“I know that I felt really like Vogue supported me and wanted to put a depiction of me on the cover. I never felt bullied into anything; I felt really happy because they dressed me and styled me in a way that really reflects who I am. And I felt that was very lucky and that all the editors understood my persona, my creativity and who I am. … A fashion magazine is like a beautiful fantasy. Vogue isn’t the place that we go to look at realistic women, Vogue is the place that we go to look at beautiful clothes and fancy places and escapism and so I feel like if the story reflects me and I happen to be wearing a beautiful Prada dress and surrounded by beautiful men and dogs, what’s the problem? If they want to see what I really look like go watch the show that I make every single week.”
Slate caught up with Lena Dunham for her reaction to the non-controversy of her Vogue cover and the minute Photoshopping which occurred therein. You can read Lena’s full reaction over at Slate. I think the “Girls” creator/star handled questions about this well — although Slate blogger Katy Waldman is criticizing her for upholding “punishing, unnatural body norms” or something. Uh, did we look at the same pictures? Lena wasn’t airbrushed to the point where you didn’t recognize her anymore; as the before-and-after images show, there was minor slimming. It was truly Lena-Dunham-as-Photographed-by-Vogue. Frankly, I’m really happy to see someone who looks more like me than yet another twig-thin starlet (cough Allison Williams cough). We always ask to have a more “normal”-sized woman on the cover of women’s magazines. We finally got one. Seriously, let’s not complain about evvvverything, people. [Slate] [Photo: Vogue]
Yesterday, the lady blog Jezebel posted that they were willing to pay $10,000 for unretouched photos from Lena Dunham’s Vogue cover shoot, writing:
Our desire to see these images pre-Photoshop is not about seeing what Dunham herself “really” looks like; we can see that every Sunday night or with a cursory Google search. She’s everywhere. We already know what her body looks like. There’s nothing to shame here. Nor is this rooted in criticism of Dunham for working with Vogue. Entertainment is a business, after all, and Vogue brings a level of exposure that exceeds that of HBO. This is about Vogue, and what Vogue decides to do with a specific woman who has very publicly stated that she’s fine just the way she is, and the world needs to get on board with that. Just how resistant is Vogue to that idea? Unaltered images will tell.
Today, Jezebel has posted those unretouched images, which they said they received within two hours of their original post. The comparisons between the altered and unaltered images are so unremarkable, I’m almost surprised Jezebel posted them. I say “almost” because I’m assuming they had to fork over the promised $10K and likely want to get their money’s worth — in traffic if not in impact. The unaltered images are unremarkable in that they show what we already know — that Vogue Photoshopped Lena Dunham’s photos just as they Photoshop every photo in the magazine. But — and this probably came as a bit of bummer to Jez, considering how much dough they spent — the before and after shots of Dunham are not all that different, and are certainly not an example of the egregious retouching they no doubt hoped for. In fact, the biggest differences between the original photos and the ones that ran in the magazine have little to do with Dunham at all. Keep reading »
As rumored, Lena Dunham is indeed on the cover of Vogue‘s February 2014 issue, and she looks fabulous. The accompanying photoshoot also features Dunham’s “Girls” costar Adam Driver, as the two of them pose in various highly fashionable outfits in NYC, including one photo shot just down the block from The Frisky’s office. Click on through for the full photoshoot, and read the mag’s interview with Dunham at the link! [Vogue]
“It surprises me how stupid people can be. It surprises me how many women hate other women, or feel uncomfortable with themselves. There’s a good portion of women who are offended by the show, which I do find strange. I read them because it’s fascinating. ‘Like Patrick Wilson would sleep with her!’ You know what? He might, and in this story, he did! And why does that bother you? Is it not realistic enough, or is it that you haven’t seen it in other shows in movies enough?”
Yes, THIS. I love what Jemima Kirke — who plays Jessa on “Girls” — has to say to NYMag.com’s Vulture blog about a certain strain of internet comments that often question Lena Dunham’s desirability. Why is it so hard for some people to believe that a man who looks like Patrick Wilson would sleep with a woman like Dunham? Is it really unrealistic or is it just TV and movies that make it seem that way because those pairings are rarely shown on screen? Good questions. Keep reading »
Lena Dunham is naked, or partially naked, fairly frequently on “Girls.” (So is Jemima Kirke. Both Allison Williams and Zosia Mamet keep themselves more covered up.) Some of Lena’s nudity is during sex scenes, while a bunch of others are when her character is changing clothes, sitting on the toilet, or in the bath or shower. They are intended to be awkward, uncomfortable, or even humiliating. As is a fair amount of real-life nudity, frankly.
Yesterday, during a Television Critics Association Panel, The Wrap’s TV writer Tim Molloy asked Dunham why her character is naked so much on the show. The manner in which he “asked,” led to a curt response from Dunham, and a bit of a tongue lashing from producer Judd Apatow, who called Molloy “sexist,” “misogynistic” and “offensive.” Molloy then wrote an entire article complaining about the exchange. Keep reading »
I am the rare Brooklyn-dwelling twenty-something female who has seen no more than three (3) episodes of the hit HBO series, but that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate how nicely those “Girls” clean up, right? I’m actually really loving Lena Dunham‘s sparkly look here most of all, and I will never stop wanting to be/be best friends with Jemima Kirke. Maybe 2014 will be the year I finally get over my weird aversion (too close to home!) to the show and tune in. Maybe?