Fug the Cover, then Better Played: Emma Stone on Vogue

We got a lot of questions about this cover when we were in Boston, and we realized we accidentally hadn’t posted it. So here is the remedy:

Facially, Emma looks pretty as ever, but the zombie eyes are really distracting. Emma Stone is pretty much brimming with personality. She’s overflowing with it. So it’s unfathomable to me that Vogue found a way to suck out her spark. It’s further disappointing that they felt compelled to sex her up by sticking her in glorified lingerie (or whatever the heck that is), because Emma Stone is someone who has proven she can carry off more advanced fashion. She can be a lot more interesting, overall, than this cover is allowing her to be. And that is a shame, because — and this is an old refrain — isn’t the benefit of having Emma Stone on your cover the ability to play on people’s fascination with how spunky and inviting her natural personality is? Why not magnify that instead of making her look like somebody’s bored, bland mistress?

Problematically, too, I am not crazy about the garment. It’s super disturbing to me that the negligee (or dress, or camisole, or whatever it is) has that flesh-toned satin piece that I keep, at first passing glance, thinking is her rib cage. It is NOT, and I am not getting into body-shaming here; Emma Stone is lovely, and that is fabric, not her body. But if you’re, say, a nine-year old girl, or even a twenty-year old one, and you’re meandering past the checkout line with your mom and you catch a glimpse of this but can’t stop to stare, you might think, “Oh, look, that girl’s ribcage is on the cover of Vogue,” and that could end up in a bad place. The whole thing seems… well, I would say tone-deaf, but I don’t think they did it on purpose. Perhaps unfortunate is a better word.

Look how much better Vogue UK did:

It’s not super snooty Important Photography, or anything — it almost looks Seventeen-esque, which is not by definition a bad thing; it’s just younger than Vogue¬†skews — but there’s a fun sense of mischief in her eyes, and I kind of dig that sweater, and basically, the whole thing makes diving into her mind and her world seem a lot more sassy and appealing. This Emma is the one I’d want to get coffee with after we’ve spent all day creating our own shopping montage — you know, where she would probably try on a hundred things only she could afford, and I’d be the friend sitting on the fancy white leather ottoman outside the changing room of Fancy-Pants Clothing Store, shaking my head or laughing or nodding with surprise approval and then occasionally surprising her by donning a hilarious hat. I’m sure this is a very gauche association for Vogue, but whatever. It trumps Boudoir Zombie.

Leave a reply

Comments (44):

  1. Patrick

    She looks like she’s about to cry on that first cover, potentially foreseeing the future of this very cover and realising they were going to airbrush her into looking like one of Spencer Pratt’s victims/girlfriends who’d only narrowly escaped the crazy farm thanks to her ability to eat brains. (I maybe should not indulge a liquid lunch feeling on a Friday).

  2. Sandra

    She’s entitled to have whatever hair color she likes, and it think this is her natural color or close to it, but I love her as a red-head. She does have dead eyes in the American Vogue cover and that is a stupid shame. If you want a fembot, get somebody else. If you want Emma, show us Emma as her sparkling witty self. That’s what young’uns should have for a role model and besides, she’s so damn pretty that way.

  3. Other Emily

    That camisole-thingie with the skin color is so disturbing! You could never body-shame Emma Stone, she’s perfect, but that fabric does look like her ribcage and it’s distracting and awful-looking. And Patrick is right, she does look like she’s going to cry.
    On the other hand, she is adorable and sassy (even though I find the hat questionable) on the second cover. I don’t know why they can’t get this right. I can barely stand to buy magazines anymore for the horrible ways they mutate beautiful women on their covers.

  4. Jacquilynne

    I get the exact same look on my face as in that first cover when I have really, really painful gas.

  5. Kara

    I third the “she looks like she’s going to cry in the first cover” sentiment. My first thought was “Why does she look so sad?” My second was “Is she just in her bra with a sweater over it?” I completely thought the dress/nightgown/lingerie-thing was her rib cage, between the color and the way it hangs – there’s some wrinkling in the fabric that looks like ribs.

  6. Mahastee

    Vogue being Vogue, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they deliberately photo-shopped in the silky ribcage. Also, seeing how they are going on about SUMMER and FALL, I wish the color scheme was warmer, blush & beige make me want to cut myself.

    I love how they have played up her eyes in the UK version – the blue is probably photo-shopped as well (sigh) but in a more inviting way. Anyway. I love that mod outfit, minus the silly locket.

  7. Stefanie

    I do not like sad Emma at all. Also, the fabric totally threw me off as well. All I could think was “She didnt take her clothes off while getting naked with Ryan Gosling, why would she do it on the cover of a magazine?”

    The second is better. But I would make fun of her hat irl.

    • ibrewpotions

      Seriously that hat looks like couture newsboy, WHICH IS NOT A GOOD THING

      • Frances

        I like the hat and I would totally talk her in to buying it, then borrow it from her the moment she starts having second thoughts about it. :)

  8. bambi_beth

    Emma always makes me want to wear coral lip color. This is a bad idea for me, but always a good one for her. Perhaps we could add some to the first cover. That way her hair, skin, lips, sweater, and satin wouldn’t all be the same shade as the background? It couldn’t hurt.

  9. M.Amanda

    Now I can’t unsee the “going to cry” expression.

    Initially, I thought that was her ribcage and wondered how Vogue could be so… insensitive? Irresponsible? Even knowing that it’s just an unfortunately good match for her skin-tone, I don’t like the stying. It doesn’t fit Emma Stone’s image and perhaps would be more fitting on another, more risque magazine.

  10. Edith

    I fear the sweater/blanket material is part of the garment (on the US cover). It’s lingerie by Snuggie(tm)…..

  11. Gail

    She looks like Mrs. Robinson. Surely they can find a way of avoiding making her look like the girl next door without making her look like the desperate housewife next door?

  12. vinniepop

    I think we need to add “Boudoir Zombie” to the list of GFY’s fake band names. That one’s a keeper!

  13. Annie R

    1st thought on seeing picture was “maybe LiLo is finally cleaning her act up”…sorry emma, but you are just way too good for this kind of imaging by am vogue :(

    • Kate

      That’s funny. It was the second photo that evoked LiLo for me.

      • Anna

        I thought the second photo was LiLo too. I thought wow, this is what she would look like if she stayed clean.

        • Sophia Loren

          I also thought the US Vogue was showcasing herculean clean-up efforts on the part of Lindsay Lohan.

  14. Claire L1

    She confirms how much I want freckles…..
    you can’t even FAKE freckles!

    I love the second picture….but she does look a little like Kate Moss to me.

  15. Edan

    Looks like Jeri Ryan on cover #1. Who is also very pretty…but uh, not Emma Stone.
    On #2, she looks more like herself, but the Lohan TM thumb-nibble is upsetting/distracting.

  16. ??

    Late onset Lesbianism? What the what UK Vogue?

    • Other Emily

      OHMYGOD I didn’t even notice that. That is…terrible. Honestly terrible.

  17. Stephanie

    The second cover is fantastic, if only because it looks like the cover of a Vogue knitwear pattern book at Jo-Ann Fabrics. I think it’s the hat that does it.

  18. laziza

    Those last two sentences are possibly the greatest thing ever written.

  19. Evalyn

    Dear Heather: It’s the cover photo on an international fashion/style magazine. Of. Course. it’s on purpose.

    • GFY Heather

      Really? I don’t know about that — I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t intend the satin to look like an emaciated ribcage.

  20. Lily1214

    She looks very nice.

  21. Evalyn

    The UK cover is a la Twiggy.

  22. Chrissy

    I agree with everything said here, yet I still think she looks really pretty in the first photo.

  23. Kerri

    I’m not loving her outfit, but I think she looks so so so pretty in the first photo. When I first saw it on newsstands, it took my breath away. In fact, I contemplated buying the magazine (I never buy magazines) just because she’s so pretty! Then realized that didn’t make any sense.

  24. Anna

    Your thoughtful summary of this cover is one of the reasons why I love you guys. Emma Stone is a delight, and a gorgeous one at that. Too bad Vogue managed (hopefully unintentionally) to make her look cheap.

  25. vandalfan

    The first one looks more deer in the headlights than verge of crying or painful gas. The clothing on the American cover is a crime. The hat on the British in is veddy, veddy Bwitish.

  26. TonyG

    The first photo I find kind of mesmerizing. I just stare and stare stare at her eyes and they completely pull me in to the photo. I agree the second photo is definitely more the “fun” photo, but the first one got me more interested in…shall I say…the soul behind the eyes. It’s capture’s a mood — like she’s got a lot going on her mind that she wants to reveal but is afraid to.

    • TonyG

      LOL at my overuse of the apostrophe s. That last sentence should begin:

      It captures a mood…

  27. Ivy

    i thought the same thing about her ribcage for a long time, thinking how awful the dress looked, and in what world is a slip stylish right now, it made me finally decide to not subscribe anymore.

  28. Pamb

    I agree that the second cover is better, but I hate the whole oh-I’m-just-biting-my finger pose thing.

    No fingers in the mouth! Magazines think it’s sexy, but it just makes me think that they had tried every other pose, now do the suggestive biting thing.

  29. G

    In the first cover not only is that weird garment on crooked, but her hair looks like it’s on crooked too. It’s a shame that they took an amazingly beautiful woman and made her look wonky.

  30. Nancy

    Her eyes look like they’re different colors in the two photos.

  31. Mwynn13

    Both covers remind me how similar her looks are to Lohan’s, and it makes me sad how LiLo has destroyed her own with too many bad choices and a self-destructive lifestyle. She must fly into a rage every time she sees Stone looking fresh-faced and touting some new, prestigious project.

    That said, Emma Stone is the bomb.

  32. Sajorina

    I actually like the styling on the 1st cover, but I would have painted her lips a beautiful magenta, burgundy or scarlet red to make it less monotone and made her smile! I love the 2nd cover… Its so sassy & sexy, without being vulgar! Plus, I covet that sweater and, damn, she has BEAUTIFUL eyes!

  33. Phoenix Suns Snapback

    I really glad to find this internet site on bing, just what I was searching for :D likewise bookmarked. Phoenix Suns Snapback

  34. hatland coupons

    I saw a lot of website but I conceive this one has something extra in it. hatland coupons

  35. Debra

    first cover quick glance looked like a younger Cate Blanchette…which is no offense to Cate because I love her and covet most everything she wears…maybe a red lip would have made the cover pop. This is a girl who looks good in anything she puts on and to have her in a hat almost covering her face on the second cover is a waste…please use her fresh faced and clean and shiny like always…

  36. Rubee

    I do think the first one is a great photo work,but it is too bad it doesn’t look like her at all. I like the retro air of the second one, but again, it could be anyone from LLohan to Amanda Seyfried. I don’t see the point of portraying a very expensive, yet unrecognizable celebrity on your cover .