More thoughts on the Interview

[Peggy Wilkins]

>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Stiffler <calendar-girls@mindspring.com> writes:

    Dan> Peggy, the content of the whole magazine "has been diluted
    Dan> quite a bit in recent years."  Your observations here go
    Dan> hand-in-glove with PLAYBOY's addiction to celebrity.  Why
    Dan> should PLAYBOY go after a "real Mover/Shaker, thinker, person
    Dan> of some controversy" when the mindset at PLAYBOY is
    Dan> celebrity-oriented?  Why interview Howard Dean or Noam
    Dan> Chomsky when PLAYBOY can interview a hot, sexy Tobey Maguire
    Dan> and ask him questions about Kirsten Dunst?  Indeed, would
    Dan> Dean or Chomsky even sit for a PLAYBOY interview anymore, now
    Dan> that the magazine has become the nude version of
    Dan> Entertainment Weekly?

Dan, you have taken on quite a defeatist attitude here!  I know full
well that most people here have been disappointed in PLAYBOY's content
in recent years.  That is in fact the main reason I thought of holding
this project in the first place.  I was seeing the disappointment of
PLAYBOY's audience on a nearly daily basis in all kinds of comments on
the PML and when I got together with people and talked about PLAYBOY.
I was seeing the press repeatedly say things about PLAYBOY that were
pretty sad and negative, and there was nothing at all that was
positive balancing it out.  I was disappointed myself, and I knew they
should and could do better.  I want PLAYBOY to always be the kind of
magazine that *I* want to read -- not just a magazine, but THE
magazine.  I was thinking about this for quite some time, long before
Mr. Kaminsky and his new editorial staff made the scene.  But here you
are, looking at what they are doing now, and saying what sounds to me
like, why even bother, they've sold out to celebrity and therefore all
must be lost.  If you are looking for PLAYBOY to leave aside the world
of the celebrity and worship exclusively at the altar of the Playmate,
then I think you should get ready to remain disappointed.  However, I
am far from ready to say that the jig is up.

    Dan> You might remember that I suggested that the 20Q be used for
    Dan> the celebrity interviews (how many full-length interviews
    Dan> have you read recently that had more than 20 worthwhile
    Dan> exchanges?) and that the main interview be with someone who
    Dan> has something original or important to say.  But PLAYBOY
    Dan> frequently does the opposite (Representative Charles Rangle
    Dan> as 20Q subject).

    Dan> And it does the opposite because it believes that celebrities
    Dan> sell the magazine.  You apparently buy this notion, even to
    Dan> the point of suggesting that the PMOY cover may be a thing of
    Dan> the past.

I do remember your suggestion about the 20Q/Interview subjects.  My
suggestion is a little different from that.  I am seeing a new feature
apart from the Interview and 20Q, one that can accomodate at moderate
length and giving all kinds of interesting detail (some of which could
be in interview form), and ripe with possibility for illustration,
focusing on a person who is in the news.  Of course the subject will
usually have a reason they are in the news, especially with a product
to promote (Lisa Marie Presley's CD, Tobey Maguire's new movie, etc.).
These people typically do talk show circuits and public appearances
and are on magazine covers everywhere.  What they could have in
PLAYBOY (and I would think the media promoters would potentially love
this) is a place in this "buzz" feature.  I think this feature could
potentially be much more suited than a traditional PLAYBOY interview
for this purpose -- as I said, these promotion-based interviews really
dilute the interview.  This feature could be focused on very current
stuff.  Instead of forcing these people into the Interview format,
with all the accompanying expectations and other baggage, make a new
format that is more appropriate to what they're really trying to
accomplish.  A whole new layout could be designed for this feature,
one that didn't carry with it the preconceived notion of what a
PLAYBOY interview is.  This would inject freshness into the magazine,
as a new and potentially exciting feature.  I'd love to see a catchy
name used for it, something that evokes the sense of "buzz" and
"what's happening now".  People could come to the magazine on the
strength of this new feature -- put it in a prominent position.  And
keep the interview with its traditional layout for those movers and
shakers; keep the 20Q as it is, also.

I am finding it a bit difficult to clearly express what I am thinking
of here.  I think it offers a very creative approach to address what
is perceived by many to be a problem with the current Interviews.
It's a win-win solution.  Clearly they want to feature these stars,
and they want to have a ready place in the magazine to do so.  This
approach allows them to do so, creates new content that helps remove
the "PLAYBOY is old and tired" perception (by not forcing it into the
interview format), and it also preserves for the Interview its usual
high level of respect.

    Dan> ... the decline began with PLAYBOY's desperate appeal for
    Dan> newsstand sales, desperate because PLAYBOY was willing to
    Dan> stoop in order to conquer.  Think Madonna, Jessica Hahn, Tai
    Dan> Collins, Uma Thurman, Suzen Johnson.  These pictorials are
    Dan> unquestioned low points in PLAYBOY's decision making, but
    Dan> they also represent a general loss of class, a loss that has
    Dan> poisoned the well.  If you are a "mover or shaker," are you
    Dan> really going to sit for an interview with a magazine that has
    Dan> the mindset of the National Enquirer?

I had thought we had reached a fair resolution to the whole celebrity
issue, so I don't quite understand why we are still going around about
it.  I think most would agree that the decision to feature Suzen
Johnson and too many others like her indeed dragged PLAYBOY's
reputation to a low point.  They should be working now to escape from
this particular nadir.  I think it is clear that featuring celebrities
is here to stay; it is a fact of life, and we as readers will have to
accept that (and I'm not throwing in the towel on a PMOY cover yet,
either, nor do I remember doing so in the past -- to refer to your
earlier comment).  If they resolve to only feature PLAYBOY-worthy
pictorial subjects, and to stay out of the scandal rag business
(Johnson, Faye Resnick, etc. etc. etc.), then they should be able to
feature any number of celebrities and keep us happy to boot.
Remember, we still have our Playmate; why fret if we also get Cameron
Diaz?  It's hardly something to despair about.  Fret (and loudly!) 
only when the Suzen Johnson's come back.

I do have more to say in general, but I am going to have to give in to
fatigue and call it a night (I find myself very disorganized and near
incoherent right now); I should say more on this and realted topics
tomorrow night.

Peggy Wilkins
mozart@lib.uchicago.edu