>> Anna Wintour really thinks outside the box when overseeing the cover shots for Vogue... She wore the same Prada dress to the BAFTAs that Natalie Portman wore on the March 2006 cover. Because you know, people in their twenties and people in their fifties should wear the same style of clothing.
Posts for March 2006
>> I am so happy right now. It looks like Marc Jacobs will NOT be using Lindsay Lohan for the fall Louis Vuitton ads after all. WWD says that talks between the two have "hit a snag and a replacement is still undecided." Hallelujah! Finally, things are going my way.
For his other two labels, Marc will be using Jennifer Jason Leigh shot by Juergen Teller (surprise!) for his Marc Jacobs ads, and Malgosia Bela for his Marc by Marc line -- she will be modeling both the men's and women's clothing, so that will be interesting to see.
>> Speaking of Balenciaga, I think it's always fun to see how much the clothing goes for. From this outfit on the left, for example, the jacket goes for $2,995, the top for $2,675, and the skirt $1,285. And you wonder why you never see outfits like these walking down the street... If had that outfit, it would be hanging in a glass case -- but what's the fun in that? More price points here, thanks to Jing.
>> We all know that I adore what Nic Ghesquiere has been doing lately, but this strikes me as a bit odd. Balenciaga is requesting of fashion editors that all designs from the Fall 2006 collection "be shot as complete looks to portray what was represented on the runway," WWD reports.
Not only that, but the fashion house is also asking that no accessories be shot without a total look -- unless it is a still life or a close-up shot. Where's your respect for creative license, Nic? I was looking forward to some great editorials with that beautiful clothing, but now I feel like they're all going to look the same!
>> We have been lucky to get a plethora of good covers this month. Forget May flowers, it looks as though April showers bring... pretty covers. I like the lighting and the colors used in this cover for Vogue Korea April 2006 shot by Joon Seok Oh. The whole aesthetic just makes Hye Park look really elegant.
>> So the April 2006 Vogue is supposed to be The Shape Issue, right? I was taking a look at this editorial called "Mythic Proportions" -- which is supposed to be the shape editorial in the magazine. The categories for the editorial are "thin," "tall," "short," "curvy," and "pregnant." Now with all due respect, the models used in this edit range from 5'6" - 5'11" in height. Since when was 5'6" "short"? It's a nice idea for Vogue to do the whole bodily conscious thing, but this editorial says to me that all women are either short (at 5'6") and thin, tall and thin, pregnant and thin, or just plain thin. That or you're curvy. Who is Vogue kidding, trying to be all body conscious, if this is their version of it? They only show the curvy model standing up once -- the other two times she is sitting down, hiding her curves. In my opinion, they should have just used Natalia Vodianova for the whole edit and saved some money -- she covers three of their five categories ("tall," "thin," "pregnant") in one fell swoop.
EDIT: It seems my source neglected to scan the "curvy" shots, but that issue has been rectified (Thank you, Faith!) -- so I had to rethink my reactions a bit. Sorry about the mix-up.
>> Seriously, Kate is everywhere, and it needs to stop. I'll make buttons, we'll do a protest, whatever it takes. The unemployment rate for other models must have gone up at least a couple of percentage points lately because in the last two months, I've seen Kate have editorials in W (March and April), V, UK Vogue, Vogue Italia... and now Harper's. I think I'm about ODed on Kate. Where's the variety? I'm in some serious need of spice of life.