Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by vogue28, Apr 10, 2018.
Okay major kudos to whomever is keeping that Lacroix dress in good condition.
I don’t know how to put a pics here..
But this is the best editorial about catholic in fashion.
I think Meisel was not used last year, either. He is 100% out of US Vogue, but i have to say i don't find the ed to be bad (i thinkt he clothes look fantastic). But why so short? There has to be more to it....
Check Sebastian Faena's "Nun Head" from Pop Fall/winter 2008 then.
-> I understand diCorcia's editorial as being inspired by The Young Pope series. If so, it is quite good, I caught the reference right away.
The cover and main ed is pure Leibovitz. She lost it years... maybe decades... ago. Vogue US deserves better than this mediocrity.
Why Amal is relevant to land a Vogue cover? I don't understand.
Andrea Stanley really did the church a big favor with those sets, it almost makes me remember that hardcore Catholic upbringing as something coherent and pleasant and clean and all about taking a good look in the mirror .. but yeah, a life of piety in modern days doesn't need the cliché, gaudy church with violent imagery and aggressive detailing, it takes place anywhere from a convent to any building in Manhattan (not being ironic).. how? who knows, but good suggestion anyway lol..
What is all this talk of Melania? It took me years to forget her first nightmarish Vogue cover... let’s not encourage a second one. Meanwhile, how did Vogue screw up their Amal cover? I mean this is just bad. :/ I wish Vogue would stick with actresses at this point haha. I’d love a women of Westworld cover!
I like the fact that its Amal, however the execution looks really poor and undone. They should have elevated it. She/we deserve better. This looks like it was an afterthought. I love her, but this looks pedestrian - from what she's wearing, the hair and makeup, all down to the editorial. And that photo of her with the other girl made me cringe. How staged can a photo get. Yikes.
The MET Gala editorial though is stunning! That Balenciaga shot is STUNNING!
------------- Warning: some may consider this as off topic -------------
Melania being on the cover is an endorsement of her husband and his views. To think otherwise is foolish and so out of touch from reality. She is inseparable from him (considering the fact that she also speaks for him).
And can we not switch the narrative to Vogue snubbing the first family because they're from THAT party. Have we forgotten how the same magazine featured Laura Bush (and her daughters I think), the wife of a Republican President. The reason why this magazine is staying away from you know who, is not because of his party, its because of who he is and what he represents. Let's not get facts twisted.
And its obviously not just Anna. Glenda and Nina seems like they don't even want to dare with the idea of putting any of them on the cover.
It always gives me a good laugh to think of an industry that thrives on using and abusing teenage girls ~taking a stand~ and embracing activism and political angles. It's just empty and meaningless.
Agreed. There's something missing from DiCorcia’s editorial. His images often examine the unsettling tension found just beneath the manicured veneer of urban melancholia. Here all I get is this stiff, self-conscious, staged photo op production for VOGUE. All of these models bore me tears and this ed re-enforces the unwarranted hype. I'm getting absolutely zero emotional resonance. The doves and lambs are more interesting than the girls!
Where is the robed model's hand with her back turned in the second spread?
The Religion editorial is a treat! Just look at all those amazing archive looks! Larcroix, Balenciaga, Dior!
Photographer: Peter Lindbergh
Stylist: Lucinda Chambers
Celeb/Models: Cole Sprouse, Saffron Vadher & Mayowa Nicholas
Make-up: Fulvia Farolfi
US Vogue Digital Edition
New Jacket Required
Photographer: Nigel Shafran
Stylist: Camilla Nickerson
Celeb: Leelee Sobieski
Make-up: Aaron de Mey
US Vogue Digital Edition
Photographer: Daniel Jackson
Stylist: Tabitha Simmons
Celebs: Samara Weaving, Morgan Saint, Jodie Comer, Hailey Kilgore, Stacy Martin & Lauren Ambrose
Make-up: Hannah Murray
Hair: Esther Langham
US Vogue Digital Edition
A full editorial with Leelee Sobieski? Why?????? Did I miss something?
^ Lol, that is just how clueless they are now at Vogue! This cover is even a bigger eye sore in real life, and i think the issue is barely around 200 pages.
Leelee Sobieski! So great to see her again. She quit acting to focus on her kids. And of course she's married to Adam Kimmel. Curious why now though? She must have some kind of creative project on the go. Is there no explanation of her feature?
I checked her IMDB page. She has no upcoming projects. Her last acting project was in 2016
Wow, nothing looks like US Vogue. It's too try-hard. From the Lindbergh story to the jewellery one. Not great judging by what's been posted so far.
I like Leelee. Well, I liked her as Raf's muse. They should've used her at Céline. She fits that cold, clinical type of aesthetic to a T. Never really bothered with her acting though. Have only seen one period film which she starred in about the Warsaw Uprising, I think? Decent actress, much better fashion muse. God knows why she's getting this major edit.
Tabitha using the magazine as a promotional for D&G and her styling gig. WHY???