W September 2005 : Kirsten Dunst by Michael Thompson

[slit skirt]

W September 2005
Bruce Weber photographs Ana Nacon, Freja, Shannon Click, Marta Berkzkalna, and Jessianne Gravel. Its good Weber but not Weber enough for me. rating: B

Craig McDean photographs Tasha Tilberg. Best realized model and images in this issue. rating: A

Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott photograph Marina Peres & Querelle. Similar to M&M's already legendary Kate Moss 2005 W black & white story. Nice girls but M&M did not raise their game up to Kate Moss level here. rating: B+

Michael Thompson photographs Solange Wilvert & Inguna Butane. Thompson is no Steven Meisel. Beautiful interiors, clothes & girls but Thompson is working at the limits of his abilities here. rating B+

Thompson photographs Kirsten Dunst. Celebrity shoots are Thompson's bread and butter. Dunst is a charming actress. rating A-

Conclusion: The models are excellent in this W as are the clothes & sets but overall I was slightly disappointed. I felt the Weber & M&M shoots were less than I expect from them. The most successful pictures are McDean's straight-away Tasha images and Thompson with Dunst. It's a good September W but not a great one. Overall rating B/B+

 

[LibertyRose]

I look forward to that Tasha Tilberg edit with Craig McDean! When Tasha showed up at Louis Vuitton's AW05 show I knew she was due for a comeback, and who would be better than McDean to shoot Tasha? They've done great work for W before (remember the Mod-ish cover?) and their CoverGirl stuff is cool too. I love it when McDean works with Tasha and Angela Lindvall.

Lucky: Rachel Bilson wears a demure Derek Lam top, but secretary chic was so last year. The best thing about this issue is the shoe guide, and the beauty section is enjoyable as usual (Lucky def. trumps Allure in that department). But the editorials were mediocre if not downright disappointing. They used their staff members in two editorials when they should've stuck to models.

Glamour: Jennifer Connelly shot three covers in 1) a Rochas blue floral top + Juicy Jeans and 2) a white Gucci pantsuit + Dolce & Gabbana floral bustier and 3) a vertical-striped sundress, looking awesome. But in the interview Ms. Connelly admitted that she doesn't have time for fashion (Cate Blanchett came off the same way) and is just blessed to have designers send dresses her way. Claudia Schiffer makes a surprise appearance in the beauty edit. But there is only one fashion editorial; most of the pages are devoted to their select group of "Women of the Year."

Teen Vogue: Nicole Richie has finished recording 8 songs for her upcoming album but it seems her newfound allure disappears as soon as she opens her mouth. When asked about her stylish makeover, she "declined to elaborate." Hm, does she have a problem admitting that without celebrity stylist Rachel Zoe she wouldn't be who she is today? I think it's cool if you got some help--most of Hollywood does--but if you are trying to establish your identity, you better learn how to deal with the press. The interview was a painful read, dumb and bland, as is the rest of the issue.

Vanity Fair: There is little in this magazine other than the Jennifer Aniston story, so no wonder that was all that appeared on the cover. Having read the interview, I regretted buying this issue. I don't know Brad, Jen, and Angelina personally and have no desire to judge their relationships, but I don't think Vanity Fair presented the story honestly. For starters, it was unabashedly one-sided. The journalist wants to stick up for Aniston so much that she made no effort to consider Pitt's views. Sure, he might opt to stay silent, but it is a journalist's duty to at least ask. Second, it painted Aniston as the victim despite her claim that she doesn't see herself as one, and implied that Angelina Jolie is a homewrecker who uses her Ambassadorship to her PR advantage. Funny, because VF just very recently helped advance Jolie's goodwill image for a May cover story.

 

[God]

Can anyone post the Kirsten W cover?

 

[liberty33r1b]

thanks for the reviews, libertyrose. i'm intending to buy vanity fair now...

 

[a.t.]

cover pic

 

[Meg]

bad hair and makeup. could they not have touched up her roots? And all the fur...blech. Feel it could have been a LOT better

 

[cosmocat]

^I agree. The turned in bob!

 

[Spike413]

Love the outfit, not much else about appeals to me though.

 

[chillinyo]

I think she looks really cool and glam for once, true she could of bleached her roots but her face looks very pretty.

 

[indie]

I hate the cover.

 

[God]

I think the background should have been black, then would have been neat.

 

[kimair]

so many things wrong with this cover:

- the coat looks too big
- her makeup is boring
- her pose makes her look hung over
- her hair is hideous

such a shame, because kirsten is one of my faves and i was looking forward to this cover...

 

[Erin]

Don't like the cover. Kirsten just simply does not look as good as she could, and I feel that with the outfit, there is just too much going on.

 

[mizenkay]

i think this cover is poorly art-directed, but it's a good issue. the tasha edit is excellent. not loving the M&M stuff.

i also got an insert from the Americana Manahasset Mall (high end mall in long island, ny) titled "High Drama" in my issue. MariaCarla, Caroline Winberg, amongst others are outstanding.

the link to this "issue" isn't up yet, but here is the link to their Spring Catalogue called "Now Voyager". gorgeous. hopefully the fall version will be on their site soon.

http://www.americanamanhasset.com/1793.htm

 

[hugobossdaria]

ugh i hate her hair!!!!

 

[LostInNJ]

cover pic

Once again, I'm about the only one who likes it.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Thats not Balenciaga is it?

 

[lady grey]

Thats not Balenciaga is it?

Yes, wool coat

 

[kimair]

more pics of kirsten from style.com (in chanel)

 

[softgrey]

hmmm...tasha tilberg editorial?!?!...
how cool...i have to check that out...anyone got the pics of that???.....