On Twitter, one of you noted that Blake here looks like she’s been morphed with Elaine Irwin, and while that’s not necessarily a bad thing, it is also bang on:
She is lovely, but her facial expression cracks me up. Between the open mouth and the clutched coat, there’s something very “I’m cold, I’M SO VERY COLD” about it. And parenthetically: I find it interesting that Lucky has not picked a photo where Blake is smiling. For a couple of reasons: (1) Lucky — in name alone! — implies a sunny, cheerful cover girl, and I feel like traditionally their cover model is smiling. (2) Blake Lively — also in name alone! — seems like a sunny, cheerful person, so this seems slightly off brand for both of them. And, finally, (3) I don’t have a number three, it just seemed wrong to have a list of two. In short, I actually don’t hate this – it just doesn’t seem like it’s necessarily in keeping with the mag’s brand, and I don’t know if I would pick it up and buy it based on this cover. (Although I would certainly pick it up, read the “I don’t have a stylist!” headline, say, “no kidding!” aloud to the magazine, and then put it back and wander off to find the Cheetos.). It feels like, ever since the departure of Kim France, the Powers That Be are trying to turn Lucky into Glamour, despite them already having a Glamour in, you know, GLAMOUR. It seems to me that if they were going to go anywhere new with it, they should have tried to make it their own version of InStyle. Which, after several years away from, I have resubscribed to. InStyle, I could only resist your sunless tanning tips for so long!
How does it grab you?
[Photo: Lucky]
No comments:
Post a Comment