Chris Christie Cover Pic: Bad Boy Or Mob Boss?

Is Chris Christie being depicted as a 21st century Vito Corleone?

Time magazine’s new cover of New Jersey governor Chris Christie sparked more than a few comments this week, ranging from the outraged in Philly.com—that Time was casting Christie as a mobster—to the incensed claim of an Italian American in NJ.com—that Christie’s portrait somehow dissed his Italian heritage (on his Sicilian mother’s side)—to the dark side, with comparisons to the infamous O.J. Simpson cover—to the groupiest—that “The Boss” cover banner was nothing more than a shout-out to Christie’s new pal, Bruce Springsteen.

The most scathing blowback from the picture seems to come from New Jerseyians of Italian descent who took umbrage at the photo’s mug shot-like quality. Gannett’s John Schoonejongen quotes Manny Alfano, the founder of the Italian-American One Voice Coalition, a group that battles stereotypes of Italian-Americans in the media, “Why didn’t they just put Al Capone’s picture up there?”

“The Boss — we’re not talking about a rock star,” Alfano said, referring to the Jersey rocker Bruce Springsteen’s nickname. “We have someone else called by that name in New Jersey, but when it comes to having a picture like that and using the words “The Boss” — you know, what else but mob-affiliated.”

With all due respect, Mr. Alfano, chill. It’s just a picture. And a very good one.

Time contract photographer Marco Grob is well-known for his gritty, right-in-the-camera portraitures. His shot of Christie, like those he took of Latino voters in Phoenix last year, reflects a fearless, confident style few photographers can pull off. The giants of the technique who come immediately to mind are Annie Leibovitz with her 2011 portrait of Joan  Didion, Richard Avedon capturing Marilyn Monroe in 1957, and Alfred Eisenstadt and his 1947portrait of nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer.  The goal in this kind of portraiture is to unmask the subject; to strip away the artifice of context, remove the obvious layers of power or position or status and reveal the person isolated for the viewer’s interpretation.

From my perspective as a former contract photographer—including work for Time—the picture of Christie (and the editorial decision to run it) is totally unrelated to the 1994 Time image of O.J. Simpson, where an editorial decision was made clearly to demonize Simpson through post-production image manipulation and print presentation. As reported by Deirdre Carmody in the June 25, 1994, New York Times, “The cover portrait of a blurry, darkened and unshaven Mr. Simpson is actually a doctored version of a photograph made by the Los Angeles Police Department. Mr. Gaines’s [Managing Editor Jim Gaines] message said that the police photo had been given to an artist who was asked to interpret it.”

This was not the case with Grob’s portrait of governor Christie. It is a well-thought-out, beautifully shot picture, true to the photographer’s style, presenting Christie as Grob’s technique interpreted him in front of the camera. Christie knew from past experience what could result; he’d been photographed in a similar pose by New York Times’ photographer Henry Leutwyler in February 2011. And as any politician worth his or her salt will, maybe grudgingly, acknowledge, a Time cover is a Time cover, critics be damned.

Given the wide-ranging interpretations of the Christie cover—from Mafioso to E Street Band buddy—it would seem Grob’s picture did exactly what it was shot to do: provoke conversations and generate buzz.