Lena Dunham’s Vogue spread has sparked all kinds of feelings and conversations. But this cute video from the magazine is likely something we can all agree on. In this adorable clip, Lena seeks out the help of Hamish Bowles, Vogue‘s European editor-at-large, in preparing how to pose for the her photoshoot. No matter what you think about “Girls” or glossy magazines, this one is pretty much guaranteed to make you smile. [Fashionista]
“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]
Vogue never fails to make me feel fat, poor, wrinkled, and frumpy. Dog Vogue, on the other hand, makes me feel like doing a happy dance. Dog Vogue was created by photographer Sophie Gamand, who had “acclaimed pet couturier” (yes, that’s a thing) Anthony Rubio dress a group of chihuahua models in couture outfits and snapped pictures of the surprisingly elegant results. Check out all the high-fashion canine editorials at Striking Paws.
Lena Dunham is just about as divisive a celebrity as they come. As seemingly harmless as she is, there’s still a faction of people, young and old, who cannot stand her. Seriously, with the way some armchair critics react to Dunham, you would think she straight-up murdered someone’s grandma’s puppy. But one thing that’s inarguable, even amongst the haterz, is that since “Girls” first premiered in early 2012, Lena Dunham has been eeeeeeverywhere: she’s won Golden Globes, she’s opened the Emmys, she’s coordinated nail art with Zooey Deschanel, she’s scored a $3.7 million book deal, she’s milked a cow in a NYC street (and we still don’t know why). Throughout all this, Dunham has by and large been pigeonholed as the “average girl,” the “relatable girl,” even (and still!!) as the “fat girl.” We wonder, how would a rumored Vogue cover affect that? Keep reading »
Why is a September issue of Vogue for sale on Craigslist for $4.5 million dollars? Because that’s the cost brands like Dior and Chanel sunk into the iconic magazine advertising in this month’s issue. If it’s your hearts desire to read the Jennifer Lawrence profile and discover how to get a better body in seven minutes, the seller has helpfully removed all the ads in Vogue, either by ripping the pages out or coloring them over in black marker. It’s 70 percent thinner and a whole purse dog lighter.
And for those of us who don’t have $4.5 mil lying around, we can buy the ad-filled version for — gulp! — $12 on newstand. What a bargain. [PSFK via Ad Week]
“There are thousands of beautiful actresses in the world, women who look great in evening gowns and close-ups, their chins never wobbling, their eyes never puffy. I don’t think our Claire would have any interest in being one of them … That’s why we love her—she gives it to us straight, good or bad, just like a real friend would. Sometimes life gets ugly, and she’ll take us there, unafraid…It’s that unironic diligence that moves me most, her obvious enthusiasm to do good work. Luckily for us, Claire chooses to share her crumple face and her elegant face and all her faces in between. It’s just what we all would like to think we’re capable of, professionalism kissed by something better, a hint of the sublime.”
–Author Emma Straub so poetically describes why she’s part of “Generation Claire Danes.” It all started with Angela Chase’s “crumple face.” It certainly did. Please count me in. [Vogue]
Carol Brady called, she wants her wig back. Sandra Bullock looks luminescent (that’s good right?) on the cover of the October issue of Vogue, but sweet mother of God, what is happening with the hair? I can’t see Anna Wintour approving of this. Maybe she was out sick that day. [Celebuzz]