Obviously, we covered Lupita already. But there are other people in this movie. (Sadly, Idris did not attend. WHY AM I BEING PUNISHED THUSLY.)
First of all, I highly enjoy Mamie Gummer as an actor. When I watched The Good Wife, I was always happy to see her pop up on same. Second, I highly enjoy the choices she makes on the red carpet, because seven times out of ten, said choice is WACKY:
What even is this trickery? It appears to be a shirt of vaguely Shakespearean origin, worn backwards, layered under a dress that’s also on backwards. Can someone please check in with her and make sure her head’s on straight? I mean that literally.
Kate Bosworth has been hitting the scene pretty hard lately, and in some pretty ornate stuff.
For instance, I can’t name the last five movies she was in, but I remember her Oscars dress, the Schiaparelli vest and slacks, this terrible Erdem, some Peter Pilotto with a Giambattista Valli chaser, that “astronaut fashionier” thing… and now this, which is both elegantly interesting and also a screamingly jazzy straitjacket. Without a significant project to promote, as far as I can tell, I wonder if there’s an attempt afoot to rebrand her as a clotheshorse, in the hope that the rising tide there will float her other boats. Bless her for keeping it interesting, even though I am concerned that is designed to keep her from being able to raise her arms.
Part of me is concerned this is too bland:
And the rest of me wants to plonk her into my Fictional English Mini-Series where she clearly belongs, in which she plays an heiress of iron will but tragically delicate health who, in a final act of defiance, leaves her massive fortune (made thanks to her father’s coal mines) not to her mean husband but rather to her kind and wonderful cousin, so that he can finally move to Tangiers and continue painting handsome men there, as God intended.
She may have to change her shoes.
This one caused quite a stir. It looks like any one of a hundred people, none of whom are Kerry Washington. She was gracious about it on Instagram, noting that, yes, it was quite jarring to pick up the magazine and see an image that looks so little like what she sees in the mirror – while also encouraging people to read the article itself and trying to get across that she isn’t ungrateful for the opportunity or even opposed to the loving touch of a filter. It was a nicely worded response, if also one that felt like she was…. what Jess and I call anticipating a note. Like she’s imaging the holes people will want to poke in her response and trying to fix them preemptively. But I think she handled it very nicely, even as I imagine she may have hurled a few copies of this at the wall.
Adweek was apologetic… and then said something about how, yes, they added volume to the hair for drama, and meant no disrespect. DUDES. I don’t think the hair is the problem here. Either that’s all you did and you simply hired a photographer who doesn’t understand what light does to faces, or you turned her into Scarlett Johansson and don’t want to admit it.