‘People’ magazine’s annual men-ranking list fails to stay relevant in a time of redefined sexy
Valerie Ettenhofer
Staff Writer
The end of November is a time for tradition, new and old. It’s a time to come together and be thankful, to form crowds over the common goal of finding a bargain, and to begin preparing for the holiday season. It’s also a time for women to swarm newsstands and gawk at the sexiest men alive—certified by “People” magazine.
A magazine that’s somewhere below “Entertainment Weekly” and above “Us Weekly” on the scale of sophistication and credibility seems like a strange source for an adored year-end ranking in the first place. Yet fans of pop culture indulge time and time again in this strange and skin-deep zeitgeist, appreciating the musicians and movie stars within as if this really were a critical and scientific list.
So where are the aforementioned drool-worthy men? This year’s honoree, Channing Tatum, has certainly had enough media exposure to warrant the title, having starred in “21 Jump Street,” “The Vow,” and “Magic Mike.” In the inner sanctum of obsessive celebrity lovers, however, Tatum’s cover choice is quite controversial.
In fact, many recent choices have created a stir among those who appreciate a fine specimen of man. Ryan Gosling, pictured toward the back of this issue in a candid photo, has been considered a shoe-in among the general population for the past two years. Instead, Tatum and Bradley Cooper—the former divisive in the “hot” or “not” category and the latter arguably an A-List movie star at all—have nabbed the titles.
Another recent winner, Johnny Depp, was chosen despite his limited role in both the public and the film industry this year. His inexplicable cover story didn’t actually include an interview with the actor himself, and although he’s still regarded as one of the hottest actors in the industry, it felt like a last chance effort to spotlight the aging actor before he, in a cruel rule of Hollywood, lost his appeal.
The current issue fails to represent public opinion in more ways than one. Rather than observing shifting pop culture trends and including a variety of men to fit the public aesthetic, “People” includes many of the same standbys—Clooney, Gyllenhaal, David Beckham (what non-soccer fan actually sees Beckham anywhere besides in the pages of gossip magazines, anyway?)—while relegating the more currently relevant or physically diverse men to silly theme sections and small pictures recycled from past photo shoots.
It’s undeniable that the definition of sexy is changing, and it’s just not possible to capture the collective psyche of everyone who is attracted to men. Putting people under labels or in categories is always a flawed system, and at some point the response diminishes and the definition being examined must be reimagined more complexly.
‘“People’s” attempts to cater to all crowds (Hot blondes! Hot 21 year olds! Hot nerds! Hot guys with dogs!) have turned what was once a fun eye-candy issue into a farce of itself. When a title that was once mentioned in the same breath as the actor’s name becomes a joke and an afterthought, it might be time to retire judgment once and for all.
