Fug or Fab the Cover: Cameron Diaz


fug-or-fab

Here’s the thing about this cover: it’s fine. Cammy D looks approachable and crisp. And maybe a little older than she actually is. But it’s not HIDEOUS. She has all her body parts attached, she’s not wearing a beach ball as a hat, she doesn’t look as though she’s had someone else’s eyes photoshopped onto her face. And yet. One would hope, I imagine, that one would look AMAZING on the cover of Vogue, especially considering the fact that she looks fantastic in the photoshoot on the inside (and was actually, I thought, quite charming in the interview). The choices magazines make about their cover shots are often kind of beyond me — obviously — and I know there are a lot of factors to consider, but wouldn’t you want the BEST picture to be the one on the cover? I know smiley photos sell better, as well as approachable ones, but I suspect that one of the reasons Cameron Diaz is successful in general is that she is almost ALWAYS smiling and approachable-seeming (excluding that time she was dating Justin Timberlake and they were both unbearable crabapples) so I’m pretty sure we’re not in a situation where this was like the ONLY Smiley Approachable picture. I don’t know. This just isn’t filling me with the unbearable desire to plonk down $4 for the magazine.  And while I’ve got you here: I’m thrilled Vogue is including “the fashion steal of the month” — it’s smart, considering Our Terrible Hideous Crumbling Economy RUN RUN TO THE HILLS — but someone needs to give A Dubs the tip that a $300 bikini is NOT A GREAT DEAL. IT’S A BIKINI. TARGET HAS THEM FOR $30. SWEET FANCY SNICKERS, LADY, A $300 BIKINI IS STILL INSANE WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING I LOVE YOU DON’T HURT ME.

 

react: