Tina Fey on Vanity Fair cover: You betcha!


Seldom do I see anything in the grocery checkout line that causes me to smile, but I really got a hoot out of the Vanity Fair cover with Tina Fey. It was enjoyable on several levels, from clever to cute to just plain easy to look at.

It was a fun way to celebrate next week’s inaugural, adding some spice to all the pontificating about how wonderful and important it all is. Others invoke Lincoln; Vanity Fair celebrates the gams of “A NEW AMERICAN SWEETHEART.” Yes, there’s a place for serious, but there’s a place for this, too, and it’s an enjoyable place. And Tina, and the magazine, are fully cognizant of how silly and exploitative they are being. Note the Fey quote about the Annie Leibovitz photo shoot: “Annie’s going to photograph my soul, right?”

I’ll admit, I haven’t looked at the other pictures, much less read the Maureen Dowd piece inside. But I enjoyed the cover, and wanted to share.

12 thoughts on “Tina Fey on Vanity Fair cover: You betcha!

  1. Brad Warthen

    Actually, I think she would find this cute, too — just in a different way.
    Back when Tina was doing her Palin skits, my wife made sure we had the tube tuned to NBC every Saturday night at 11:30, because she didn’t want to miss the opening piece. She thoroughly enjoyed all that.
    When I got home from Food Lion after seeing the magazine cover, I told my wife to watch for it because I thought she would enjoy it. Of course, I could have just bought a copy, but let’s not get carried away. Seeing the cover was enough amusement for me, which is why I thought it would be good to share with y’all…

  2. Brad Warthen

    Funny thing is, I used to not like Tina Fey — or Jimmy Fallon, or, going way back before them, Dennis Miller — in their Weekend Update days.

    As y’all know, I like to have fun and kid around, but I do take the news and the issues of the day seriously, and at some point I get turned off by people who day in and day out sneer and make jokes of serious issues. I mean, let’s have fun and kid around, but when one’s entire diet of commentary consists of such junk food, and it’s all about mocking and never taking anything seriously, I think it has a corrosive effect on society. Taken at it’s extreme, I think it has helped raise a generation that has trouble respecting anyone and anything in politics. The constant drip, drip of smarmy satire adds to all the partisan attack politics and tactics of personal destruction to prevent us from coming together to solve the problems we have in common — which is what representative democracy can be all about.

    Needless to say, I have NO appreciation for Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. And while I enjoyed meeting and kidding around with Stephen Colbert (see video), I can’t get into his shtick, either.

    But even though the Palin gag was pretty hard-hitting satire, it was so enjoyable that it caused me to have a soft spot for Tina I didn’t have before.

    I should also mention that I revised my opinion of Dennis Miller just from the couple of brief spots I’ve done on his radio show. I had always thought of him as just too much of a wise guy, too impressed with his own snarky cleverness, to be borne. But he’s actually deeper than that, and pleasant to talk to.

    Of course, this is just a corollary to something I’ve found about life — almost anyone is a more likable, admirable person once you get past the shorthand, bumper-sticker version of that person. To know a person is to appreciate him or her more. Maybe this sounds trite, but in our 24/7 headline news/blog world, we increasingly go by the bumper sticker, and don’t get into people deeply enough to appreciate them.

    And just to get WAY philosophical on you…. One of my great disappointments with this blog is that I had hoped, by having this forum for going way beyond what I’m able to say and explore in the paper, I could forge some avenues where I could have more meaningful exchanges with my readers and fellow citizens about the important issues of the day — and the people who are important players in those issues.

    Unfortunately, the resistance to that is just tremendous. So much of what passes for dialogue here remains on the superficial, partisan, shorthand, bumper-sticker simplistic level. I try to say something to provoke thought, and somebody gives some standard, boilerplate ideological response, and someone else shouts the established bumper-sticker counter to THAT, and off we go on the kind of pointless partisan merry-go-round that you can read or hear anywhere in the blogosphere or on 24/7 talking head “news.” And what is the point in that?

    I draw hope from the fact that occasionally, we get to the point where some actual,  mutually respectful dialogue occurs between people who HAVE gotten to know each other beyond the surface here. I see this particularly with Phillip and Herb and Karen and several others here — and in the past (although, unfortunately, not so much lately) from you, Randy. I even get an encouraging word now and then from bud or Doug.

    I just wish I knew how to build on that. I’m open to suggestions.

    Maybe I need to make this a separate post…

  3. Lee Muller

    Your failure to build on the dialogue stems from your running away from the tough questions, and facts which knock the legs out from under your bogus views.
    Instead of acknowledging that your “facts” were wrong, and therefore your opinions need adjusting, Brad, you just disappear, or make some silly remark, insult the posters, or delete their factual information and observations.
    News reporters are supposed to be skeptical, but you want desperately to ignore the bad news about political leaders like the Clintons, Obama, Bob Coble, Lindsey Graham and Bobby Harrell.

  4. kamagra jelly 100mg

    Hey, this is cool stuff, something worth my time. Good attempt. Quiet interesting way of narrating interesting stuff. I think you have spent a lot of time in researching as some of the facts were just so shocking and never heard of. I am speechless…

Comments are closed.