Author Archives: Heather

Fugtrospective: Taylor Swift’s Met Gala Gowns


T.Swizz here is the co-chair of Monday’s Met Gala, the theme of which this year is — ahem — “Manus x Machina: Fashion in an Age of Technology, highlighting the intersection of fashion and tech in today’s world.” (So get ready for a lot of LED dresses, basically.) Just for fun, as we prepare for whatever Taylor has in store — for some reason I’m predicting a Tron vibe from her — let’s take a look back at all of her Met Gala ensembles. Pick your fave.

Loading ... Loading ...

[Photos: Getty, Fame/Flynet]

react:

Fug or Fun: Jessica Biel in Chanel


I went with “fug or fun” as the header here because while I don’t think this is a full-on Well Played, it’s at least incredibly cheerful:

Jessica Biel

It’s separates, and I think I’d have liked them better if she’d, say, paired the shirt with some skinny pants, or tucked a crisp white shirt of some ilk into the skirt. When you put them together it starts to feel a little dated to me, like she bought them at some dusty old store in the mall called Zazzy. However, three cheers for the fact that she’s in a completely kid-friendly ensemble at a kid-based event at her kid-based restaurant. And also for the shoes. Never forget to applaud a well-deployed blue shoe.

[Photo: Getty]

react:

Well Played, Hamilton Cast: The Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS performance


In which our intrepid Pulitzer winner and his cast reimagine the opening number of Hamilton to be about Sweeney Todd, Fleet Street’s worst hairdresser.

It almost — almost – makes me wish everyone would use the Tonys to reinterpret each other’s musicals. Nobody does a loving ribbing of its own quite like Broadway. That’s why, for my money, the Tonys are the best award show of the bunch. The Globes are drunk and weird and trying to be everything to everyone. The Grammys are bloated. The Oscars are tortured, do nothing to celebrate the medium in a true way, and only seem to care about setting ratings records. No other show celebrates its medium as respectfully, yet with such a mischievous sense of humor, as the Tonys. And nominations come out next week, I believe…

react:

Fug or Fab the Trailer: The Ab Fab Movie


Featuring Jon Hamm, Kate Moss, and a peek at the most likely future for me and Jessica — including Stella McCartney throwing a brick through the window.

react:

Well Played: Ariana Grande in Christian Siriano at the Time 100 Gala


Well, we still have the ponytail, so that’s not ideal (she must not have gotten the Full Updo memo that went to Nicki Minaj and Priyanka Chopra). But I actually enjoy this on her.

GettyImages-524666128

Ariana Grande is a tiny, tiny little tiny person, but she’s not allowing herself to get lost in that fudge cream puff of a dress. Also, the Time 100 has to be a big deal to her. It’s a proper grown-up event full of proper grown-up people, unlike pretty much every music industry award show. And she is treating it a bit like her Oscars. Which I like. Go big or go home, and I’m glad she picked the former. Instead of tottering out in a strapless short cocktail frock and 5-inch platform stilettos, and inducing a yawn, she opted for the kind of gown that seizes this moment and feeds it carbs and Champagne and a sandwich and just bloats the HELL out of it.

A front view for your consideration

react:

Unfug or Fab: Priyanka Chopra at the Time 100 Gala


I’m on board with this in the abstract.

Priyanka Chopra

But does it seem like the devil is in the details here? The front of the blazer looks… fine? … but the cut of the sleeves, namely the one on the right, is Janky Supreme. The pants aren’t much better. They’re bunchy and creased and imprecise, like it’s the first time the designer had ever even TRIED to understand how trousers work. Priyanka Chopra’s first Time 100 Gala doesn’t seem like a place where you want a suit virgin to have a First Time.

And speaking of the devil, and details, can we talk about how bad Quantico is? The first half of the season was pretty weak — like, why didn’t they make the present-day stuff five years in the future instead of just nine months, so that they had more TIME for all these Where Are They Now scenarios to play out? Why was all the hair on that one actor’s face — including stubble — EXACTLY the same length? Why does that one character wear SO MUCH MAKEUP and HUGE FALSE EYELASHES for all her training? Why did no one have chemistry? But it got even worse at the midseason break. What school suddenly has a new class that’s ONE MONTH ahead of the new recruits (especially when Wikipedia can tell you they do classes in ten-week bursts only four times a year)? Worse, a class our idiot-heroes had never heard of, with people none of them had ever seen or spoken to before? And what show goes to that lengths of absurdity to introduce new characters, only to make those characters THE WORST and so boring and terrible? Why is Alex ACTUALLY DOING A TERRORIST’S BIDDING? What the hell is even happening on it anymore?

[Photo: Getty]

react:

Fug the Show: Outlander recaps, “Not in Scotland Anymore” and “Useful Occupations and Deceptions” (S2 E2 and E3)


This is long, I know — it’s two episodes rolled together — but there is LOTS of eye candy thanks to the costuming. Not just That Red Dress, but also the nippletastic gown an extra wears at Versailles, a wet wig, and a great robe. Also, there are dildos. They appear on slide nine, and they’re not in USE or anything, but they are there — so blow past… er, shoot past… oh, never mind. Skip it if you need. They are intricate dildos, and we appreciate intricacy in all its forms, but I understand that not everyone’s workplaces will value an artistic sexual aid.

You should know that Terry Dresbach has been posting some amazing content pertaining to her Outlander work, beginning with this analysis of what they did in episode one (our recap lives here) and an extensive Mood Board for the whole season. Her piece about these episodes links a particular costume to a Christian Dior design of the 1940s, with this nifty analysis: “In season two Claire has made the choice not to go back to the 1940s. [...] There is a commitment to a time a place and a marriage. She is committing to remaining in a time that is not hers. But the heart of the story is still Claire, and how she maintains that heart in another century. This is not the story of the woman who gives up her identity easily. So it seemed essential that once again we look back to the 1940s for our inspiration.” This stuff really appeals to the side of me that did so much historical research for our alternate Royal We family tree.

As usual: If you’ve read the books, please refrain from discussing events that are coming. Events that have already transpired, and the differences in how they’re portrayed, are totally fair game as long as they don’t tip what’s coming. Thank you!

react: