Starting with Harper's Bazaar this week (and then the other's next week if I can afford it. Man magazine prices these days...But hey thats a completely different post. Series of posts. Book.)
Well first off, check out the LV dress and The Body on the cover. Elle wearing the original is next to the cover and I think everyone can see the one teeny tiny mistake Edwina Mccan (The Editor) made. She appears to have lost Elle's skirt. In the words of the immortal Bridget - Is Skirt Off Sick? I did think it was a bit riske for LV when I saw the cover - you kinda have to look at the original for the dress to make sense.
I dont know that lopping off the front improves it but, yes, it still looks good. As do Elle's legs. And her hair. Sigh. But no the shot is eye-catching (It drew me from across the newsagents) and it's a beautiful girl/dress. Good Cover Elle.
But what's in the box? Well, to be honest, I was not super impressed with the 520 looks to love. It bothers me when magazine make this promise, you expect 520 pages of fashion ( high, low, entertaining). What you usually get is 520 looks spread over little different peices inside. And they're the same segments they have every month. So there isn't a huge amount more fashion than you would usually get in the magazine.
The spreads inside weren't amazing - apart from the Mark Vassallo embellishment shoot. The Jewellery Was Amazing. He styled it well. Loved it. Everything else (yes, including the Elle shoots) were just boring.
I personally have a pet peeve against the big name fashion magazines making what I think of as totally generic fashion shoots.
You can generally see the checklist; a) put a sulky girl in a dress, b) go for the angle-y shoulder vs hip pose and c) stick her in a desert/against a rock/before a white wall. Its just...vapid.
There is a really nice Slate/Minimalist shoot with Emma Balfour ( Love Love Love. She's about to hit 40! She looks great! Better than that she looks stylish! More please!) which would be lovely if we all hadn't seen this shoot like 5 times since the start of the year.
There's also some nice pieces inside. Eugenie Kelly's piece on finding happiness I thought was interesting (women set too high standards for themselves, cut yourself some slack). It has been said before but definitely needs saying again (especially in such a witty way).
A few good pieces also on ozzie ballet dancers Leanne Benjamin and Steven McRae and an interesting bit on younger jewelry designers (Gaia Repossi, Aurelie Bidermann and Delfina Delettrez). Admittedly, most of these girls got started due to their famous dads but unlike Paloma (see below) they've got some juice. Particularly Gaia Repossi.
Some nice stuff on Carey Mulligan, some more on Paloma Picasso (Why is she famous? Why is she a jewelry designer? Why?!) and the obligatory style-for-every-age section. Which I loved. Because their sets ARE fabulous at every age.
BUT (ignoring the boring Elle interview) the must-see is a hilarious interview with Valentino (whose doco and show in Brizzie will be blogged about later). Put simply I haven't read a funnier interview in years. I'm so glad they left it as a transcript because Valentino is just so entertaining talking about his pugs, his 'famous actress' friends and the inteviewer Marion Humes's voice ('It is very nice to hear from the phone a beautiful voice that can caress your ear'). Buy the mag just for this. Its worth it.
Look HB does a great job lets be honest. It's entertaining, had great style and (which is what I love most about HB) really brought in other elements of style - art, ballet, film and home stuff (I love reading the art pages just because I don't know that much ABOUT art. Sometimes it's nice to read an informed opinion to bounce off before you look for yourself.).
Happy in post-reading fug.
No comments:
Post a Comment