Big Love star and style icon for the mentally insane CHLOE SEVIGNY wears even stupider clothes than usual for Twin Magazine.
photographed by Kenneth Cappello
styled by Michelle Cameron
If you’re going to display clothes by an alcoholic anti-Semite, they should at least be nice-looking. Those pants are stupid – not that you can really see them in this shitty photograph. Oh, I’m sorry, is it SUPPOSED to look like it was taken on a PlaySkool camera from the 1980s? How FASCINATING. Also, all the photographs notes which articles of clothing were from Chloe’s own wardrobe, which I hated, because it attributed that clothing to her instead of to the designer. It felt like they were crediting Sevigny as the “creator” of these clothes even though they, like the clothes Twin picked for the shoot, are designed by actual designers. (Particularly confusing when her name is Chloe and she’s wearing a sweatshirt by the label Chloe, to which she has no affiliation.)
Although, perhaps the designers of these clothes are lucky that their names didn’t make it into the magazine. I mean, would you want YOUR name attached to this photo?
She’s quite a terrible model. She looks ridiculous in that pose, and I can’t even understand how someone is credited as a “stylist” for this shoot when there’s nothing remotely stylish going on. Did someone really get paid to pick out three items of clothing, have the star wear mostly her own shit, not accessorize anything, not do the star’s hair, and not do the star’s makeup? Is that seriously a job?
Longtime readers will know that I tend to go into a rage over the infantilization of grown women in magazines. (Remember that infamous Glee for GQ incident?) Sevigny is closer to forty than thirty, and still posing like some pedophile’s fantasy. Don’t get into a tiny bed, bend over, hike your babydoll dress up to your waist, grab your ankles (adorned, of course, with white high-top socks), and look at the camera like you’re anticipating penetration. It’s downright disturbing.
Remember when people used to wear makeup in magazine editorials? Those were the days.
I’m sure the photographer thought he was simply BRILLIANT for taking every single shot on a slant, but it really just looks like he doesn’t know how to work a fucking camera. And why does she look like the world’s saddest gymnast?
I don’t hate this too much. It’s still trying hard to look interesting, but it doesn’t insist upon itself to the extent that the rest of the photographs do. But I wish I could see what’s up with that dress – I’d be a little surprised if Chanel designed a dress this distressed, with all those holes in it. But I hope Chanel did make that particular decision, because if the “stylist” of this photo shoot cut up a Chanel dress, I’m going to cut up her face.
Wow! That’s the same expression I have on my face right now! What a coincidence!
© Democracy Diva, 2011.