Back to the “Wedding of the Decade”
Chelsea Clinton managed a tour de force with her marriage. Not only have the media and paparazzi been kept in check, her union continues to inspire ink even after the ceremony. People (like its rival magazine US Weekly) has put her wedding on the cover of their latest issue, as it does with musicians and movie stars, and has promised to let their readers know everything about “the gowns, the cake [and] their romantic vows.” The leading celebrity magazine can boast of new photos in addition to the five photographs that were being circulated by the Clintons on Sunday. Even without these exclusives, daily papers aren’t far behind. The New York Times has written four articles since the marriage: portraits of the wedding planner and the rabbi, and reflections on the generalization of intermarriage in the Jewish population, which inspired the comedian Jon Stewart. He renamed the nuptials “the wedding of the decade of the century of the millennium” and mocked the emptiness of American broadcast television, which did not have any information on the big day.
The newspapers have admitted that this frenzy is not the norm. The marriage of Jenna Bush, one of George W. Bush’s twin daughters, aroused far less enthusiasm in 2008, even though her father was still in the White House. Such curiosity has not been seen since the wedding of John Kennedy, Jr. to Carolyn Bessette in 1996. This passion doesn’t just come from an interest in the heir to an almost “royal” political throne; the Clintons have their share of responsibility for it. As noted by The New York Times, Bill and Hillary have always lived under the eye of the cameras, never hesitating to organize birthday parties and fundraisers. “Because the Clintons don’t shy away from the media spotlight, and they usually embrace it, the secrecy around this is unusual,” said Millie Martini Bratten, editor-in-chief of Brides magazine. Thus, she said, media interest is “kind of snowballing. [Bill and Hillary have] big, bold, colorful personalities, and we know that whatever is going on is going to be very interesting. … We don’t know how interesting yet."
The Mystery of the Bill
The few details that emerged after the ceremony were voraciously devoured. Five days after the event, we know only that the marriage was performed by a rabbi and a pastor. The bride’s two dresses (one for the ceremony and one for the party) were designed by Vera Wang. Finally, the wedding turned out to be much less worldly than the press made it seem. The Obamas were not invited. Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg were not seen. As for Hollywood, the principal representatives were actors Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen, personal friends of the Clintons. When asked by The New York Times, neither the wedding planner nor the rabbi broke the vow of silence. Officials have merely stated that the cake and the buffet were gluten-free.
This mystery promises People excellent sales. The magazine, which interviewed many guests, raised anticipation by releasing short news flashes. They ensured that Chelsea took classes with dancer Maksim Chmerkovskiy, the star of the show "Dancing with the Stars." The latter would also choreograph the couple’s opening dance. Perhaps the issue on Friday will confirm the Daily Mail’s statement that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, at 73 years of age, impressed everyone with her energy on the dance floor. There is, however, a mystery that the magazine will most likely not resolve: the bill for the wedding. The media’s guesses are continuously rising and have finally settled on the figure of $5 million. The Clintons’ relatives denied this estimate, and some journalists have admitted that these assumptions are not based on any concrete data.
The newspapers have admitted that this frenzy is not the norm. The marriage of Jenna Bush, one of George W. Bush’s twin daughters, aroused far less enthusiasm in 2008, even though her father was still in the White House. Such curiosity has not been seen since the wedding of John Kennedy, Jr. to Carolyn Bessette in 1996. This passion doesn’t just come from an interest in the heir to an almost “royal” political throne; the Clintons have their share of responsibility for it. As noted by The New York Times, Bill and Hillary have always lived under the eye of the cameras, never hesitating to organize birthday parties and fundraisers. “Because the Clintons don’t shy away from the media spotlight, and they usually embrace it, the secrecy around this is unusual,” said Millie Martini Bratten, editor-in-chief of Brides magazine. Thus, she said, media interest is “kind of snowballing. [Bill and Hillary have] big, bold, colorful personalities, and we know that whatever is going on is going to be very interesting. … We don’t know how interesting yet."
The Mystery of the Bill
The few details that emerged after the ceremony were voraciously devoured. Five days after the event, we know only that the marriage was performed by a rabbi and a pastor. The bride’s two dresses (one for the ceremony and one for the party) were designed by Vera Wang. Finally, the wedding turned out to be much less worldly than the press made it seem. The Obamas were not invited. Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg were not seen. As for Hollywood, the principal representatives were actors Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen, personal friends of the Clintons. When asked by The New York Times, neither the wedding planner nor the rabbi broke the vow of silence. Officials have merely stated that the cake and the buffet were gluten-free.
This mystery promises People excellent sales. The magazine, which interviewed many guests, raised anticipation by releasing short news flashes. They ensured that Chelsea took classes with dancer Maksim Chmerkovskiy, the star of the show "Dancing with the Stars." The latter would also choreograph the couple’s opening dance. Perhaps the issue on Friday will confirm the Daily Mail’s statement that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, at 73 years of age, impressed everyone with her energy on the dance floor. There is, however, a mystery that the magazine will most likely not resolve: the bill for the wedding. The media’s guesses are continuously rising and have finally settled on the figure of $5 million. The Clintons’ relatives denied this estimate, and some journalists have admitted that these assumptions are not based on any concrete data.