Amy Odell, Anna Wintour biographer: ‘Her driving force is amassing power, consolidating her power’

The day after Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election, legendary and feared editor-in-chief of Vogue Anna Wintour arrived early to work, as always, and called an emergency meeting. While addressing her team, something unprecedented took place: she broke down in tears. The episode opens Anna: The Biography, a new release from journalist Amy Odell that focuses on the powerful editor who for decades has decided what’s hot and what’s not.

That anecdote heralds the book’s mission statement. Based on more than 250 interviews, it sets out to humanize the sphinx, to reveal the person hiding behind that iconic bob and the most recognizable sunglasses in fashion. The pages of Anna are sprinkled with a wealth of juicy details: how, during her time at New York Magazine, she was known for throwing pennies in the trash, and for infuriating her bosses by featuring a $9,000 goatskin trunk in the publication. That after the 9-11 attacks, she returned to work immediately. How, on one occasion, she asked for the neck fat in a baby’s photograph to be retouched. That she banned garlic, onions, and chives from the dinner menu at the exquisite Met Gala because they give people bad breath. Beyond industry gossip, the book looks to explain the origin of Wintour’s influence, while highlighting the leadership of a woman who has unapologetically exercised power, despite the double standards by which she has been judged. EL PAÍS interviewed Odell from New York.

Question. At the beginning of the book, you mention that many of the 250 people you interviewed found it quite difficult to explain why Wintour is so powerful and what exactly her power consists of. I would love for you to elaborate on your own conclusion.

Answer. I think that the key lies in the fact that her influence truly transcends the limits of the industry. Her tentacles reach into infinitely different areas. I was reflecting on that, thanks to the premiere of The Devil Wears Prada 2, and recalled the interviews I did with the movie’s director, who also did the sequel, as well as with its screenwriter, who also participated in the second installment. They filmed the Met Gala scene in the American Museum of Natural History, because it was the only place in the city where Anna had no influence. In any other place, people were afraid of offending her. And even though she couldn’t have cared less about the movie, that episode serves as an excellent metaphor for her influence.

She has had a decisive voice in technology, fashion, entertainment, and sport, and it goes without saying, in the publishing world and media industry. I asked André Leon Talley to describe her power, and he told me that her ability consists of making someone say “yes” when what they really want to say is “no.” That is influence. He offered me an example related to Karl Lagerfeld; the exact situation had to do with a Met Gala, the year that the theme was dedicated to Chanel. Lagerfeld had been doubtful about participating; he was no fan of the combination of clothing and museums. Still, she managed to convince him to accept. In fact, there are some very colorful stories out there about how he had to keep his strict diet a secret during the event.

Q. What drives her? What is the motivation behind that driving force?

A. Power. Amassing power, consolidating her power. If you look at Vogue, it’s more of a brand than a magazine. She has delegated the editorial side of the magazine. That way, she can dedicate herself to Vogue World, she can organize the Met Gala. She can attend Haute Couture Week. That’s how she spends her time.

Q. Let’s take a step back. After years of speculation, Vogue finally announced at the end of last year that the magazine would have a new editor, Chloe Malle. What do you think led Wintour to step aside?

A. It’s merely a way to consolidate her power. She doesn’t have to deal with the magazine anymore. Directing a website is actually a truly arduous job: you have to manage the YouTube channel, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, create videos for each platform, promote your links everywhere to redirect traffic to your site, generate revenue through affiliations and advertising, keep up with the daily news cycle, optimize for SEO, produce original reporting, and carry out exclusive photoshoots… It’s a huge amount of work, but with much fewer resources. So Anna, in a certain way, has washed her hands of all of that. And now, we see her sitting in the front row alongside Gavin Newsom and Baz Luhrmann, at the Vogue World Los Angeles event.

Q. Do you think she just can’t cope with the magazine anymore, that she doesn’t care, or that it has simply become too difficult for her?

A. I think she doesn’t feel it’s worth investing her time in it. Anna believes, and one has to laud her for it, that giving back is important. She believes in charitable work. She thinks that Vogue should give back to society, and she has had a great philanthropic career: not just supporting people with mental health conditions, but also in the area of adolescent mental health and the fight against AIDS. That is a subject that really matters to her. She wants to be remembered for her philanthropy.

Q. I was surprised to discover that in your book, some of the canonical aspects that today we take for granted in magazines were invented by Wintour. For example, putting celebrities on the cover. What other things did she establish that eventually became the norm?

A. I don’t know if she invented it, but I think she proved that it was the future. It seems to me that what Wintour is really good at is contextualizing fashion within the world of culture. If you look at old issues of Vogue, from the 1960s and 1970s, you’ll see a lot less of that. They focus more on fantasy. They sent a photographer and a model with a trunk full of clothes to Hawaii for weeks. And it was like, “Come back with something spectacular.” And sometimes, they came back with truly extraordinary material.

With Anna, that dynamic changed. She said, “Madonna is interesting right now, she’s a controversial figure. Let’s put her on Vogue. Let’s change the perception of who Madonna is and what Vogue represents by putting her in the magazine.” One of Anna’s first big hits as an editor took place when she worked at New York Magazine. There, she did an editorial report that was inspired by art. She contacted the New York designers of the moment, the coolest ones, and got several artists to create works inspired by their collections. And then they shot the results together. That was what led her to be hired at Vogue.

And she repeated that formula when she became the head of the magazine. I think that’s a perfect example of how to contextualize fashion. It is not just a catalogue, nor is it only about showing the garments we see in the front row of a runway show. It’s about the place that fashion occupies in culture, and about how culture and fashion converge.

Q. You mention Madonna in your book. You describe how a man sat next to Wintour on an airplane and told her, “Madonna will never appear in Vogue.” And Wintour thought, “Well, now I’m going to feature her.”

A. Now she’s doing the same thing with Lauren Sánchez [the wife of Jeff Bezos]. I don’t think many people believe that Sánchez is Vogue’s style.

Q. If you had to choose three emblematic or defining moments from her time as Vogue editor that were similar to the Madonna episode, what would they be? In terms of editorial and cover decisions.

A. I think that her first cover is historic, it’s a slice of fashion history [it was the first time the magazine featured jeans on the cover, signaling that Vogue was looking to become a more accessible product]. The Madonna cover is important. The Ivana Trump cover is too. At the same time, I think her great mistake, probably the biggest of all, was that puff piece on Asma al-Assad [wife of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad]. A lot of people have forgotten that one. There are people who warned her, “Hey look, I don’t know if this is a good idea.” And she didn’t pay any attention. I think that her leadership style gives good results the vast majority of the time, but this case in particular is an example of when it doesn’t work.

Q. We often focus on Wintour’s career in the fashion world, but your book also highlights her general business insight. Do you think she would have had as much success in a different industry, like finance or politics, or do you consider her power inextricably linked to luxury and fashion?

A. It’s hard to say. She’s always been very smart, she’s always been very well connected. That being said, her career began at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, and I don’t know how many industries were open to women truly reaching great success during that time. That is the only reason why I question how to respond. It’s true that she loves fashion. She knows that world inside and out, better than anyone; she has a true passion for it. That being said, observing her today and seeing what she’s become, there’s no doubt she could head Net-a-Porter or a non-profit; she could direct the LACMA [Los Angeles County Museum of Art].

Q. Your biography covers decades of massive change in fashion and consumer behavior. What did Wintour understand from the beginning about staying relevant that others perhaps did not?

A. She always talks about looking to the future, of not getting left behind. I think that there are examples of how that philosophy has done wonders for her. Examples in which she acted on it, and examples in which she did not. I find it interesting to see how the people blame her for how Condé Nast was left behind when it came to the internet. I don’t think that was her fault — she was the one who, back in 1998 or 1999, asked designers to post their catwalks online. They didn’t want to, because they were worried about knock-offs and piracy. And she wrote them a letter begging them, “Please, do it.” And they did it, because she asked them to. And that was how she managed to turn a “no” into a “yes.”

Q. In fact, she is one of the first old-guard editors of the time who survived the total collapse of print publication. Why did she manage to hold on as all her contemporaries left or were fired?

A. She knew how to manage and avoid obstacles, especially because she was creating revenue. And it’s true that she has the power to call advertisers and tell them, “Buy an ad.” Plus, she wanted to be there. She may be the last to abandon ship.

Q. The film The Devil Wears Prada has turned Wintour into the incarnation of a certain kind of tyrant boss who imposes a toxic work environment. What did you discover from speaking with her assistants?

A. A large part of what the movie shows, judging from my research, seems very close to reality. She’s not rude; in fact, she assigns great importance to manners. And yet, there are people whose names she never bothered to learn. In fact, she didn’t remember Lauren Weisberger, the author of The Devil Wears Prada.

Q. I loved the end of the chapter where Wintour, after reading the book, says something like, “As much as I try, I’m incapable of remembering that person.” Where do the myth and story depart from reality?

A. [When you’re Wintour’s assistant], you’re always available, always on alert. She sends you emails at any hour, and you have a duty to respond. When she gets to the office, just like in the movie, she comes in talking endlessly. It’s like a stream of consciousness, an uninterrupted list of things she needs them to do. The assistants are ready to start taking notes the second she arrives. That coldness, that icy distance, and that cutting sharpness… Meryl [Streep] has said that she based the character on Clint Eastwood, but a large part of it turns out to be very true to life. People felt like they were forced to wear high heels.

Q. You allude to coldness, but in the book you suggest — and it seems to me to be a very good point — that gender influences the way we perceive her.

A. As a woman who has worked and read countless studies on the differences between men and women in the work environment, I think that women are expected to adopt a more affectionate, maternal attitude. One factor that has helped her career enormously is the fact that in the world of fashion, there is an abundance of highly creative minds, but they’re not always very adept at business meetings. And she has both sides: she’s a businesswoman, but also a creator.

Q. Was there any specific anecdote or moment in your process of documentation that humanized her in a way you didn’t expect?

A. Imagining her as a grandmother. I asked her friend Anne McNally about it. She remembered an occasion in which they were babysitting one of her grandchildren together. And I asked her, “Did she change diapers?” And Anne said, “If she had to, she did it.”

Q. I think she is likely still judged differently than her male counterparts, don’t you?

A. Oh, without a doubt. Just look at Steve Jobs and his behavior… did you read Walter Isaacson’s biography? He screamed and shouted at people in the office, but the central premise of the book is that he was a genius. No one would have written The Devil Wears Prada about Steve Jobs. I think it’s fair to say that, because she’s a woman and her field of innovation is fashion, a traditionally feminine industry, she’s not taken as seriously.

Jeff Bezos has been the head of Amazon for less time than she has led Vogue. Her staying power is truly extraordinary. She isn’t given the credit she deserves for that. I know it’s a complicated subject, and that not everything she has done has been incredible or popular. What is happening right now with Bezos is, for example, extremely controversial.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition