Fug or Fab the Cover: Anne Hathaway on Glamour


We’ve gotten a lot of requests from Fug Nation that we address this cover, and we hate to disappoint.

Let’s start with the good: Anne’s face looks gorgeous and fabulous, especially compared to the droopy dullard Vogue made her out to be. This is actually, energy-wise, the exact opposite. This person has been drinking carrot juice spiked with Red Bull; that other lady hasn’t stood up in three days because her servants are really good at peeling her grapes and giving sponge-baths. Second, her tank top is in support of Eve Ensler’s One Billion Rising campaign to educate people about — and call them to arms to fight — violence against women, and no one can argue the nobility of that message. So good for Glamour and Anne for getting the word out.

However, the rest of this seems like she’s about to pop on those giant headphones, put on some candy-pink legwarmers, and go for a jog that ends with impromptu jazzercise in the park, before maybe getting pulled on-stage with Bruce Springsteen during his “Dancing In The Dark” video. So essentially, she’s 1980s Courteney Cox right now. And that’s not necessarily bad. It might even be Fun. But full of Sex and Style it isn’t. Particularly when I can see her bra — it’s like a dark shadow undercutting her cause’s logo — and those granny panties are bunching all over her stomach. I don’t know. If she’d put on some pants, though, I’d kind of like to hang out with this genuinely smiley Anne. I could even deal with it if she didn’t put on pants, I suppose, as long as she bopped around all day with a Sports Walkman connected to the end of those headphones, because that would be hella entertaining. But I can’t help but wonder why they went to those weird styling extremes when that head, the tank top, and better decorations around it would’ve been appealing without the feeling of being a) in a time warp, or b) being too exhausted by her incomparable oozing energy even to heave the magazine off the newsstand.

What do you think?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
react:
Leave a reply

Comments (74):

  1. glee
    0

    I loved this cover when I saw the mag. Anne looks like she is having fun, and this is a (mostly – the pants, ahem) a wearable look. Where would you wear those knickers? (I am not going to go into that “sad” wardrobe malfunction. Ooops, I just did. Sorry!).

  2. diane
    0

    I’m pretty over Anne Hathaway. She brings out that smug look too often for me.

  3. pantsonfire
    0

    Eh. I’m not mad at it. I mean, I don’t necessarily think that girl-in-underwear-on-cover is the best fit for Glamour, but meh. Is this meant to be some kind of comment on the Maxim covers with their girls in underwear? Regardless, the outfit is cute and honestly, I think it feels A LOT more Anne Hathaway than a lot of the stuff she’s been wearing lately. I think she does a lot better with playful without being too serious.

  4. Kayley
    0

    My mom looked at this cover and said that she was shocked by the photo-shopping. I didn’t see it. Did this bother anyone else?

    • Helen
      0

      No, but if you don’t notice that Anne was leaning toward the camera when the shot was taken, the naturally resulting perspective could make things look out of proportion. They’re not really.

      I don’t think this was edited for any more than the occasional stray hair, small details like that.

    • ant
      0

      Absolutely! Horribly photoshopped! That was the second thing that struck me, right after the horror of the granny pants.

  5. Margo
    0

    The posture bothers me. It looks like she desperately needs to pee. And it looks like her face and body were in separate photos — differently lit and possibly shot from different distances (the head looks big for the body compared to other photos I’ve seen of her) before being combined.

    • Biddy
      0

      Exactly what I thought! She looks like she has to pee.

      And the body and head don’t match. And those shorts/underpants/undies are really stupid, also. This is a beautiful, adult woman. Why the Lolita look?

  6. Lizzy
    0

    Are those bedazzled granny panties? Oh hell no.

  7. Lucille Austero
    0

    Underpants. No.

  8. Stefanie
    0

    I love her head but I hate everything else. It looks like she’s wearing a fancy diaper and needs to poop.

  9. anny
    0

    Anyone else have a problem with the Vl’hurg battle shorts?

  10. PB
    0

    Sweet mother of god! Why?

  11. Helen
    0

    If I had seen this IN the early ’80s, I would have thought it was fabulous.

    Now? Not so much. It’s just, you know, the clothes, and accessories. Little things like that. ;-) And what’s up with the brick wall? Are we supposed to believe she wore this outside? Because no. No, no, no, no, no.

    They did do her face justice, at least!

  12. AM
    0

    It looks like she’s wearing old-fashioned underwear, (at least she’s wearing underwear) and needs to put her dress on. I just don’t get her appeal. I mean she was kind of cute in a few movies (Princess Diaries, etc.), but there are so many talented actresses who just don’t get her publicity.

  13. margaret
    0

    That headline for Hathaway’s article is too much: Hathaway! the Haircut! the Husband! …The Headphones! The Hideous panties!

  14. Helen
    0

    Also, is it even possible that the Top 10 Fashion Dos and Don’ts of 2012 are “Truly Epic”?

  15. luxsword
    0

    Funny, I saw it one hour ago on “photoshop disasters”. lol

  16. Fifie
    0

    Why is she wearing my old lady underwear?

  17. sarah
    0

    This would be awesome if it was a kicky little skirt and she was standing up straight. I love that she’s supporting One Billion Rising – good on you Anne!

  18. Rayna
    0

    Is it possible it’s a tank pulled over a bathing suit? My close up cam was inconclusive.

    That would be marginal, but at least not UNDERWEAR, which is supposed to go UNDER your clothes, hence the name.

    OTOH, at least she looks like herself, as opposed to the Vogue cover.

  19. Sarie
    0

    To me it looks like she is rollerskating. It’s a weird stance.

  20. b
    0

    agreed. her face looks incredible, but i harbor a lot of hatred for that get-up…i just don’t get it.

    garishismymiddlename@wordpress.com

  21. pagester
    0

    I really dislike her hair in this photo, and I am not a short-sassy-haircut-hater. But to me, she looks like a juicing (and I mean vegetables, not steroids), paleo-dieting, cross-fit trainer. Which is pretty much my vision of what hell will be like.

  22. sara
    0

    looks like they stuck her head on the body of an obnoxious teen (k.stew…is that you?)

  23. jean
    0

    I guess the smile is nice. Her eyes actually got smaller when she smiled, which is more realistic, but I hate hate hate her hair styling. Much too Pat Benatar. I hate the “pee” pose, although it is energetic. She looks like she’s wiggling. Okay, it’s a fun cover, just too, too busy. And that HAIR.

  24. A.J.
    0

    She looks like she’s in one of those maxi pad or underwear commercials in which women do things like paint a wall in their house or dance around in their house wearing only in their underwear.

    There was a scene in “Cabin in the Woods” where they made fun of this – girl packing for a weekend in her tank top and underwear (much like Anne up there), friends come in and get all plot exposition-y, and as they get ready to leave the guy says, “You DO know you’re not wearing pants, right?” LOL.

  25. ceecee
    0

    Suddenly, Olivia Newton John singing “Let’s Get Physical” is going through my head. All Anne needs to complete the look is a sweat band and leg warmers.

    • Scouse Helen
      0

      I thought Pat Benatar circa 1984 (head, not attire) but I can see where you’re coming from.

  26. McLisa
    0

    I just saw this downstairs on the newsstand and did a double-take because I TOTALLY thought this was Jamie Lee Curtis reliving her role as a sassy aerobics instructor in Perfect. Cripes.

  27. ljchicago
    0

    Been to a Jazzercise class lately? I go 3-4 times a week and people do NOT dress like that.

  28. Vandalfan
    0

    Her pose, or posture, or whatnot, kills this for me.

  29. Esme
    0

    Eww, her body looks weirdly truncated, and the face doesn’t look like hers (her eyes aren’t that close together, are they)?

  30. erratica
    0

    I can’t believe the mediocre reaction to this cover. It’s one of the best magazine covers I have seen in YEARS, and this is hands-down the best Anne Hathaway has ever looked.

  31. Gia
    0

    Is it just me, or if you squint does she look like young Liza Minnelli? Maybe it’s just the hairstyle. Surely, though, they could have caught her in a more flattering pose.

  32. Cassie
    0

    The longer I look at it, the more it looks like those aren’t really her legs. They look like . . . I dunno. Maybe it was a pencil skirt that they decided looked janky in editing and decided, “man, let’s just ‘shop in legs so it looks like those bloomers. People wear those still, right?”

    She does look happy and healthy and all, though, so good for her and them.

  33. TonyG
    0

    She’s giving great face!!

  34. Lilibet
    0

    What happened to looking like a grown-up?

    • Janice
      0

      Or dignity. I miss dignity.

      I can do without pictures of stars in their underwear.

  35. Melissa
    0

    The proportions and perspective freak me out here. Whether it’s photoshopping or not, her body looks bizarre to me.

  36. SPM
    0

    Her eyes are red. Not the whites, the actual part containing color, which I heretofore thought was brown.

    It’s striking, actually.

  37. Mack
    0

    When I saw this cover from across the room, I thought it was Rachel Maddow. I think that should be taken as a compliment to Rachel, and a sign that Anne needs to grow out her hair ASAP.

  38. Sajorina
    0

    I like it, but it looks more like a Seventeen cover than a Glamour cover! Anyway, good for Anne!

  39. Carolina Girl
    0

    It says something pretty depressing about America in general and Hollywood in particular that an A-list actress like Anne Hathaway (love her or hate her, she’s on the A-list) has to dress up like a glorified Hooters waitress on the cover of a national magazine.

  40. Mary
    0

    Remember Steel Magnolias? When Dolly Parton cut Juila Roberts hair short?
    Am I the only one seeing that???

  41. ellenderavenous
    0

    I feel like I’m looking at Alyssa Milano circa “Whos the Boss?”

  42. Maura
    0

    It looks like they stuck her head on a picture of Kristen Stewart.

  43. Celeste
    0

    Wow! I never realized her torso was 3 inches long.

  44. cc
    0

    This cover is so awkward. She is no Annie from the Block.

  45. Lo peor
    0

    She looks like Frank’n Furter, with less make up.

  46. YouKnowIt
    0

    Get Over It, fug nation! Face the facts: Anne looks amazing. Her cut kills it. Her makeup has never looked more gorgeous. You even wanted to hate on her WEDDING headdress, which we got to see the official wedding picture, looked ravishing…not to mention spectacularly unique and atop perhaps the most beautiful wedding gown the world has ever seen. When you continually pick away at details that aren’t relevant and can’t diminish her insane beauty–one of the above comments ACTUALLY tried to hate on this look because it has airbrushing involved…uhhhh, did you just get back to earth after a couple of decades in orbit? The last thing that made it to the public eye without an airbrush was the legendary photo of the now-known-as “National Geographic Woman.” Anne is totally gorge and has been fabbing it up. Deal.

    • Mary
      0

      Uhhh… did you just get back to earth and discover this site? Positive or negative – comments and critique are what Fug Nation is all about.

  47. michel
    0

    looks very nice! found the project with a gift for the new year, I hope it will be my kalabashki_net in principle promising, there are still people who are not only about himself, had contributed

  48. Tamburlaine
    0

    Anne looks gorgeous. Her outfit, less so.

  49. Janice
    0

    If she supports One Billion Rising, at least Anne could stand up straight.

    Also, if that is her body, it was taken from a different picture. The proportions and the angle of the head are slightly off.

    The only other explanation I can think of is the photoshopper decided to embiggen her head, so it would show up better on the cover.

    • Helen
      0

      I really think it’s the perspective, because she’s leaning forward. You can adjust for that using the right lens and angle to shoot from, and mainly by not being too close, but this photographer didn’t.

      I’m pretty sure the same photographer, or someone who went to the same omitting-the-basics school, just did the same thing to Amanda Seyfried, only with her it’s her feet that are closer to the camera rather than her head:

      http://gofugyourself.com/fug-the-cover-amanda-seyfried-on-instyle-12-2012

  50. Claire
    0

    I had this magazine in my car for a week and every time I got in and looked at it I just wasn’t happy. She looks so out of her element. I agree her face looks gorgeous but that outfit is so not her. She looks like she’s in a hip hop video from the 80′s and is about to DJ. I hate it. It even contemplated sending Glamour a message but I realized I had more important things to do. It’s just an awful cover.

  51. Maria L.
    0

    I think it looks like she is about to tackle a very large wedgie and is smiling like that to distract us.

  52. caroline
    0

    Go away Anne. For a LONG time.

  53. caroline
    0

    It feels like that girl from Girl w dragon Tattoo…TOO MUCH OF YOU!!! PLus…sorry but you are acty acty and if they give you an Oscar you HAVE to know it is because of a marketing campaign on steroids. Hello Liza Minelli part II. Ugh. Just…stop it.

  54. Gabfest
    0

    Does she seem like the kind of person who would use DJ headphones? NO. I’m also surprised that after Ann’s recent foray sans panties that news wires didn’t drag THIS photo out to prove that she is indeed a woman of extremes when it comes to underwear. Bridget Jones eat your heart out. Those are some granny panties!

  55. caitlin
    0

    i hate how un anne this is..she isn’t a fifteen year old and seems weirdly creepy and unauthentic…especially when they are pushing sex on the cover..also it just looks inexpensive and cheap! dont really want to know their style tips if this your cover choice…

  56. Milagros
    0

    I’ve read a few good stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how much attempt you set to create this type of wonderful informative site.

    Have a look at my webpage … usa casino no deposit bonus codes

  57. Lily1214
    0

    Her smile salvages it all. She always has a beautiful smile that would maybe melt cement.

  58. Sundance4me
    0

    The hills are alive…. with the sound of muuusic… oh, no, I thought she was old Julie Andrews.! Wait untill she goes blonde, she’s the 2.0 clone.

  59. Sundance4me
    0

    No, no. I wish. I really think she’s very similar to Julie Andrews, in a non-physical way. All the smiling, the same stiffness while acting… She’s not nice and warm for me, but overdoing it. Sorry, I’m not a fan. The clothes are perfectly fine. Looks like a Nylon cover

  60. Claire
    0

    What? Are you high?