It’s hard work being a celebrity. Honestly, some days you have to wear, not one, but TWO fancy-schmancy dresses one after the other. Which we guess is at least better than wearing them both at the same time, which sounds like something Chloe Sevigny would do. Anyway…
Here’s poor Jessica Biel, forced to wear Valentino (left) to the premiere of New Year’s Eve, and then make a quick change into a white Victoria Beckham number to promote the movie on Letterman. Which look did you prefer, though, that is the question? (The other question is “Why can’t peep-toe boots just DIE, already?”, but we don’t think that one will ever be answered…) Answers in the comments box, if you please…
1. We can’t quite believe we used the word “work” in this context. Don’t you just HATE it when people talk about “working” their clothes, or – even worse – “rocking” them. Just wear them, for God’s sake!
2. It’s not even appropriate because, well, this “midaxi” length isn’t really “working” on either of them, is it? And let’s face it: neither Michelle Pfeiffer or Sarah Jessica Parker are in the first flush of youth, but even so: there’s something just very “grandma’s closet” about midaxi length florals, isn’t there?
3. Michelle Pfeiffer is very close to killing an angel here. Angels, be warned!
This shoe is alive. As in, it has a face and everything. Don’t believe us? Allow us to demonstrate:
It was the nose that tipped us off. Shoes just should’t have noses, you see, and so, being the team of ace detectives we are, we soon realised something was up. The thing is, though… we just can’t hate a face like that. OK, sure, it’s a shark. And it’ll probably bite your feet off. But it’s a kinda cute one, no? It’s just… a shame about the shoes.
These are by Acne: click here to buy them for the “budget” price of £510…
Well, there’s a lot going on here, isn’t there? For one thing, this dress looks a bit like it’s on fire. Or at least, it does to us, but that could be because we’re slightly blinded by all of the eyeball bleach we instinctively reached for as soon as we laid eyes on it.
Topshop describe it as a “wallpaper” dress. This, of course, made us wonder what kind of room would have walls like this? And who would live in such a room? You can leave your answers to that one in the comments box. Mostly, though, we just want to know whether it would be a super-stylish someone, or the type of someone The Fashion Police should be thinking about arresting. You see, we thought the answer to this one was obvious… but then we noticed that although this dress has only been online for a day or so, it’s already started to sell out in certain sizes, so we need to know what we’re up against here: will we soon be fighting off entire armies of wallpaper-wearers? And if so, should we fight back, or let them win?
This is £65 at Topshop. But is it innocent or guilty?
It’s been a bit of a boring week for celebrity fashion. God, we hate it when the suspects behave themselves!
One of the few outfits to jump out at us as we took a look at the rogue’s gallery this morning was this long silver dress, worn by Rachel McAdams to the premiere of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. It’s what we think of as a “Statuette” dress, in that wearers of this particular style – metallic colour, shiny fabric, long train – invariably end up looking like an Oscar statuette, or some other award.
Does Rachel DESERVE an award for this dress, though? We think we know what you’re going to say, but we’re going to invite you to say it anyway…
The Fashion Police would respectfully like to ask The Duchess of Cambridge to please stop buying her clothes in Zara: we’re convinced she’s at least one of the reasons their clothes are currently selling for astronomical prices on eBay, and we’d quite like that to stop now, thanks very much. This dress, for instance, is already sold out, but whether that’s because of the Kate Effect or not, we will never know.
With that said, here’s Kate Middelton, always appropriate, causing a few raised eyebrows in royal circles: not because her dress is from the high street (everyone’s used to that by now, presumably) but because it’s has – SHOCKHORROR – a higher hemline than usual.
The Duchess is known for her usually conservative clothing choices, which tend to include skirts and dresses which hit either on the knee or just above. This one, worn to watch Garry Barlow in concert, is mid-thigh length, but given that Kate seems to have the ability to make almost anything look conservative, we probably wouldn’t have noticed if it hadn’t been pointed out to us.
(The identical pose kinda gives them away, doesn’t it?
As our regular readers know, The Fashion Police aren’t fans of the phrase “real woman”, which is generally just used as another stick for women to beat each other with, implying, as it does, that if only women with “curves” are “real”, then those without them must be… imaginary?
We have no hesitation, however, in declaring that the models shown above, in images from the H&M website, are NOT REAL WOMEN. Because they’re not. Literally, we mean. The heads are real, sure. The bodies, however, are computer generated, with H&M simply sticking the model’s heads onto the same body using the wonders of Photoshop. (Which seriously has a LOT to answer for, if you ask us.)
A spokesman for the chain admitted: “It’s not a real body, it is completely virtual and made [by] the computer. We take pictures of the clothes on a doll that stands in the shop, and then create the human appearance with a program on [a] computer.”
H&M say they do this so that the focus is on the clothes, not on the models.
“This is not about ideals or to show off a perfect body, we do this to demonstrate an item of clothing. This is done for all clothing, not just for underwear, both male and female clothing,” said spokesman Håcan Andersson.
Good to know, H&M. Because here were we thinking that if not even a model is deemed “perfect” enough to wear these clothes, what chance would the rest of us have? We were also thinking that it’s no wonder so many women have hangups about their bodies and appearance in general, when models are either airbrushed to the point where they’re completely unrecognisable, or aren’t even real women to start with.
We have long believed that it’s not “size 0″ models, or celebrity role models which are the true enemy of self-esteem: it’s Photoshop. We’ve also always said that what’s needed in fashion is a much wider variety: a variety of shapes, sizes, races, ages… you name it. If all of that is not yet possible, however, a good start would be for brands to use ACTUAL people in their advertising: or to at least make it clear when they’ve chopped off the model’s head and stuck it onto a fake body.
Cheryl Cole took an important step on the route to Beckha-esque fashion dominance (she hopes) today, with the launch of her debut shoe collection for member’s only website, Stylist Pick. (Which, for those of you who’ve never heard of it, is based on the same kind of model as Kim Kardashian’s ShoeDazzle, with members signing up to a monthly subscription and then choosing a pair of shoes each month.)
You can see the shoes from this range below, and naturally, we’re keen to know what you think of them. There are strappy, Miu Miu-style sandals, flat biker boots and platform pumps – we even see what looks suspiciously like a pair of boots-pretending-to-be-shoes – but would you buy any of them? Take a look and see…
