Fug File: Vogue

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

Jul 27, 2012 By Heather AT 8:00 am

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

Fug file: Fug The Cover, ,
react:

Mostly Fab the Cover: Meryl Streep; Fug or Fab the Pics: Vogue itself

Dec 16, 2011 By Heather AT 10:00 am

So, let me begin by stating for the record that I love Meryl Streep, and I am thrilled Vogue finally put someone of her age and accomplishment level on the cover, after giving that platform to the same handful of predictably dull choices like Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger and Sarah Jessica Parker approximately eleven-hundred times. Frankly, it’s amazing to me that it took this long, although it feels like Vogue wants you to hug them for being so brave and then give them an award.

Even the layout appears to scream, “DO NOT FORGET WHAT WE HAVE DONE.” The number 50 is barking at us from the bottom left, as if to suggest, “50! As in, a smaller number than the age of the lady on the cover!” And there’s that story up by her face about flawless skin at any age. I feel like it’s yelling, “ANY AGE. EVEN MERYL’S, Y’ALL. BECAUSE IF YOU HAVEN’T HEARD, SHE’S OLDER THAN ANYONE WE’VE EVER PUT ON OUR COVER.”

But I’m conflicted. I do think Meryl looks good. And I don’t want Meryl to look like anyone other than Meryl. But I wonder if there was some acreage between “plonk Meryl on a rock” and “make Meryl look like Katy Perry.” Check out the other photo they’re distributing as part of the big cover coup:

Read More

Fug file: Fug The Cover, , ,
react:

Fug the Photoshoot: Glee

Aug 17, 2011 By Jessica AT 9:00 am

Dear Conde Nast:

[Click here if you want to see this in its ginormous glory.]

I understand the intense drive to Use the Magic of Computers to create a photo that Is Perfect. But you know that the over-reliance on Photoshop in the place of what used to be called JUST TAKING AN AWESOME PICTURE has turned photos like these into Frankenstein’s Monsters, right? No one’s legs are properly attached. People’s heads are just cut from one shoot and plopped into another. Like, Chord Overstreet back there? It looks like you just grabbed a rejected pic from his Teen Vogue shoot and pasted it into this one. Not a single person in this shot looks like they were ever in the same room as any other person in this shot. Dianna Agron is missing a leg and looks like a robot. Ashley Fink is a floating head in a top hat (no comment on the fact that it’s somewhat suspect that the plus size girl is stuck in the back where we can’t see her body at all, except I totally just made that comment). (And LOTS of comments on the fact that apparently Naya Rivera and Amber Riley were unable to make the shoot, which was then apparently not rescheduled to accommodate them. Look, I get that coordinating a shoot like this is probably a logistical clusterf…er, fiasco, but I also would just like to suggest that Vogue would be well-advised to be sensitive to the fact that they aren’t exactly known for featuring women of color and it might be in their best interests to make an effort to highlight the diversity of Glee‘s cast. Especially because Vogue is becoming increasingly obsolete for the sort of woman who used to read it regularly: AKA people who like outfits in general but who aren’t Eating-Breathing-Sleeping Fashion. You guys, when the economy is in the toilet, and the toilet is ON FIRE, maybe you shouldn’t even pretend to care if pretending to care takes the form of a feature called “Steal of the Month” and a “steal” is often, like, a $200 tee shirt. A $200 tee shirt IS NOT A STEAL WHY ARE YOU EVEN PRETENDING YOU KNOW ABOUT DEALS? MY GOD.) Anyway. Where was it? Oh, right: this picture! It’s SO manipulated in post that it doesn’t even look real, and because it doesn’t even look real, it utterly lacks charm. Slight imperfections are what make group photos charming — why do you think people post their old class photos on Facebook?

In short, Y’ALL NEED TO GET A GRIP AND PUT DOWN THE PASTE FEATURE.

Thank you for your kind attention,

Jessica

[Photo: Mario Testino/Vogue]

Fug file: Fugs, , , ,
react:

Fug or Fab: Sarah Jessica Parker, PLUS Fug the Cover

Jul 13, 2011 By Jessica AT 9:00 am

First of all: how adorable is James Wilkie?

What a cute little muffin he is. That hat kills me.

On to more important things. How adorable is her dress? (Imagine that being said in, like, a totally different intonation than the previous, rhetorical question of adorableness.) I know a lot of you in Fug Nation hated it — and I admit that I wonder what this outfit would look like if the dress were not of the maxi persuasion — but I kind of dig it. It’s easy. Breezy.

What do you think??

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Speaking of Cover Girl, let’s take a look at SJP’s August Vogue cover:

Beware: Ranting Ahead

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

Well Played Cover: Emma Watson

Jun 14, 2011 By Heather AT 12:00 pm

Judging by the tweets and e-mails we’ve been getting, I may be in the minority here, but I kind of LOVE this cover.

And my affection is not just because Vogue resisted the temptation to slap an arbitrary number on its Must-have Fall Looks feature (finally they realize that I’m not going to pick up this issue just because it’s finally five-hundred-seventy-two things). No, I just think Emma looks fabulous. Some people have been taken aback by the strong eyebrows, but I think her face takes all that makeup beautifully and her skin is terrific — the whole thing is kind of a great blend of commercial and high-fashion. When I look at her I see a weird amalgam of Kate Beckinsale, Jamie Lee Curtis in that scene in True Lies where she ham-handedly seduces Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a Robert Palmer girl, and yet she’s all that without rendering herself unrecognizable as Emma Watson. Further, Miss Tyra would be moved to incoherence over the expressiveness in her eyes, and A.L.T. would be like, “It’s like a bon-bon at a literary salon on the French Riviera of my wildest dreams,” and Nigel would be like, “You’re FANTASTIC” and undress her with his eyes, and then all the other girls would decide she doesn’t want to be America’s Next Top Model enough for their liking and backstab her into quitting the show in tears. In other words, perfection. Like gum.

Also, seriously, how does one decide an island is “best-decorated”? Does that mean hot natives, or just a really great eye for decorative rocks and throw-pillows?

Fug file: Fug The Cover, Well Played, , ,
react:

Please Explain to Me The Cover: Alexa Chung

May 31, 2011 By Jessica AT 2:00 pm

Here’s the thing: when you, Vogue UK, need to actually wonder, “What is it” about your cover girl, MAYHAP A COVER GIRL SHE SHOULD NOT BE. I’m just saying. Although the lack of question mark at the end of that phrase makes me think that perhaps Vogue is EXPLAINING WITHIN what, exactly, it is about Alexa Chung that leads editors to, say, put her on the covers of things, and ergo I need to run down to the newstand and plonk out the exorbitant price required to FIND OUT ONCE AND FOR ALL. I mean, she looks fine and all, but WHAT IS THE POINT?

Fug file: Fug The Cover, ,
react: