Fug File: Marie Claire

Fug and Fab The Covers: Marie Claire May 2014 “Fresh Faces” Issue


So, Marie Claire put Lupita Nyong’o, Elizabeth Olsen, Elle Fanning, Kate Mara, and Emilia Clarke on the cover this month; most of them get the royal treatment, but the last of those ladies should probably sue because her cover is AWFUL.

[Photos: Marie Claire]

react:

Fug the Cover: Shailene Woodley on the Cover of Marie Claire


What. Is. Happening.

I mean…I guess…it’s eye-catching? You will NOT forget this cover. You may never forget this cover. You might wake up screaming, this cover burned on the inside of your eyelids. This cover might be the last thing you see before you die, quite frankly.

It’s just dumb. I get that she’s sort of sporty in Divergent, kind of, and this is a kind of sporty look, sort of,  in the way that fashion thinks sporty = neoprene and zippers? Not to mention the fact that Elle already put her in a swimsuit, and more successfully, AND that if someone removed the cover copy from this photo, you’d think it was going to be the cover of Self. And that there is literally no scenario in the entire history of human existence that a woman would wear this other than a magazine cover. And I’ve seen plenty of wacked out cover looks in my life and most of them, you could concoct a story about. “Well, you’d wear that when the aliens come to make them believe you’re Earth’s queen,” or “obviously that’s what you wear when you crack your head and wake up to believe that you’re a FABULOUS chicken.” This? Nope. I can’t.

[Cover: Marie Claire/Jan Welters]

react:

Well Played The Cover: Kristen Stewart on Marie Claire, March 2014


I think this cover is pretty compelling, and not just because whatever she’s wearing seems like it might be AMAZING:

Her hair is distractingly great here — whether or not it’s technically Bombshell Bedhead Hair, I guess I shall have to read the magazine to find out.  And while this expression is one that could easily slide into Totally Stoned, I think she’s managing to stop it right at the line of Smoldering and Sultry, which is not such an easy trick. Speaking of stoned, though, I would love to know if they intentionally treated the font on “Why Women Are High On a Trippy New Drug” so that it makes me feel like I’m high every time I try to read it. I hope so, or else the answer is just, “you’re not high, but you are OLD.”  And I already knew that.

[Photo: Tesh/Marie Claire]

react:

Fug the Cover: Natalie Portman on “Marie Claire”


I was really confused for a second as to why Natalie Portman was popping up on a bunch of magazine covers this month, until I realized Thor 2: Mhor Thor is coming out in November instead of during the summer. Which means the Fug Gods will soon bless us with a bunch of her premiere dresses, so I’d best remember to find a candle with Karl Lagerfeld’s face on it and light it, and offer up the sacrifice of a peanut-butter sandwich, or whatever.

However:

“She’s back — and sexier than ever.” Come on — are you Marie Claire, or Maxim Claire?

And unfortuntely, much like on UK Elle, Natalie looks joyless. This one is at least a smidgen less dead-eyed, but then again, the life in there looks more like she’s wearing those coffee-gold Twilight contact lenses that indicate she’s recently supped on the blood of an animal and will not need to take a hit off your jugular today. The standout WTF moment here, though, is clearly the outfit. I have no idea what’s happening. I don’t speak Crackball. I do suspect that massive piece of elastic is NOT all that sexy. As for the rest, it’s a great neck that devolves into the bastard offspring of the boozy orgy between a very horny, aggressive Infinite Dress, drunk on shandies, a houndstooth skirt that has just lost some weight and doesn’t know its own alcohol tolerance anymore, and a poncho that’s just happy to be invited.

Here’s a better shot from inside the issue:

Read More

react:

Fug the Cover: Zooey Deschanel on Marie Claire


I really do not like this. At all. Let us count the ways.

1. Why are all the cover lines encroaching on her face, when there’s all that empty space at the bottom? Can’t we just scoot everything down a wee and let her breathe?

2. Was there an actual printing error? This cover looks like the person who laid it out was hammered. Why is the plus sign all the way over to the left, like it’s cut off?

3. And why is that stupid plus sign so much bigger than “I Escaped Life With 64 Sister Wives”? That should be bigger. THAT IS A LOT OF SISTER WIVES.

4. Why does Zooey Deschanel have Kristen Stewart’s facial expression?

5. That angle and that glare aren’t doing her loveliness justice at ALL, and they don’t really make me want to hang out with her for the duration of a magazine article.

6. Seriously, she doesn’t have to be cheery all the time, but I don’t think “Surly Zooey Deschanel” is tops on the list of things people want to see in the world.

7. Nor is Hunchback Zooey Deschanel, and yet here she is, too.

8. The Hunchback of Notre Deschanel does have a nice ring about it, though. THAT article, I might have paid to read.

[Photo: Marie Claire]

react:

Fug or Fab the Cover: Olivia Wilde on InStyle


So, InStyle continues its tradition of making celebrities look like the most calm and/or sanitized and/or Upper East Side version of themselves.

See? It’s a bit stiff and spit-shined, the way they seem to like it over there, but: Whereas a lot of InStyle covers do that in an extremely chilly way, this one exudes warmth. I actually think her hair looks fantastic — really shiny and thick. And her makeup is good, and while the jacket isn’t necessarily what I think of when I imagine Olivia Wilde’s personal style, it’s rather Blair Waldorf in a way that appeals to me. Everyone should have an inner Blair Waldorf, as long as we’re not talking about the cranium-devouring-headband part.

The other thing that made me appreciate this cover: When I was Googling it, I turned up an August 2011 Marie Claire cover she did — so, exactly two years ago — and it is glossy hellfire:

Read More

react: