Was Martha Stewart Really the Original Influencer?
By The Styles Desk
November 10, 2024
“Martha,” a new documentary now on Netflix, offers a candid portrait of the rise and fall (and rebirth?) of the homemaker extraordinaire, who last year, at 81, appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
The film, by R.J. Cutler, touches on Ms. Stewart’s troubled childhood, troubled marriage, time on Wall Street and where everything really began: the idyllic Connecticut countryside where she renovated a farmhouse. It looks at how a high-end catering business made her a media mogul with her own magazine, television show and brand of Kmart sheets. And it digs into her highly publicized trial, conviction and prison time.
In an edited conversation, members of the Styles staff — Vanessa Friedman, Madison Malone Kircher and Jacob Gallagher — and James B. Stewart, a business reporter and columnist whose book “Tangled Webs” examined the insider trading probe that incriminated Ms. Stewart, discussed the documentary and the life of a woman who built a man’s empire on being the ultimate homemaker.
MADISON MALONE KIRCHER: I realized how little I actually knew about a woman who was basically a canonized saint in my house growing up. Which is to say I was hooked!
JAMES STEWART: I liked the film a lot. Her body language and expressions were so revealing. She looked very uncomfortable most of the time. But it was very kind to her.
VANESSA FRIEDMAN: I found watching the film especially interesting in the context of the election, and the complicated feelings around women — particularly, powerful, successful women. Because it did reveal very complicated feelings about Martha.
JAMES STEWART: Vanessa, I love that you mentioned the election. There are so many similarities between Martha and President-elect Donald J. Trump. A very flexible attitude toward fact and truth, to start. An amazing drive and determination. A big popular following. But Martha lacked the levers of power and money to which Mr. Trump has access.
FRIEDMAN: I was surprised she disliked it so much. Though I expect she would dislike anything she could not control. Her whole life, it seems, has been an exercise in renovation and trying to bend nature and business and perception to her will.
STEWART: She seemed especially unhappy when they were discussing her marital and personal relationships. That was all new to me. But she has never really seemed happy or fulfilled and, sadly, doesn’t seem that way now.
FRIEDMAN: Isn’t that the classic driver of many successful moguls? A quest for satisfaction that is never reached?
JACOB GALLAGHER: James, I definitely walked away feeling that she didn’t strike me as a fulfilled person. Maybe that’s what has made her such a successful mogul, but I think the film is trying to make the case that it came at the expense of her personal relationships.
STEWART: One thing that maybe the film neglected a bit is her genuine talent. In its early days, her magazine was a revelation. I used to buy it at the supermarket. It was gorgeous.
She gave me the idea to build out an outdoor shower, although mine was just a spigot on the side of the house and not the Greek temple in her pictures. After the company went public and she went to jail, it lost the magic as the company strived for more mass appeal.
FRIEDMAN: I feel like it acknowledged her as a seminal cultural figure. What was extraordinary to me is that this was not a case of “those who can’t do, teach.” She really did do all that herself.
KIRCHER: Real influence for me is always about how much money you can compel people to spend. The ability to get swathes of people to change the way they act, eat or dress. She did that and then some. I think she has earned the title of “original influencer.” Though I don’t know that she’d like that title. Influencers are a dime a dozen — there’s only one Martha.
STEWART: The film was very kind to her, not even mentioning the J.C. Penney-Macy’s fiasco. She had already licensed her brand to Macy’s, and then she turned around and sold the same thing to J.C. Penney. It was a brazen breach of contract, and Macy’s sued her and won. (Her testimony in that case was laughable.)
I’ve never understood how someone as smart as she is, and a former stockbroker, surrounded by lawyers, could have done that. There’s something missing in her moral compass that has repeatedly gotten her into trouble. Is that also part of her success? I don’t know. I’d have to be a psychologist.
FRIEDMAN: OK, can we pause for a minute to talk about her clothes?
GALLAGHER: Well, there’s no way to explain it without dipping into the clichés. She had an effortless all-American look. Watching the movie, I kept thinking that the closest comparison was Ralph Lauren.
STEWART: She sometimes compared herself to Ralph Lauren. There are definitely similarities, but his brand has been much more successful and enduring.
GALLAGHER: Her style during the Connecticut years was the best stuff for me, especially that one fit: green T-shirt, beat-up khakis, dirt all over the front of everything.
FRIEDMAN: I also loved the pie crust white blouse on the cover of her first entertaining book, which was, in part, about … pie crusts!
GALLAGHER: Sure, Martha might be sore about how she’s presented, but I think she can take solace in the fact that the takeaway for people (from what I’ve seen, at least) is that she was extremely cool/stylish in her younger years. My Instagram feed has had a lot more young Martha on it in the past few weeks.
FRIEDMAN: Actually, the most interesting part of the whole thing for me is when she says that if she and her first husband had not bought Turkey Hill Farm, she would have done something completely different.
That was one of those “Sliding Doors” moments for me, where I thought: Imagine a world where Martha hadn’t been Martha. That was a choice with astounding consequences.
