Fug File: Fug The Cover

Fug or Fab the Cover: Margot Robbie on Vogue, June 2016

Well, it’s certainly no accident that on the “golden summer” cover, with a story about bronzer, Margot Robbie looks like she is auditioning for a Goldfinger remake.

Margot Robbie on Vogue, June 2016

It’s not a terrible cover, in the sense that I DEFINITELY feel the advent of summer. But I think painting Margot Robbie so heavily in this artificial, blinding, reflective fake tan actually just washes out her looks. For comparison, look at this photo of her from April:

"Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" World Premiere - Arrivals

I just think she looks better when she’s allowed to have some variety. On the Vogue cover, I just want to run over to her and offer her some SPF and a parasol.

[Photos: Vogue, Getty]


Fug or Fab the Covers: The Ghostbusters on Elle, July 2016

Whether you like this or not, it IS about time someone put Leslie Jones on a magazine cover.

[Photos: Elle]


Well Played Cover: Kerry Washington in Dolce & Gabbana, and Aziz Ansari, on Variety

How cute is this?

Sure, I could mean the cover as a whole — it is charming as hell — but mostly, I mean Kerry’s dress. It’s like the world’s most fantastic backsplash, and I hope you know me well enough by now to realize that “your day dress would make a FANTASTIC BACKSPLASH” is one of the very highest compliments I can pay anyone. We should all be wearing that and drinking a fruity cocktail by a pool. It’s summer in a dress, and she looks divine.


Well Played Cover: Helena Bonham Carter on UK Harper’s Bazaar

I LOVE these covers. This first one is for subscribers:


And this is the newsstand version:


I love them both. They manage to be creative, and haughty, and beautiful, and weird, all at the same time — and god knows, I love a good hedge row. They didn’t buff out her weirdness, but the clothing that she is wearing is both beautiful and very classic. And, not for nothing, I always appreciate it when the actress on the front of my fashion magazine is older than I am. This hardly ever happens. So, I raise my Pimm’s to you, HBUK: This looks deliciously worthy of a poolside read.

(PS: you should read the interview over at Harper’s Bazaar, where it is noted, “The rest of [HBC] is clad in dusty, Victorian-inspired black: a ruffled coat, a lace blouse with a punkish zip, a tasselled kilt and knee socks with little ribbon garters holding them up. Her wild bush of hair has been carelessly piled on top of her head and accessorised with a floral bow. ” This is ALL THAT I WANT from HBC; how deliciously on-brand she is.)

[Photos: Harper's Bazaar UK, photographed by Tom Craig]


Fug and Fab the Covers: Various International Vogues

I haven’t done this feature in a while, which means we have so much to discuss.

[Photos: various Vogues]


Royally Played: The Duchess of Cambridge Covers British Vogue, June 2016

Well! I did not expect to see this screaming down the intertubes when I was sitting around eating frozen waffles and watching Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, but thank goodness I was home to bring it to you IMMMMMMEDIATELY, so we can discuss!  The Daily Beast has a good primer on how this all came about, and British Vogue’s long history with royal portraiture, but, in short, this shoot was done in partnership with the National Portrait Gallery, of which Kate is the patron, and I’ve decided she figured this was a good way to replace her HIDEOUS PORTRAIT there with something more flattering. (I mean, it’s OFFICIALLY in honor of British Vogue turning 100, but let’s get real. Last time we were at the NPG, her portrait was “out for cleaning.” Girlfriend has been trying to distract from that thing for the last five years.)

Anyway, per Vogue’s own piece about this, which is actually quite interesting, these shots were taken in Norfolk, and they do totally feel like Posh Country Living (“one of my favorite genres,” she said, wiping a bit of peanut butter off her sofa cushions). Apparently, there are several more snaps in the spread, which we’ll all get to see when the issue comes out on May 5th, at which point I obviously will have to put on pants and shuffle over to my international newsstand and more fully investigate. Until then, let’s eyeball these, shall we?

PS: It goes without saying, of course, that the fact that these are going to be on display in London at the National Portrait Gallery, one of my favorite museums ever, like a week after we left London makes me want to drown myself in a vat of Pimms. Although I guess I often want to dive into a vat of Pimms, so….yeah, carry on.

Also of interest, while we’re on the subject:

We saw those Diana covers while we were in London at Kensington Palace’s fashion exhibit, but the Anne ones, you guys. I NEED TO KNOW MORE. I’m real concerned about her hat. (If you click on the embedded tweet, FYI, it will take you to the tweet itself, and you can scroll though the actual covers.)

[Photos: British Vogue]


Fug the Cover: Maisie Williams on Nylon

I get this. It’s supposed to recall the zines of the 90s, especially in the sense that the photo looks as if it’s been cut and pasted — literally. The way we literally used to have to cut things out and paste them onto other things. Kids, you don’t even KNOW.


The reason I get it is because I lived through the early 90s. And while I did not personally read a lot of zines –  procuring them seemed like a lot of work, and I’ve always been in favor of having things just arrive at my home, which is why I am such good friends with my UPS guy — I did live very close to a Penny Lane, and also I read Sassy and also I went to a school where plenty of girls spent a lot of time wearing Doc Martens and talking about Earth Day, so I am very familiar with this particular retro milieu. (For example, I could expound at length about that time Sonic Youth gave Sassy a recipe for tacos using butter and canned tuna, a recipe so bizarre and memorable that I have never forgotten it, and it’s been TWENTY YEARS.) So I FEEL THIS. However, my own personal Old Lady Instinct is that, now, in 2016, this sort of intentionally home-made look only really works if the person in question looks super dynamic in her cut-and-pasted photo, and slack-jawed Maisie Williams in her underpants feels a little more blank than she ought to. I have to think she pulled this cover out of the mailbox and thought, “THAT photo? Really? Okay, then!” I get what they were going for, but I think the place they landed turned out to be more blow-up-doll-adjacent than was intended — in a way that I don’t think fits either her or the publication.

On the other hand, I’m also not the demographic for this sort of thing at all anymore, so what do I know? Well, wait. I do know one thing: regardless of the rest of this cover, that sweater is cute.