Fug File: InStyle

Fug the Cover: Zooey Deschanel on InStyle

Apr 2, 2013 By Heather AT 2:00 pm

I love the idea of a bright cover, and all the saturated rainbow colors and whatnot.

But when I look at Zooey, I think two words: Brenda Walsh. From the cut of her hair to the fact that, due to a combo of position and lighting, one side of her face looks suddenly lopsided in a way deeply reminiscent of Ms. Shannen Doherty. She also looks bored, fatigued, and maybe a little smug about how bored and fatigued she is. Like ennui is the new black — or, I guess, the new red. Seriously, the big red dress with the bow, and Zooey’s natural personality, could’ve combined for a really lively cover and instead it’s like they shot her while she was leaning against a counter taking a smoothie break.

Fug file: Fug The Cover, ,
react:

Fug or Fine the Cover: InStyle With the Oz Ladies

Mar 14, 2013 By Heather AT 2:00 pm

This actually may already be off newsstands, so oops, but:

Mila Kunis looks as pissed as if she just read one of the movie’s reviews right before stepping in front of the camera; Michelle Williams looks as if somebody just told her a joke and she’s trying not to laugh and ruin the shot; Rachel Weisz looks like she either didn’t care for the joke Michelle Williams just heard, or just can’t stand the other two and is only there because she’s being paid to be. I suppose a cover where the three of them are all wacky joviality and back-slapping would be weird in its own way, but rather than being wonderful, there’s something deeply frosty and uncomfortable about this — not to mention that Rachel, who is gorgeous, doesn’t look great; Michelle’s eyes may or may not be in focus, which is distracting; and Mila, again, just seems mad at me and I can’t figure out why because her crazy-ass giant fuchsia hat looks like the best part of the movie.

Also, not for nothing, whatever they’re wearing looks like it was on the clearance rack at JC Penney. From last spring.

But people tend to like InStyle‘s occasionally chilly aesthetic better than I do, so vote the heck out of it.

Am I being too harsh?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Fug file: Fug or Fab, Fug The Cover, ,
react:

Fug The Cover: Amanda Seyfried on InStyle

Dec 20, 2012 By Heather AT 8:00 am

In staring at this as long as I  have, I think I’m coming down on the “fug” side.

1. The color scheme is chilly enough that I actually just shivered.

2. Her posture and body position do NOT look comfortable, as if she’s being zapped with an electric cattle prod whenever she slides out of position. Her left arm looks like it’s there purely to brace her.

3. She doesn’t look unrecognizable, but Amanda doesn’t entirely look like herself, either. It’s not her most flattering angle. Her face is way more interesting than this mannequin-looking snooty expression.

4. Further, I’m afraid she’s about to smack my palm with a ruler. I don’t want to read about this stern person’s feelings on diets and dating, because I’m worried it will be an etiquette lecture.

5. There are a lot of exclamation marks here. Amanda Seyfried! 2o13! Fun to keep! Cozy at home! This is your year! Exclamation marks used thusly feel like false cheer. Don’t tell me how to feel, Instyle. And definitely don’t worry about being so peppy. You’re like Melissa Joan Hart in Can’t Hardly Wait, dragging the yearbook around to get everyone to sign it, and being incessantly perky about all the rejection until finally she snaps and starts shrieking and crying about how THESE ARE PRECIOUS MEMORIES! I’m scared you’re going to snap, InStyle, and I can’t decide if I want to be there to see it.

Fug file: Fugs, ,
react:

Fug the Covers: InStyle with GOOP and Halle

Nov 7, 2012 By Heather AT 8:00 am

I had this one in the hopper ages ago but kept forgetting about it, which ended up okay because InStyle served up another one in a similar vein. So, let us begin with Gwyneth on the October 2012 cover.

First, a detour, because you know we love cover lines. And this time, my favorite is the arbitrary italics on “15 Magic Pieces To Rework Your Wardrobe,” as if they were absolutely desperate to differentiate this from a competing piece called, “15 Magic Pieces To Rework Your Mother-In-Law’s Wardrobe,” which I believe led off Gentle Masochism magazine’s October issue. Also, aren’t stylists out of best-kept secrets at this point? Is that really an endlessly self-refreshing well? Honest question.

But what I really think when I look at this cover is: Janice Dickinson. Because on Top Model, Janice used to complain when the girls would pose like this, as she firmly and correctly believed that armpits are not attractive. And it’s true. Gwyneth is pretty; armpits are not. Even hers. This whole pose feels easy-breezy-CoverGirl in a way that Gwyneth herself really is not. And I don’t think InStyle’s readers particularly want her to be. Put her in this pose wearing a pair of Levi’s and a t-shirt, and it’s Good Housekeeping. Which is perfectly fine. But commercial, cheerful, sunshiney, regular-girl Gwyneth doesn’t feel like a fit with InStyle. Sure, it’s not Vogue, but neither is it a place you go for relatability. So while GOOP herself looks lovely, it’s just… strange. And pitty. Pits are for peaches, girl.

InStyle apparently really likes them, though. Here is November’s issue:

Read More

Fug file: Fug The Cover, , ,
react:

Fugs and Fabs: The InStyle Summer Soiree

Aug 10, 2012 By Heather AT 8:00 am
Malin Akerman
Kate WalshJaime KingAshley RickardsMarisol Nichols
21 photos in gallery

Based on the weather here, it should have been called the InStyle Surface of the Sun Soiree. Still, people managed to look fresh and unsticky, which is always an achievement. But were the efforts of their anti-perspirant sprays in service of good or evil? Observe.

[Photos: Getty]

Fug file: Photos, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
react:

Fug the Covers: Mila Kunis’s Australian Exploits

Jul 19, 2012 By Heather AT 12:00 pm

So, Mila Kunis isn’t having the best month of covers. First she got hosed into unrecognizability by Glamour, and then two magazines in Australia chimed in to make sure the rule of threes was in effect.

At least this FACIALLY looks like Mila, although her EXPRESSION suggests that she is extremely skeptical that: a $6.50 expenditure can make her richer; that a $9.99 accessory will change her wardrobe (is the subplot of this magazine, “Never spend more than $10″?); and that sixty seconds will make her look hotter. Unless you mean hotter as in sweltering, in which case, yes, I could go outside onto Madison Avenue and achieve that in about six seconds and then spend my extra fifty-four standing in front of a box fan. Further, Mila Kunis is someone who comes off in movies like she IS the coolest girl in Hollywood, and like your dream is to get stuck in an elevator with her and Emma Stone and then become besties and go shopping together and swap saucy stories about famous boys. The girl on this cover looks bored and kind of annoyed with you, and as if she would sit down in the stalled elevator the whole time stabbing angrily at her iPhone and pretending it was getting a signal. Finally, the unflattering melange of ruffles sits on her like armor. She’s so disconnected from it, as if she just stood there and someone snapped it onto her torso, took the shots, and then lifted it off and ushered in the next thing.

However, the Cleo cover is a dream to me compared to this horror:

Let’s hear it for InStyle Australia

Fug file: Fug The Cover, ,
react: