Meryl Streep, 63, gets her first Vogue cover for the January issue

Meryl Streep scored what I’m thinking is her very first Vogue Mag cover for the January 2012 issue. HER FIRST. She’s 63 years old and an American treasure, and this is her first time on the cover of the bible of American fashion? Yes, I’m sure Meryl really doesn’t give a crap – she has more important things on her plate – but it’s still odd/amazing to me that Meryl went her whole career without ever appearing on Vogue before now. Blake Lively has had two covers, for the love of God. Sarah Jessica Parker gets a cover every time she farts out a new rom-com. My point: if we’re talking about relevancy, vitality, talent, intelligence, heart and humor amongst American women, how is Meryl not dominating the conversation?

So what do you think of the cover shot? Eh. Meryl looks prettier and younger in candid photos and in films. Plus, I don’t care for the outfit they chose for her, but I’m really looking forward to the interview.

Streep is promoting The Iron Lady, which is apparently a passion project she’s wanted to do for a long time. She and the film have already faced a heap of criticism for the portrayal of Margaret Thatcher, but I haven’t read one interview with Meryl where she says anything less than kind about Thatcher. In a new interview with The Telegraph, Streep said that she had seen Thatcher give a lecture in Illinois a decade ago: “She carried on for an hour and a half – she never tired. She sort of gained, if anything, interest in going on. Speaking in really cogent, beautifully wrought paragraphs. She was impressive. Just that galvanising intelligence – making her point, never losing track of the question, always circling around to the point that she wanted to make.” I don’t know… she sounds really respectful to me.

Covers courtesy of The Fashion Spot.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

68 Responses to “Meryl Streep, 63, gets her first Vogue cover for the January issue”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. theaPie says:

    Now that, is a truly hot woman.

  2. e.non says:

    absolutely love her — a woman with integrity and self-respect, who’s classy and smart. what a concept.

    and loooooooove that dress.

  3. Turtle Dove says:

    Vogue US finally puts a decent actor on the cover.

    This is the problem with putting actors on the cover of magazines – the famewhores, B-List (and below) and Hollywood waste start to circle, but they got it 100% right with Meryl.

    The cover doesn’t do justice to how beautiful and dynamic Meryl is, however, but I like the tongue in cheek use of the gray dress she’s in.

    • Amy says:

      Nice catch, TD. Your comment also made me look more closely at the fabric of that dress, which probably is not of the no-iron variety.

  4. HadleyB says:

    Lately, Vogue has been making everyone look like crap.

    We all know she can and does look so much better this. Vogue fix your pics, get a different photographer, and a new editing dept. My God.

    And they chose this outfit from their super closet?

    • Coucou says:

      Totally! What is this humdrum representation of a dynamic woman in her 60’s? Did she show up like that to the shoot and they didn’t dare disagree with Dame Streep’s fashion du jour?

      Would’ve been so much better to have seen her made up like the freaking diva she is. I served on a flight once, this woman is an Ice Queen of the Highest Order, and hey, she’s got the goods to pull it off. Wish this cover did!

      Yawn. Ms Streep, you deserve better, hell, so do we.

    • anonymoose says:

      Vogue used to be an icon of high fashion – with gorgeous professional models on the covers – not a personality magazine. Ever since Grace Mirabella was replaced by Anna Wintour we’ve been faced with lousy photos of actresses awkwardly filling the covers. NO THANKS. Streep does not belong on this (now-)rag any more than she belongs at an auto show modeling the latest cadillac. Models make lousy actresses and actresses make lousy models.

      This is not a comment on Streep’s acting skills, it’s just the wrong venue.

      • Ally says:

        I don’t know, I think this cover makes US Vogue seem clued-in and relevant, for a change. Besides the choice of a woman who has been dynamic and modern for 40 years, I like (a) that she’s recognizable, and (b) that she’s wearing something I could imagine her wearing in real life.

        If you actually have skills and do something for a living, there’s no need to let magazines truss you up like a harebrained 15-year-old model every time.

        I might actually give this issue a chance.

        (Btw, the SJP line, Kaiser, LOL.)

      • Nev says:

        yeah, where is Joan Smalls..or any of the new top asian models…???

        anna is losing it big time.

    • Esmom says:

      Yeah they really have a knack for making people look terrible on their cover, I don’t get it. This one is no exception. It had so much potential and it just falls flat.

    • jin says:

      Everyone? Did not not see Charlize Theron’s stunning photo for this month?

  5. Rita says:

    The fact that this is her first Vogue cover speaks volumes to her substance and perhaps to the lack there of, of “America’s Fashion Bible”. (Wow, how often do you see consecutive “of’s” in a sentence (Rita’s grammer bible)….Top that Vogue!!!!).

    Double ‘of’s, double parenthesises? What a mess I made of this.

    The cover shot is perfect. It’s so about her with little to do with fashion. Best Vogue cover in a long time.

  6. cecilia says:

    I love her. I love her in movies, and I love her in interviews – she’s hilarious. I don’t love that cover picture of her, though. It’s weird looking. I think the second picture is better. It shows how pretty and interesting she is.

  7. zesty says:

    I agree with cecilia that the cover shot doesn’t do her justice. Streep is awesome, classy, and fabulous.

  8. Turtle Dove says:

    As far as Meryl not criticizing Thatcher, I say it’s not her place. As the actor it’s her job to present the material and allow the public to come to its own conclusions. Leo did the same thing with Hoover in ‘J. Edgar’. The best actors never expound upon the subject matter too much; leave the intellectual heavy lifting to the public (if they’re able to in this reality tv show loving world)

    • Lindy says:

      I get what you’re saying, but the thing is, there is no such thing as a simple, straight-up fact when it comes to history. Even deciding which events to leave in and which to cut out (choices that have to be made for a feature-length film) is an act of interpretation. An actor and a director also have to decide on things like tone of voice, posture, etc.–all are things that serve as lenses through which the “facts” get filtered. How about music/soundtrack? Or casting choices? Basically, it’s always going to be an interpretation. And while I usually wish most actors would STFU about things they’re too stupid to understand, in Meryl Streep’s case, I think she’s plenty well-read and intelligent to be allowed to comment on Thatcher. Especially since she read and studied tons about that era in British history to prepare.

      • Turtle Dove says:

        The actor doesn’t get to decide a lot of things on a film. Most of the things you mention fall within the domain of the Director. Again, the movie isn’t about what Meryl, an American, thinks. The movie needs to be open for the interpretation of the audience. The actor is a canvas/vehicle for other individuals to use to project their interpretations.

    • carol says:

      as an actor, i have to say that even in a film, the actor is responsible for a great deal of interpretation – especially if, as in this case, it is the actor’s project. and there is a huge difference between interpretation and commentary. actors are never just neutral “vehicles” (to use your word) – once you begin to move and open your mouth, you have interpreted. by bringing another person to life, you have interpreted. commentary is what you see on saturday night live, for instance.

      as saying that an american has no right to handle a brit – that’s ridiculous. thatcher was a world leader. it’s ridiculous to think that any actor would limit themselves to playing roles directly associated with who they are or where they’re from. that’s why it called “acting.” there is absolutely no way to leave all interpretation to the audience.

      oh – and real actors (and i’m not talking about celebrities) do a great deal of intellectual heavy lifting, with enormous amounts of research and training.

      • Turtle Dove says:

        There is nothing worse than hearing an actor expound on and on about political affairs, especially, those in other countries (Hello… Sean Penn anyone).

        An actor is capable of portraying just about any character, but that was. not. my. point. I don’t think that Meryl should (and she has not been thankfully) going on voluminous diatribes about Thatcher’s politics. Again… let the public do that. Present the material to the world and let them draw their own conclusions. My point was that actors should NOT delve into the political arena to promote the film. Talk about it loosely if you must, but allow the public to draw their own conclusions. THOSE are the individuals who should be doing the “intellectual heavy lifting” that I referred to (and you misinterpreted).

        “oh – and real actors (and i’m not talking about celebrities) do a great deal of intellectual heavy lifting, with enormous amounts of research and training.”

        No shit. Carol, apparently, you’re “read between the lines,” gal because you just went off on random tangents. Whatever though. haha

  9. Julia says:

    How come VOGUE never put her before ?

    I can understand the everlasting search of maximising sales and putting out there younger stars who will weigh on the sales of a younger target but Meryll has been huge for 35 years !

    How come they didn’t put her even during the Kramer versus Kramer era, 30 years ago ?

    That’s what should be adressed. Before there were those C list modern celebrities, internet and reality stars, she was there and should have been put on those magazines at the time where they were glorious.

    • Azurea says:

      Well, 30 years ago they weren’t in the habit of putting actresses on the cover of Vogue, or any other fashion mag. It was alway the coveted spot for a model, and it meant they had “made it.”

  10. Jack Spicer says:

    I don’t know why some people want to be on the cover so desperately – I’m not taking about Meryl – but general. It doesn’t mean anything. Look at Gwyneth she was Vogue’s puppy, style icon, blah blah blah and now she is hasbeen. The same thing with SJP and others. Leave covers to the real models. BTW Meryl is too good for this crappy cover.

    • Julia says:

      Problem is magazines will cater for what’s in at the moment since they have to sell to their target who is often young.

      Women of Meryll’s age don’t interest that target as much as a Rihannna, ect.

      Sad but true.

      The problem is, she should have made it several times during the past 30 years and didn’t, which for me doesn’t make sense.

      But it’s true that VOGUE in the 80’s featured more top models on their cover and was the pinnacle and reference of the fashion magazines

      • lisa says:

        Meryl wasn’t on the cover 30 years ago because up until just what 10 or 15 years ago we had SUPER MODELS. and they were the cover girls. Now there really are no more SUPER MODELS. There are only a few Actresses that can sell magazine covers. While magazines feature celebrities, if you look at the magazine sells there are only a small few that sell big when they are on the cover. I love Meryl but the truth is this cover will not be a big seller. Despite all the people here mouthing how awesome she is and all other manners of praise. Someone is buying the Kim K covers or other nameless ones. I don’t buy or read Vogue unless my favorite is on the cover.. then i buy. Same with other magazines. If you want more Models on the covers then dont’ buy the magazines when models are not featured. I would love to have an accurate count of what magazines sold what numbers and who was on that cover.

  11. Girl says:

    I’m surprised her shirt is unbuttoned like that but whatever. She’s an awesome lady. Most definitely more sexy overall than Jennifer Aniston. Phenominal actress, intelligent. Etherially gorgeous. The whole package.

  12. stephanie says:

    she’s amazing. i like what she’s wearing!

    • Trashaddict says:

      I love it too, not too much make-up, not over-plasticized face, and the dress is really pretty.

  13. Lauren says:

    Maybe Anna was still upset because of the The Devil Wears Prada thinggy..

  14. carrie says:

    photoshopped pic of the week!
    it’s sad Meryl Streep deserves to be in the cover

  15. badrockandroll says:

    Vogue and Meryl are two entirely different universes. Vogue is a fashion magazine. Meryl, for all her talent, will never be mistaken for a fashion icon. In fact, she’s always been kind of frumpy. Not a criticism of her, it’s just not important to her. And it’s irrelevent to criticize Vogue for never having her on the cover, just as it probably never has had influential persons like the Dalai Lama on it’s cover. Now if she had never been on the cover of Vanity Fair that would be a legitimate criticism of that magazine.

    • marybeth18 says:

      Agree- Meryl isn’t a “fashion girl.” She’s not Gwyneth or Blake, who attend the major shows and are known as much for what they wear on the red carpet as for their roles (quick, do you remember what Gwyneth was wearing when she won her Oscar? I remember that pink ballgown. Do you remember what Meryl wore her last three nominations? I don’t, beyond a vague Chris March white dress I think she wore???)
      Meryl and Vogue aren’t a perfect fit- Meryl and Vanity Fair, however, are.

      • z' says:

        She’s not Gwyneth or Blake, who attend the major shows and are known as much for what they wear on the red carpet as for their roles
        Most ridiculous statement I have heard in a while. Nobody is interested in what Blake is ‘acting’ in because she is a shitty actress. People are only interested in what she is wearing, her boobs and legs. Meryl has the talent, critical acclaim and respect from her peers. Gwen and Blake can only dream of a career like hers as neither has the talent to actually have it. I would take talent over fashion icon any day.

      • marybeth18 says:

        @ z’says: Um…that’s what I was saying. That Blake and Gwyneth are known for being “fashion girls,” not really for being talented actresses. Even when Gwyneth won her Oscar, it was more about what she wore than the work she created. Their talent, their work, isn’t enough to get them notice. Meryl doesn’t have to be a “fashion girl” to get notice and attention- her talent is enough. And that’s why she hasn’t been on the cover of Vogue before, because Anna Wintour chooses “fashion girls” over talented actresses.

        I’m not sure why this is “the most ridiculous statement you have heard in a while.”

  16. Meh says:

    She is overrated!

  17. Eleonor says:

    What did they do to her face?

  18. dorothy says:

    Wonderful, grand lady!

  19. Lara says:

    “Blake Lively has had two covers, for the love of God. Sarah Jessica Parker gets a cover every time she farts out a new rom-com. My point: if we’re talking about relevancy, vitality, talent, intelligence, heart and humor amongst American women, how is Meryl not dominating the conversation?”Well-said! May be because SJP and the other girl have nothing else to offer, except taking pictures in some over-priced couture dresses. Still, every time SJP gets a cover I am scratching my head…

  20. The Original Denise says:

    I am resigned to yet another liberal hatchet job on a conservative icon. I just don’t get it…However, I respect Meryl Streep’s artistic freedom, so when is she going to play Hillary Clinton?

    • LeaR says:

      It’s not a hatchet job – most criticism of the film is coming from left-wingers who believe the film does not address how & why her policies made her such a controversial figure, and that overall, it is too affectionate & admiring in tone.

      The film also emphasizes the fact that she was a woman who fought her way to the top of a party that was not welcoming of female leadership & became her country’s first elected female head of state – in other words, the film is both sympathetic & admiring as it portrays her struggle with sexism & her triumph over it.

      The main complaint I’ve seen from conservatives is that it portrays Thatcher in old age, because they feel it is demeaning to portray her dementia. However, the fact remains that she really is suffering from dementia & if anything, the depiction of her frailty in old age makes her even more sympathetic to the audience.

      If you like Thatcher, I think you’ll probably enjoy the film.

  21. Alix says:

    The second photo would’ve made a better cover! I hate the way they’ve erased her face. And really, is it just not sexy enough if her bodice is buttoned? Please. At least she’s on the cover, though. About effin’ time, Anna!

  22. Mara says:

    She should be on the cover long time ago she is a brilliant actress and good looking to 15 Oscar nomination Wow

  23. Aqua says:

    It’s about time!I think she is just simply fantastic!and is well over due for an Oscar.

  24. Courtney says:

    Dumbasses her appearing on the cover is to intice the Academy to nominate her for another oscar Simillar to Newan & Woodward Appearing in the October 18th 1968 issue of life Magazine was to drum up ocar buzz for Rachel Rachel though the film ended up being nominated for 4 oscars and losing them all

    • Turtle Dove says:

      (whispers… who is she calling a dumbass after making a comparison between this cover and one from FORTY-TWO years ago???)

      • islandwalker says:

        Courtney lives in some alternate “old movie trivia irrelevant to the story” universe. Her comments rarely make sense.

        Streep hardly needs a Vogue cover to validate her to the academy. She can sneeze on film and out perform most other actors. I wish they had left the airbrushing aside for this one tho.

    • dean travers says:

      Newan? Spell check when being pompous. Always.

  25. LeaR says:

    I think you’re missing the real story here – Anna Wintour has obviously been abducted and replaced with a shape-shifting alien that isn’t scandalized by the idea of putting a non-skeletal, 60-something woman on the cover of Vogue.

    Also, most of the criticism of this film that I’ve seen is that it is too soft on Thatcher & glosses over events that made her so controversial. I haven’t seen any articles in the conservative press complaining about the film’s portrayal of Thatcher.

  26. truthful says:

    I LOVE her acting, she has brought alot to this world w/her craft.

    instead of having using reality twits on the cover and their endless search for a man.

    I will purposely purchase this, I love her!

  27. Lindy says:

    “My point: if we’re talking about relevancy, vitality, talent, intelligence, heart and humor amongst American women, how is Meryl not dominating the conversation?”

    Kaiser–YES! What you said!!

    I love her. She is the total package: intelligent, witty, talented in heaps, by all accounts a great mom, completely professional, very involved in charity…

  28. Vanden says:

    She still looks great but i’d have liked to see her on the cover in her Kramer vs Kramer days, she’d have blown people away

  29. Jackie says:

    glad they have decided to celebrate a woman of substance.

  30. whatevs says:

    looking fabulous as always

  31. Thea says:

    Seeing her in the white coat pic made me cry. She looks just like my mother who passed away from ovarian cancer. I have always loved Meryl Streep she is very classy and I think a wonderful actress.

  32. mssnarnd says:

    Beautiful! What a spirit! It shines through in her eyes (look at that twinkle!).

  33. Jason Bond says:

    For a 63 year old she is still sexy I say. She seems always happy with life. Great woman wonderful actress and great pick for the cover

  34. Bree says:

    Just to notice – Meryl has I think three cover for Paris Vogue.

  35. Nibbi says:

    i wonder if it was really necessary for her top to be in that drab grey. and hey, i’m a fan of neutrals, and the skirt is pretty/ interesting. but what, she’s 63? they think she can’t look too bright or sharp? i even like the soft colors of the background and everything, but could she have “popped” just a little more?

    and i agree that the unbuttoned-ness is a little dumb.

  36. Nibbi says:

    seriously, she should be wearing a soft pink top, maybe a little sheen, something.

    man i’m grouchy today. even this is irritating to me 😉

  37. cat says:

    It is sort of unreal to believe that Blake Lively has had TWO covers! Totally agree re: SJP (wasn’t it Vogue when SJP first covered that made SUCH a big deal that SJP had a different vision than they did which, of course, was totally spot on – they decided?).

    I haven’t read too many interviews with Meryl Streep but the last one I did … she didn’t really say anything too interesting. I mean… ?? I hope she does but I just don’t know.

    I agree she could have looked better but maybe she just wanted to look real – although true she could look real and better! Also that blouse could have been buttoned and looked better – Still cool that she’s on it. It does call attention to the fact that they are behind never putting her on before!

    Funny comment re: “Devil Wears Prada” and Anna Wintour. I wasn’t even thinking about that!

  38. GoodCapon says:

    How sad that this is her FIRST time on the Vogue cover. Less successful people have been featured there so many times.

  39. paola says:

    People tell me all the time that i look a lot like a young Meryl Streep and i couldn’t be happier to be associated to such a classy woman, clever, ironic and utterly genuine.
    In my opinion she’s the best actress of the modern era, before her only Greta Garbo and Grace Kelly were as classy as Meryl, she’s almost regal but with a tad of fun that’s always missing in all the divas of our modern days. She doesn’t take herself too seriously and she’s always praising other people’s work.
    I just love her! Maybe because she’s a normal woman with a big talent and versatility.