Brown is in discussions with the actress to develop her own makeup line. It’s difficult not to be cynical. Regina King (another wonderful actress who gets little press or fanfare) wrote an article about being mistaken for actress Rutina Wesley from the HBO show True Blood on the Emmys’ red carpet. Not exactly progress for women of color.
With the exception of Halle Berry and Beyoncé (women of either mixed heritage or fairer complexions), African-American female beauty is routinely ignored in television, film, and movies. Only one mainstream cable-television show features an African-American actress (Jada Pinkett Smith) in the lead. And it could be argued that Hawthorne is on only because of the power of Jada Pinkett’s husband, superstar Will Smith.
So why Sidibe? We all know that mainstream has always had a fascination with the so-called exotic look of very dark skin, fuller lips, and broader noses, and it continues to this day. Sidibe represents a look that’s not going to be the big-screen love interest in Ryan Reynolds’s next film. She won’t be considered for the same juicy, high-paying roles that Megan Fox or Kate Hudson will be. Gabrielle Union probably won’t be either, but it won’t be because she doesn’t have the “look.” It will be for the same reasons Regina King gets confused for another black actress on the red carpet and Kerry Washington can’t be the lead in the next romantic comedy. It’s the reason Sanaa Lathan, Nia Long, and many other black actresses can’t find work unless Tyler Perry is making a film. Hollywood and the fashion industry just don’t care.
So while I halfheartedly applaud Elle for attempting to diversify its covers—a move that has taken way too long—I will forever question the real reason it chose to highlight a large woman with such a thin résumé and whose styling needs obviously required skill its staff wasn’t equipped to handle—hence the loud complaints of skin lightening (which Elle denies) and a very, very bad wig. The one good thing that could come from this controversy is that maybe now beauty magazines will stop their knee-jerk reaction to so-called nontraditional beauty and give respect where respect is long overdue.
It’s really hard to take Elle seriously on this. In an industry that rarely celebrates the more conventional beauty of black actresses such as Gabrielle Union, Sanaa Lathan, or Kerry Washington on magazine covers, are we really supposed to believe that it’s somehow seen the light with Sidibe? Or is it really the fact that Sidibe‘s plus-size beauty is a nonthreatening beauty? It’s a beauty so completely opposite from the white world’s ideal of attractive that it feels safe to give her all the kudos in the world. Somehow, after one film, Sidibe has so beguiled the fashion and beauty industry that reportedly even mega-makeup artist Bobbi Brown is in discussions with the actress to develop her own makeup line. It’s difficult not to be cynical. Regina King (another wonderful actress who gets little press or fanfare) wrote an article about being mistaken for actress Rutina Wesley from the HBO show True Blood on the Emmys’ red carpet. Not exactly progress for women of color.
With the exception of Halle Berry and Beyoncé (women of either mixed heritage or fairer complexions), African-American female beauty is routinely ignored in television, film, and movies. Only one mainstream cable-television show features an African-American actress (Jada Pinkett Smith) in the lead. And it could be argued that Hawthorne is on only because of the power of Jada Pinkett’s husband, superstar Will Smith.
So why Sidibe? We all know that mainstream has always had a fascination with the so-called exotic look of very dark skin, fuller lips, and broader noses, and it continues to this day. Sidibe represents a look that’s not going to be the big-screen love interest in Ryan Reynolds’s next film. She won’t be considered for the same juicy, high-paying roles that Megan Fox or Kate Hudson will be. Gabrielle Union probably won’t be either, but it won’t be because she doesn’t have the “look.” It will be for the same reasons Regina King gets confused for another black actress on the red carpet and Kerry Washington can’t be the lead in the next romantic comedy. It’s the reason Sanaa Lathan, Nia Long, and many other black actresses can’t find work unless Tyler Perry is making a film. Hollywood and the fashion industry just don’t care.
So while I halfheartedly applaud Elle for attempting to diversify its covers—a move that has taken way too long—I will forever question the real reason it chose to highlight a large woman with such a thin résumé and whose styling needs obviously required skill its staff wasn’t equipped to handle—hence the loud complaints of skin lightening (which Elle denies) and a very, very bad wig. The one good thing that could come from this controversy is that maybe now beauty magazines will stop their knee-jerk reaction to so-called nontraditional beauty and give respect where respect is long overdue.
Gayblackcanada 
