Fug File: Fug The Cover

Well Played Cover: Lady Gaga


You guys may think I’m insane for this, but I have to say, this is super effective for me.

I know we get cranky about covers where the subjects don’t really look recognizably themselves, but here’s why I think that’s an asset here: 1) We’ve gotten to the point where who the hell KNOWS or REMEMBERS what Lady Gaga even looks like anymore; 2) I have complete and total Gaga fatigue, and I don’t think I’m alone in that; 3) seeing her on this cover made me interested instead of eye-rolly, because the silhouette is so striking, the color is majestic, and I don’t think I’ve seen her like this in a long time. I practically forgot she even HAD a face. It makes me faintly curious about her again, which I never thought would happen, and that is about the only way you’re likely to get me to pick up a five-pound magazine and bring it home. Sure, it hasn’t WORKED — the odds of me actually doing that are slimmer than her waist in this picture; I only barely have patience for free weights in the gym, and I have enough doorstops — but they got me about as close as I was going to get, by convincing me maybe there was something to see in here that I hadn’t already looked at a thousand times. Mission accomplished, I think.

react:

Fug or Fab the Cover: Penelope Cruz


I don’t really know what I’m putting this to a vote. Because the truth is that I think this cover is awesome. She is bringing some 1980s Supermodel Realness: big hair, big brows, big jewelry, and gloves? It’s like 1986 up in here, which makes me think that some of the 10 Trends We Can’ t Live Without” might turn out to be, like, “hyper color t-shirts” and “electric blue mascara.”  Unlike those flashbacks, however, her flashback face is pretty fierce (alliteration!).

Do you agree?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
react:

Well Played the Cover, Miley Cyrus


With rare exception, I really like Marie Claire‘s covers. Like, remember when they managed to pull this off, vis a vis Jessica Simpson? She hasn’t looked that good since. Nor had she looked that good prior. I’d say, in general, that they’re particularly great at taking someone who tends to look overdone and…undoing them. (Perhaps last month’s Wiig cover just ended up TOO undone because Wiig isn’t that Done to begin with?)  I am relieved to see them back on track here. Miley looks so….fashion-y. And not cheesy. And almost model-esque? That is no mean feat considering that she walks around town wearing hot pants and thigh-high boots half the time, you know? It’s like MAGIC. And I can’t help but wonder, can’t whomever it is who is pulling off said dark magic on the almost regular lurk outside Lindsay Lohan’s hotel door for the next six weeks or so, on the off chance that, when Lindsay finally emerges to make a Taco Bell run, she can be kidnapped and spirited away to the MC labs for some under-doing? Don’t worry, Marie Claire, you don’t have to photograph her or anything. You don’t even have to TELL anyone. You can just release her into the wild again, better. Consider it a gift to Southern California.

react:

Fug the Cover, then Better Played: Emma Stone on Vogue


We got a lot of questions about this cover when we were in Boston, and we realized we accidentally hadn’t posted it. So here is the remedy:

Facially, Emma looks pretty as ever, but the zombie eyes are really distracting. Emma Stone is pretty much brimming with personality. She’s overflowing with it. So it’s unfathomable to me that Vogue found a way to suck out her spark. It’s further disappointing that they felt compelled to sex her up by sticking her in glorified lingerie (or whatever the heck that is), because Emma Stone is someone who has proven she can carry off more advanced fashion. She can be a lot more interesting, overall, than this cover is allowing her to be. And that is a shame, because — and this is an old refrain — isn’t the benefit of having Emma Stone on your cover the ability to play on people’s fascination with how spunky and inviting her natural personality is? Why not magnify that instead of making her look like somebody’s bored, bland mistress?

Problematically, too, I am not crazy about the garment. It’s super disturbing to me that the negligee (or dress, or camisole, or whatever it is) has that flesh-toned satin piece that I keep, at first passing glance, thinking is her rib cage. It is NOT, and I am not getting into body-shaming here; Emma Stone is lovely, and that is fabric, not her body. But if you’re, say, a nine-year old girl, or even a twenty-year old one, and you’re meandering past the checkout line with your mom and you catch a glimpse of this but can’t stop to stare, you might think, “Oh, look, that girl’s ribcage is on the cover of Vogue,” and that could end up in a bad place. The whole thing seems… well, I would say tone-deaf, but I don’t think they did it on purpose. Perhaps unfortunate is a better word.

Look how much better Vogue UK did:

Read More

react:

Fug the Cover: Ashley Greene


From the brain trust that brought you “Um, Vagina, Are You Okay Down There?” allow me to present “When Your Vagina Acts Weird After Sex”:

The vaginas of Cosmo staffers are apparently extremely passive-aggressive; acting weird, not speaking up when they’re not okay. Don’t let your vagina give you the silent treatment, ladies! Although I suspect it will happily chat you up once you force “52 Sex Tips…Inspired By Fifty Shades of Grey” on it. And by “happily chat you up,”  I mean, “confront you in the bathroom and angrily demand to know WTF you think you’re doing.” But just WAIT until your vagina discovers that you’re going to adopt Ashley Greene’s new look — the one where she wears jeans exactly the same color as the background so that she appears to be a floating torso at all times. TAKE THAT, VAGINA. NOW YOU’RE INVISIBLE. Who’s acting weird now?

 

react:

Fug the Show: Dallas, episode 7


There is actually the occasional item of clothing to discuss this week. I KNOW. It’s like the costume department finally got with the directors and said, “We aren’t here for FUN, PEOPLE.”

react: