Feb 20, 2009 02:51 PM
10
Enter your username and password.
New York, 7:41 PM
Fri Mar 19
53 posts in the last 24 hours
A few months ago, Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter announced that he planned to dial down the magazine's legendarily lavish, celeb-studded Oscar party for 2009. "The party will be a much more intimate affair than in years past; we're going to scale back the guest list considerably," Carter proclaimed, adding that it would be "a cozier, more understated event," and would have "familiar decor," since the magazine would be "recycling" many of the "elements of years past." Carter was certainly communicating the right message given the gloomy economy. But we hear Graydon's claims of recessionary modesty have been greatly exaggerated.
Although the venue is new this year—the fete will be held at the Sunset Tower hotel since Morton's, which is where it took place from 1994 to 2007, closed last year—simplicity will not be the order of the day. Despite Carter's claim that the guest list has been slashed by 500 people to "a trim 650," that's not what the magazine has been communicating to the city of West Hollywood. The official permit for the "special event" (which you can view below and is located here in PDF format) lists 1,000 guests.
And there are plenty of other high-profile events—and expenses—on the agenda. On Wednesday night, the magazine co-sponsored a party at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art with BMW; last night, Vanity Fair teamed with Dior for a launch party for the BRANDAID Foundation. Even better: A source tells us the magazine reserved a spa so that advertisers could have access to free treatments during Oscar week. Does it make sense for Si Newhouse to be paying for facials when Condé Nast is closing down magazines and laying off staff? Not really. Then again, it can't be any worse than Newhouse continuing to pour money into Portfolio.
Contact information for this author is not available.
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Start a new discussion