| So a couple of weeks ago we went up to Bristol, which we do every other month or so, to go to Forbidden Planet and Borders (as far as we know it's the only Borders within a couple of hours of us.) And I bought People magazine's "Best and Worst Dressed" issue. Never again, sheesh. What a waste of money. Somewhere in the garage I have a B&WD issue from 1987 (I am a total packrat when it comes to magazines, seriously. I don't know why; I'll throw away other stuff, but magazines I will stack and save everywhere. Under the bed, in closets, in the attic...everywhere. I always think I might read them again. Does anyone else share that silly delusion?) Anyway, that 1987 Best & Worst Dressed actually had lots of pictures of people in clothes. LOTS. It had celebrity judges making snarky comments about outfits. It was, in other words, thirty or forty pages of fun. Now? We get three pages of actresses in dresses, three to a page. We get five or six pages of actresses in generally nuflattering outfits, which are labeled "Best Dressed" (will someone please tell me why Gwyneth Paltrow keeps getting on those lists? She does not dress well. And you know, it's funny to hear everyone talking about her pink "I want to thank my Dad Bruce Paltrow and my Mom Blythe Danner"--because everyone thanks their parents by name, as if they have dozens of parents from which to choose and must make clear exactly which ones deserve the applause--Oscar dress and how it didn't fit and looked awful. Because I remember that Oscar ceremony and the pics and comments following it, and I remember clearly that my mother and I seemed to be the only people on the planet who thought the dress was horrible, wrinkled and ill-fitting [much like Princess Diana's awful frumpy wedding dress] and that she looked like a blonde Pinocchio with her hair like that. Oh, no. They all ooohed and ahhhed and talked about how perfect Gwyneth was etc. etc. And now to hear them tell it they always hated the dress. No. It was not like that! Sorry. I get rather overemotional when it comes to bad celebrity clothes and people insisting they are actually great clothes because whomever-it-is's publicist is blowing them under the desk while they write the copy. Anyway.) But no, actually, that is the point. People used to be unafraid of offending the celebrities. If someone looked stupid, People and its celebrity judges would point it out. Now? It's all so bland. So dull. It doesn't matter if the clothes are good or not, they'll fawn all over them. Any magazine that approves of candy-pink flowing minidresses, suitable for lovely garden parties or dressy events, worn with exotic black leather heels that have thick straps and buckles and stuff all over them and all over the foot, as if the actress in question has, from the ankle down, dressed for some sort of sci-fi dominatrix convention...that's not a magazine I want anything to do with anymore. It's just...bad. And dull. And a total disappoinment. I haven't enjoyed an issue of People--a magazine I subscribed to for three years at one point, ffs--since we moved here. Very sad. |
Blog Archives
Latest Entries
Coming Soon
it is sad. I look at people and entertainment weekly and truthfully they are not what they used to be. I wish they would go back to lthe old format.. oh..i resent the email Stacia..hugs
I know! Remember when it used to be, you had a People or an EW, you had something? Lots of gossip, lots of news, human interest, all sorts of neat stuff? And now it's just so choreographed and it's like nobody writes for the mags anymore they just edit press releases and stick them in there. It is indeed depressing.