Fug the Cover: Rooney Mara


Who had Mara in the 2013 Vogue cover pool? Everyone, check your ballots! (Next year, I’m going to figure out how to make handicapping Vogue covers a contest; it looks like, so far, Fug National Emma is the only one who called Rooney.)

Leaving aside the fact that she is wearing a fishing net — it’s Vogue, and sometimes nets are worn! Even I realize that these are things that happen — can we just talk about how apparently the Powers That Be had a whole conversation about how consumption is totally hot for spring? Everyone, throw out your smoky eye palate and get out your feverish one!

[Cover: Vogue.com]

 

react:
Leave a reply

Comments (55):

  1. Willow
    0

    There seems to be a bizarre amount of text surrounding her face, it’s like I’m looking at her through a bowl of Alphabetti Spaghetti.

    It’s very cluttered and the red netting is not helping.

    • Miranda
      0

      The text, combined with the wisps of hair on her face, keep giving me the impression she’s wearing some sort of insanely elaborate headpiece. Seriously, every time I see it in thumbnail/out of the corner of my eye, I’m like WHAT IS THAT THING ON HER HEAD?

  2. Trace
    0

    She really does have the most perfect skin – I noticed that during Oscar season last year. It’s like porcelain.

  3. Sara
    0

    This cover seems odd to me because of the whole “AMERICAN” theme, but Rooney Mara is the last “all-american woman” I’d think of (and I have a feeling a lot of America wouldn’t recognize her, either) — and that’s not a bad thing, it’s just kind of confusing they’d put her on the cover with this huge headline.

  4. Vee
    0

    She looks like Loki.

  5. Edith
    0

    Maybe the editors just had the flu? By selling us all on “consumptive,” they can swan about NYC and still appear fabulously chic when they’re desperately sick.

    (Totally agree with Willow about the cluttered layout, too.)

  6. Miss Louise
    0

    I think she looks great, although a little melancholy perhaps, and I’m quite partial to that fishing net. She does consumptive better than most.

  7. Orange Clouds
    0

    She looks old in that photo.

  8. amys
    0

    PALE FIRE, getcher freakin’ bangs outta yer face.

  9. ProudMary
    0

    agree, why did the cover text have to go on her face? otherwise, I actually think she looks great, I like the subdued make-up, nice to see her look softer.

  10. Muriel
    0

    Am I the only one who thought of Kristin Scott Thomas when they saw the cover?

    • mary lou bethune
      0

      Probably… Kristen has such big eyes. Rooney ( silly name, that) is pretty but does she deserve all this attention – I don’t see a red hot career. I red hot c areer is Hilary Clinton swatting the committee today.

      • Sandra
        0

        Hey now, take it easy on the name. Rooney is her middle name and also a family name on her mother’s side. Her mother’s people own the Pittsburgh Steelers and her father’s family own the New York Giants. Girlfriend is lucky she wasn’t christened “Mean Joe Lawrence”

        • Heather
          0

          I actually love the name Rooney. I love it even MORE because every time I see her I think, “Mr. Rooney…. ED… you’re a beautiful man. I want to thank you for your warmth and compassion.”

        • Mare
          0

          ^^^^ funny!

    • Carol
      0

      That’s exactly who I thought of … they could be sisters … or mom/daughter … very strong resemblance … and, also agree her skin is amazing.

    • Alicia
      0

      Nope – I thought Kristen Scott Thomas too.

  11. Elissa
    0

    I read through this last night, and more than anything else, I was struck by the incredibly offensive shoot they did for Hurricane Sandy. Models posing with relief workers, firefighters, coast guard, etc? Seemed in incredibly poor taste.

    • Jessica
      0

      I posted that in Fugs and Pieces Friday. IT IS TERRIBLE. So tone deaf and ridiculously tasteless.

    • Faye
      0

      I had the same reaction, but as a former NYC resident I realized it was the City I was really angry at. Vogue is always going to be completely dissociated from reality — anyone else remember that tongue-bath piece on the Assads that came out right around the time he ramped up his genoicide of his own countrymen?– but the City services departments really should have known better than to participate in this. They shot this right around the time that many people still had no power, water, etc., and to devote time and energy to this nonsense piece instead of doing their *actual* jobs is, IMO, indefensible.

      • Vandalfan
        0

        I have to say I was hesitant, but quite impressed with the “offensive” NYC spread, with all the heros, especially the shot of the nurses and doctors. I don’t see exploitation; those folks deserve to be in Vogue as much as movie stars and very very rich girls.

  12. Sandeep
    0

    Looks like Emily Blunt a little, pretty face!

  13. TonyG
    0

    What beautiful green eyes she has. Never noticed them before.

    • Chasmosaur
      0

      That was my takeaway from this – I’d never noticed either.

      Also, can we hope she’s growing out her hair and going back to her pretty brown color? It suits that skin and green eyes so much more than the I’m-campaigning-for-my-Oscar-by-staying-in-Lisbeth-Salander-character black crop.

  14. caroline
    0

    I love this cover, think it’s a nice flashback to 90s chic, and refreshing to see a new photographer as well (David Sims). I’m welcoming any sign of evolution at Vogue!

  15. CJG
    0

    Have she and Tom Hiddleston ever been in the same room?

  16. Heather
    0

    Pale Fire is the dumbest thing ever. I really believe this.

    • amys
      0

      is PALE FIRE the name of her next film or just what a random Vogue editor dubbed her for the cover? And yah have to admit, pretty green eyes under those stringy, windy, wayward bangs.

      • Katie
        0

        I think it’s a play on the next dragon tattoo movie: The Girl Who Played with Fire. It’s still silly.

        I find it hilarious that ever since her Lisbeth Salander makeover, Rooney Mara has become sooo mysterious and unique and HIGH FASHION. Before all that, she had a very bland girl next door look and was about as interesting as chewing gum. Now? She’s pale fire. Ugh.

  17. Chrissy
    0

    I don’t like the hair in her eyes.

    • Cas
      0

      The hair in the face is bothering the hell out of me. It looks like some hair is in her eyeball. I hate this whole shot. zzzzzz

  18. Roosje
    0

    The tag line saying “mysterious ways” is utterly hilarious to me for reasons I can’t quite work out.

  19. Kerri
    0

    I think she looks beautiful.

  20. Sara
    0

    I can’t be the only person who thinks she looks amazing right?

    • Katharine
      0

      She looks amazing, but the whole composition of the cover with the rampaging text and her face positioned so that she looks as though she’s peering out of a tiny uncomfortable box is giving me indigestion.

  21. Esme
    0

    I love her looks, but she comes off as a very attractive 40-year-old here. The text doesn’t really bother me; it doesn’t seem any worse than it is on most mags.

  22. colleen
    0

    She looks pretty but I really thought it was Mischa Barton at first!

  23. junior
    0

    This is so an Allure cover and so not a Vogue cover. This isn’t even an old-school Vogue cover because if it were, she’d be smiling and there’d be an umbrella somewhere. It’s like they go out of their way…

  24. gryt
    0

    I like it! If nothing else for the fact that it doesn’t follow the compulsary from waist-up smiling woman shot formula of ALL women’s magazine covers. Look at a magazine stand – they all follow that formula! (Men, on the other hand, don’t need to smile on mag covers.)

    Also, I covet that coral fishnet thing.

  25. Spider
    0

    I’m seeing Lee Pace’s pretty green-eyed sister. The only thing I’d change is to get the wisps of hair out of her eyes.

  26. Helen
    0

    Such a pretty girl, and you’d never know it from this photo. She does look consumptive! And like she’s about to burst into tears. And the text is overcrowded, and overcrowding her, and the shirt is stupid.

    They really did everything wrong here.

    Nice to see her natural hair color making a comeback, though.

  27. Veronica
    0

    When I saw this on the news stand, I thought to myself that the Fug Girls were bound to have WORDS about it. The larger problem of the cover is the crowding. There’s just too much text and its placement is all wrong. Otherwise, the only problem I have with her styling is the makeup. The brown they used around her eyes has a slight plum undertone, which gives the appearance of under eye circles and exhaustion. I’m an pale brunette, myself, and I find that burgundies and plums easily overwhelm the eyes – at the least, they shouldn’t have pulled it below the lower lash line. (I do really like the lip color they used on her, though!)

    Actually, the longer I look at it, I feel like the soft, romantic makeup clashes with the harsh red of the texts and the dress/shirt/whatever she’s wearing. A deep wine or burgundy would have flattered her much better.

    • Sajorina
      0

      I’m also a pale brunette and NEVER wear eyeshadow under my lower lashes!

  28. Sajorina
    0

    I actually LOVE the cover picture, but really, Vogue? You couldn’t make the words smaller so they didn’t interfere with her face?! So stupid!

  29. Vandalfan
    0

    I think Vogue needs to go back to focusing on clothing and fashion, and not profiling pop stars. A nice model on the cover, full length, in one of Karl’s impossible get-ups.