Glossed Over

The Fifth Annual September Vogue Liveblog

Good morning! Welcome to the fifth annual liveblog of the September issue of Vogue. Five years! 

The rules: I have not opened this issue, nor have I read any blog posts/articles/embittered rants about its content. I will, however, admit to watching Racked try to smash snack foods with this sucker. It's heavy! The liveblog goes in chronological order; refresh the page to see the latest updates.

Oh, and one more thing. As I mentioned in the video, I will be tweeting during the day using the hashtag #vogueliveblog, and I would love for you to use that hashtag too! As a small token of my gratitude for all of you out there reading along with me, I'll be giving The September Issue on DVD to three randomly selected people who tweet a link to this site and the hashtag between 10 a.m. today and 5 p.m. Eastern on Friday. (This is not a sponsored giveaway, just me spending my own money to send three lucky people a movie. US and Canada only, sorry.) Remember, your tweet must include both a link--you can use http://bit.ly/vogueliveblog11--and the hashtag #vogueliveblog to be eligible to win.  [Contest now closed, winners declared.] Thanks for being here!

Now let's get going.

Vogue Liveblog 2010: The One with Halle Berry on the Cover

The other day someone asked me why I still do the liveblog. After all, I've done it three years in a row. Isn't it time to move on? To which I say: Definitely not! I've been so focused on my day job lately that I'm barely finding time to read anything. (Alas, snarking on fashion magazines does not pay the rent, though I'm willing to entertain offers.) If not for this liveblog, I might never read September Vogue. That page count is intimidating!

As always, the rules: I have not opened this issue of Vogue. I have not read what any other writers thought about this issue. I'll be looking at everything except the cover for the first time. The liveblog happens in real time, so just hit refresh on this post to see the latest entries. And I'll be posting periodic updates on Twitter and Facebook throughout the day, too.

Here we go!

A Sticky Situation in Lucky's September Issue

In its patriotic mission to stimulate the economy, Lucky does everything it can to make shopping easier for the few, the proud, the misanthropes who detest malls, and the between-sizes Americans prone to fitting-room meltdowns. With the stickers marked “YES!” and “MAYBE?” in every issue, vicarious shopping has never been easier! 

This month, instead of tearing out the stickers to annotate a publication with actual paragraphs (like, say, a book), I actually affixed them to the magazine's comparatively noteworthy pages. And in my mission to help you avoid “reading” Lucky, here's what I culled from the September issue:

YES! I may need the entirety of Anna Sui’s Gossip Girl-inspired collection for Target, now that I’ve seen the two-page ad near the front of this issue. Unchecked spending on stuff I don’t need makes me a good American, right?

YES! Just as expected, Kim France’s “Editor’s Letter” does acknowledge the crummy financial climate, but adds that “against all odds,” the magazine’s fashion editors found plenty of great stuff for fall. Such sacrifice!

YES! Lucky continues its slaughter of the English language on page 94, trotting out the non-word “splurgier.” Are there fuses in my brain? Because I think one just blew.

MAYBE? It is totally acceptable to shop at outlets. If you’re in Italy and buying stuff at the Prada outlet, that is. (page 108)

YES! There exists an article of clothing called “zoot pants,” and Lucky’s “Style Spy” expects you to wear them for fall.

YES! Lucky’s editors may suffer from long-term memory loss, since they’ve managed to load up “The Smart Shopping Sourcebook” with heaps of accessories and clothes under $100, but can’t seem to remember those stylish bargains long enough to insert many of them in other features.

YES! According to “Accessories Report,” eyeglasses are in for fall. Great! I hate when glasses are out and I have to go around squinting. Suffer for fashion, right? (Or, you know, wear them and look like I don’t care about my appearance at all.)

MAYBE? Ed Hardy’s new perfume, which, according to the ad in this issue, is a “vintage tattoo inspired fragrance,” could be less appealing. But probably not.

YES! Cosmetics are the sure path to happiness and fulfillment! According to “Beauty Spy,” hot pink blush will make you “instantly feel 5,000 times prettier.” The latest anti-wrinkle potions are “kind of miraculous.” A saffron lip stain is “unexpectedly gorgeous”—for $65, it had better be. A new Maybelline lipstick is “perfect,” and a handful of acne products work with “stunning efficiency.” Yay!

MAYBE? Despite the wisdom so altruistically dispensed on page 214, most readers probably don’t need detailed instructions on shampooing.

YES! It is possible to “Love Your Hair,” as page 224 exuberantly instructs. It doesn’t require a shift in perspective—just a heap of drugstore products, a $140 flat iron, and a $34 shampoo. Easy!

MAYBE? We shouldn’t take beauty editors’ advice as gospel, since in “Skin Regimens of Beauty Editors,” one confesses that she hates washing her face at night and another never takes off her eye makeup before bed. As all of us who’ve been indoctrinated by a lifetime of women’s mags know, not washing up before sleeping is a cardinal sin.

MAYBE? I might have actually used the stickers to mark various pages of the “Lucky Fall Shoe Guide.” I’ll never tell.

YES! As noted in “40s Modern,” the right clothes can make me “magpie-cool.” Whatever that means.

YES! A $415 leopard-print blouse can be worn for work, weekend, and evening, according to “Fall’s Most Versatile Pieces.” Good thing, too, because at that price, it’d be the only blouse I own.

MAYBE? An $1195 Emporio Armani jacket and $630 Bruno Frisoni pumps, as seen on pages 280 and 281, aren’t the best exemplars of the “punk rock” or “collegiate” style the spread is supposed to embody. But then, neither is posing those “punk rock” models in front of a nightclub advertising a show presented by Radio Disney. Oops!

YES! Now that I’ve read the entire issue, I do want to purchase a new wardrobe! Lucky, you’ve successfully completed your mission.

InStyle Makeover Needs a Makeover of Its Own

As I discovered this weekend, InStyle Makeover and Taco Bell are remarkably similar. They're both cheap and require a very strong gag reflex. 

What was it about this special issue that was so hard to swallow? Was it the $600 cosmetic case? The fact that some no-doubt-underpaid editorial assistant had to conceptualize the ways in which a purse can camouflage a “flawed” figure? Or that every woman made over in this issue didn’t really need a makeover?

Impossible beauty standards, you win again! And we lose.

Take a look at Vanessa Hudgens, who was given an “undone” makeover. This was the result:

According to InStyle, this is a “polished no-makeup look.” Don’t you roll out of bed sporting fake eyelashes and the exact right shade of nude lipstick? With a professional hairstylist and makeup artist at your disposal, this natural look is so easy to achieve!

A few pages later, “Plump + Go” features someone who actually isn’t wearing makeup. That’s because she’s a model preparing to be injected with four different substances—Botox, Perlane, Cosmoderm, and Restylane. So there are at least four reasons none of us look anything like the women we see in magazines.

Continuing the trend of making over people who don’t really need making over, “6 Weeks to Slim” pairs two magazine staffers with trainers who, naturally, impose ultra-strict quasi-scientific edicts. Do they lose weight? Yes. Did they need to lose it in the first place? Nope! Both have BMIs within the normal range.

Admittedly, the BMI is a flawed calculation. Fine. But this depiction of two slim women getting slimmer alongside a “Dress Yourself Thin” coverline and a food diary from manicurist Ji Baek, whose diet consists largely of champagne—it all sends a powerful message about our bodies.

It says that our bodies aren’t ours—they’re open for public comment. That they don’t exist for our pleasure or strength but instead that they are a source of shame. That starvation and sacrifice are the path to self-satisfaction.

As long as our bodies and faces belong not to us but to an ever-changing, ever-more-impossible standard, women will be going to war with themselves.

Wouldn’t it be a pleasant surprise to see a magazine emphasize being healthy and strong instead of slender and young? Wouldn’t it be great to see a magazine stop referring to “boyish” figures, as if those women somehow aren’t female enough, and stop altogether ignoring larger women? Wouldn't it be a positive change to see a fashion spread focus on flattery instead of camouflage?

Absolutely. But I’m not holding my breath. To accomplish anything other than selling insecurity, InStyle Makeover would need a makeover of its own.

Lowest Common Denominator: Allure, August

33,683: Number of free items Allure is giving away in August, according to the cover

10: Pounds lighter, years younger, and times happier editor-in-chief Linda Wells claimed to appear after a bra fitting

$39.95: Price of faux-leather strapless dress from H&M that’s named as a “must” in “Fashion Cravings”

0: Probability, estimated, that any major magazine’s fashion editor has ever actually worn faux leather from H&M

Far, far too much: According to swimwear designer Malia Mills, the amount of maintenance a suit needs to avoid fading and stretching. Daily rinsing and a secondary suit just for wear in hot tubs? Like it isn’t hard enough to find one!

95: Page on which an advertisement for Latisse appears, asking “Not enough lashes?”

Boundless: The joy I’m apparently missing by not sleeping with my hairstylist, according to “Dirty Blondes.” The article claims stylist-client affairs are a “female pasha fantasy”

Heaps: Amount I loved “Time Warp” on page 141, wherein a fashion historian and a history professor discuss the realism of period-movie hair and makeup. More like this, please!

6: In “The New Cocoon,” number of items made of fur, including oh-so-practical shearling gauntlets

None: Amount of the diet advice in “The Fashion Insiders’ Diet” that’s novel to anyone who’s read a women’s magazine before. Really? Eat a piece of fruit before going out to dinner?

Tons: Disbelief inspired by this sentence in the diet’s introduction: “Models aren’t the only ones who feel pressure to be thin, and fitting into a sample size can sometimes feel like a job requirement—if not exactly a virtue—when you work in fashion.” Because, you know, that's just the way it is.

1989: Year from which Allure must have stolen the fluorescent-themed fashion spread “Plugged In”

Subtle Ad for Hair Removal Products Promotes "Mowing the Lawn"

What's most troubling about this commercial? Is it the unoriginal use of cats to represent the female anatomy? The racial stereotypes? The notions that pubic hair is "untidy" and "rough around the edges" and fun to remove? Or the fact that some executive thinks this commercial is a brilliant way to convince us to buy the product?

(Spotted at Feministing)

Deep Cover: Noteworthy Stories from the Newsstand

Occasionally, I read something other than fashion magazines! Even so, topics that relate to some of the most frequent complaints about the glossies arise frequently. I’ve culled these points of interest from recent readings:

The February issue of Wired graphed the BMIs of Playboy centerfolds from December 1953 to January 2009, and then compared the results to the BMI of the average American woman over the same time period. The outcome won’t surprise you: The models’ BMI shrank from 19.4 to 18.2, while the national average increased from 22.2 to 26.8. Wired points out that, while the stats could be skewed because the Playmates provide their own weights and measurements, what Playboy thinks its readers will consider ideal is far more revealing than the actual numbers.

 

The March issue of Psychology Today probes the growing frequency of suicide among teen girls. A new book, The Triple Bind: Saving Our Teenage Girls from Today's Pressures, postulates that society and the media subject girls to unrealistic pressures, creating strain when girls are expected to become caregivers, excel academically, and still fit conventional standards of beauty. Female role models, the book’s authors claim, are “ultra-sexy, ultra-feminized women, like the female surgeons on Grey’s Anatomy or swimsuit-modeling tennis players…” Ultra-sexy, ultra-feminized women? Like, say, the Photoshopped images that appear in fashion magazines?

 

And speaking of Photoshop, the editor-in-chief of Shape answered readers who wrote to complain about what they thought was the egregious retouching of singer Faith Hill’s bikini-clad body on an earlier cover. In March’s “Editor’s Letter,” Valerie Latona says, “I can emphatically and truthfully say we do not alter stars’ bodies: We select A-listers, like Jaime Pressly (whom we voted this year’s Sexiest Body in Hollywood), who are healthy role models—and have the curves to show for it.” In response to readers’ correspondence, the magazine says, “We never alter any Shape model’s body—including those on our cover. The women we feature put a lot of hard work into staying healthy and should be given the credit they deserve.”

Eva Longoria Dyes Her Hair at Home and Other L’Oréal Lies

The award for the most moronic advertisement in recent memory goes to the spread for Excellence To-Go hair color by L’Oréal Paris, as seen in the current issue of InStyle and on display in drugstores everywhere. What, you ask, could be so terrible about an ad for hair dye—other than, you know, furthering this ludicrous notion that we women are supposed to coat our scalps in a potentially toxic substance every few weeks so as not to offend anyone with a gray hair or two?
 

    

Well, for starters, there’s this manufactured quote from Eva Longoria:

Today, everything moves so fast, my haircolor has to be perfect. And it has to keep up.

This is going to torture me. No exaggeration: I may lie awake tonight wondering how hair dye is supposed to “keep up.” How can haircolor do anything other than smell wretched and stain my forehead? With what or with whom is it expected to keep up? And how offensive is it to pretend that Eva Longoria doesn’t have a personal hairstylist touching up her roots every six minutes?

Then there’s the “so fast” part of the statement. Yes, the world moves so insanely fast, MY HAIRCOLOR MUST ADAPT INSTANTLY. What? This is a product that is supposed to have a permanent effect. It does not change. There is nothing fast about hair dye except the speed with which it stains the paint on the
bathroom wall.

The adjoining page gets even worse, somehow:

Rich color in 10 MINUTES. Hair that feels STRONGER. For me, that’s a NEW REVOLUTION!

For me, this constitutes a compelling reason to NITPICK! And to RANT!

The nitpick: revolutions are by their very nature new. And the rant: co-opting the language of revolution to sell the very products whose necessity feminism rejects is absolutely noxious. I’ll take my revolutions in the form of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, thank you, not in hair color that shaves a whopping 5 minutes from competing brands’ processing time and is marketed to me as if coloring my hair every six weeks since age 18 has actually slaughtered 75 percent of my brain cells. (Never mind the possibility that, well, it has.)

Finally, there’s L’Oréal’s trademark:

Because you’re worth it.

Actually, L’Oréal, we’re worth more than that. If only your advertising reflected as much.

Lucky's "Beauty Strategies" Take Luxury for Granted

Have you seen the MTV show Exiled? Starring the spoiled kids from My Super Sweet 16, the program plucks them from their posh surroundings, sentencing them to a short-term stay with a family far less privileged than their own. (They even have to do chores!) In theory, this is a show about loosening the kids’ grip on material possessions, forcing them to gain a little perspective, and teaching them to appreciate their wealth.

So, then, isn’t it a little strange that the producer of Exiled would appear in the January issue of Lucky magazine, a publication that seemingly exists solely to celebrate the acquisition of overpriced bagatelles, to reveal the $105 face cream she always travels with and discuss how beauty products make her feel “so much better”?

An InStyle Assessment of Purchasing Priorities

This appears on page 246 of the December issue of InStyle:

Thanks, InStyle! Like so many women across the nation, I was only driving to work because I was completely ignorant that I could trade my gas money for a fancy potion from Saks! It had nothing to do with the fact that there is no other way to get to my office! How can we former car commuters ever pay you back for pointing out that we should be taking public transport? Preventing potential wrinkles clearly trumps any other concern.

Next month, InStyle answers whether you should buy a month’s worth of groceries or a new jar of eye cream. Hint: Obviously, the eye cream. They think you’ll look much better after eating nothing but whatever dented canned goods you can manage with the change you find on the sidewalk. A bout with food poisoning is a very effective weight loss method!