Obama is NOT Mr. Darcy, IMHO

I normally try to not state my political views here, mainly because I don't believe this is the best platform, nor do I think people in general care about my views, but reading this op-ed piece really stirred a level of discomfort that I didn't know I had about the current election.

In the New York Times, there was a piece that compared Barack Obama to Mr. Darcy (the haughty but dashing hero), and America as Elizabeth Bennett (the spritely, carefree heroine). In an unfair way, John McCain was compared to Wickham (the dishonorable villain). While the piece was written eloquently and with much wit, I don't know if I agree that Obama is Darcy, and I only say this because I love Darcy!

I was a Hillary fan all the way. Despite the critics out there (really, which candidate is wholly perfect?), I really believed that she could make a change for the better based on her experience, intelligence, and understanding of both domestic and global issues. So I was very sad the day she was no longer in the running. I look at the current candidates and see flaws written all over them, with issues that they bring as "benefits" which to me are clear problems.

Barack Obama is a great speaker, has presence on stage, clearly loves his family, and believes in bringing "change" to the White House. My biggest problem with him is that I don't know what that "change" is supposed to be, and how he's going to do that. In fact, based on what I just wrote about him, I know VERY little about his policies. I can easily Google those and read them, but I think my issue with him is that I don't believe him. I think he's a master manipulator in his debates, where he tailors his thoughts for specific audiences; how different is that from when John Kerry was running 4 years ago and people accused him of being a flip-flopper? However, he slides by and gets away with this a lot of times. I'm not a political analyst, so I'm not going to try to name every episode, but I've been reading articles here and there, and listened to some of his debates, and just based on his answers on how he's going to handle the economy and taxes, there is a lot he doesn't understand about basic finances. I used to think I was a Democrat, but I'm beginning to think I'm more of a liberal, because I have issues with raising taxes to help fiscally-irresponsible Americans. There, I've said it, most Americans are big spenders, with debts up the wazoo, and now responsible Americans have to pay more taxes to help those who didn't manage their money well? It's one thing if people are working and underpaid, but an entirely different issue if people don't know HOW to pay for something, but can't stop buying. Sorry, I don't want to be a part of that. But if Obama is elected, there is a big chance that he will raise taxes only for a certain income-bracket, and relieve those with mortgage probs. I think there needs to be more assessments in this area than just lumping everyone together and making everyone responsible for those who abuse the system.

I also think he's too green. He's just not experienced enough, and I think his strategy is to please the audience, get into the White House, and then figure it all out once he sits as President. I think he's a lot of BS sometimes, and I mean that in the most polite way. He's on an extended job interview, and every time he has to talk to a new person, he reads that person by how they ask the question, by what their body language is, and he tailors his answers to please the interviewer. But what are really his credentials? There aren't enough to say whether or not he can get the job done, and do I like what he has planned? I just don't know, because his platform to this day is still too vague.

In terms of McCain, poor guy, he's getting older but he wants this job so badly. I respect that he's a former POW, that he's one of the most liberal Republicans out there, but my biggest hang-up with him is the issue of abortion. I think I feel better with his stance on the economy compared to Obama, but geez, what century are we living in, what country are we living in, if the most basic woman's right is taken away? I'm not FOR abortion, but I don't think it should be illegal. If a woman is going to get pregnant and doesn't want that child, she should be able to walk into a medical clinic and seek help. I don't want to read anymore about women fiddling with wire hangers or throwing babies away into public toilets or dumpsters, because if you put a woman in a desperate situation, she will do desperate things. Allow a woman to choose, and McCain, you just might have my vote.

I have never wanted to vote for a Republican in my life, but the choices here aren't so stellar, in my mind. If it were Hillary vs. McCain, hands-down the Democrats would have my vote. I'm tired to reading about how "great" Obama is. I want to understand what he will do for our country, and for me as a citizen. Lay out your platform, and maybe I will re-assess. But you ain't no Mr. Darcy, 'cause you haven't won my heart just yet.

Zhang Ziyi vs. Lucy Liu

With the Beijing Olympics upon us in a matter of weeks, there was bound to be additional coverage, as was the case for the August issues of Vogue and Harper's Bazaar.

In terms of coverage, who wins? On this side of the ring, Zhang Ziyi 章子怡 had a glowing article about her rise to stardom, starting with her humble beginnings to her now international fame and new engagement to international tycoon and venture capitalist Aviv "Vivi" Nevo. Her photo shoot wasn't too bad, although the styles they paired her with were rather harsh, mostly in terms of the make-up and hair (feels like they were trying to claim the '80s?). I don't have scans of the pics, but you can see her video below as she talks about the photo shoot. And of course, she was featured in Vogue, the mother of all fashion mags. However, other than the fact that she is Beijing-born, nothing in the article or photos link her at all to the Olympics (ok, she was one of the Olympic torchbearers, but that was hardly emphasized).



On the other side of the ring, Lucy Liu had a more Olympic-inspired photo shoot, which was fairly creative, and her pictorial spread was much larger. However, there was not a word about her, not even a blurb on anything she was potentially promoting, so it looked like they borrowed her to model for the mere fact that she is Chinese-American (and thus, she's really Team USA). Her photos were in Harper's Bazaar, which as of late has been more inspiring for me to pick through than Vogue has been, so it's not THE best, but pretty up there in my mind.


So who wins? I say.....NEITHER! Assuming that the fashion world is embracing all things from China, and the Beijing Olympics being such a platform (note that a lot of design houses even created special, limited-edition pieces for the Asian market BECAUSE of the Olympics), I find it terribly defeating that neither could make the covers.

For Vogue, Kate Moss was on the cover, which makes sense seeing that she is 1) a supermodel, and 2) promoting her fashion empire, but her photos weren't even that great (see article and photos here). They could've put her on the cover of the September issue, since that's when the new Topshop will debut in the US (she being one of the coveted lines in the brand, it would have made sense in that case). Zhang Ziyi could easily have been on the cover, and no one would have thought it strange. She's been seen on the red carpet very frequently, wearing all the new designers, so she is already known for embracing fashion. I would have loved to see a beautiful spread of her in China, w/ maybe the Olympic stadiums or ye ole' temples or modern skyscrapers in the backdrop. How lush would it have been to see her in gorgeous gowns and showing the beauty of Beijing behind her? I don't particularly think that Ziyi is a great actress either, but she is def. on the A-list, and Americans do recognize that she is a "star," so why not the cover?

For Harper's Bazaar, there was a boring article about Jessica Biel (who has never done anything great except a GQ cover and dating Justin Timberlake, IMHO), and some lame photos of her "dancing" with designers like Vera Wang and Zac Posen. The photo qualities were mediocre, and if you were to compare her to Lucy Liu, she didn't have anything in particular to promote either, so how'd she make the cover? Lucy had some cool photos, and while they weren't shot in Beijing, they were cute in trying to blend fashion with athleticism. I don't know if Lucy is still big enough to land a cover, but isn't it a little sad if she was only able to land the photo shoot 'cause she was Chinese-American, and for no other reason? Like, some editor in some glossy magazine cubicle sat there and said, "Beijing Olympics are coming up, we need to put a Chinese person in this shoot, quick, how many well-known Chinese actresses are there that we can land for this? They don't even need to be promoting anything, or talk, 'cause we're not going to bother interviewing them. Just make sure they're Chinese."

Anyhow, maybe I should be happy any Asians get their own coverage, but it pains me that no Asian one can land the cover yet. One would have thought that this time, this would have been a great opportunity to do more than just the norms. Do you have any thoughts?

the ugly side of Louis

WWD Japan revealed on their cover a sneak peek of the exclusive collaboration between Louis Vuitton and Comme des Garcons. Starting in September, there will be a pop-up store selling six exclusive bags, all designed by Rei Kawakubo, featuring the classic monogram canvas and leather, albeit with some, ahem, whimsical twists, like extra handles, or two handles morphed into one. The store will only be around for 3 months, and will only be in Tokyo.


I took a gander. I paused. And the first thought in my mind... What is this HIDEOUS eight-armed atrocity? It's absolutely ridiculous. I can't even label this an artistic piece. It seems very trivial and silly. This is supposed to celebrate the two esteemed brands?!?

There is just something so plainly revolting and convoluted about these designer collabs that I feel speechless. Where is the DEE-ZIGN?!?!? I don't see it here. I'm not even talking about the practicality factor, which this bag obviously does not have, but pure aesthetics, that makes one proud to carry a bag, any bag. This is not one of them. It took my breath away because it is such a sorry looking piece of crap.

I have been a devoted LV fan for years, back when the pieces were classic (Vernis is my fave line, all the way), and it was such a luxury item that one doted on and took care of, and wore with some level of pride and fancy. Nowadays, the brand has devoted itself to so many hit-and-run, sometimes successful, sometimes tacky projects that it has lost a lot of appeal for me. These new "limited" pieces don't excite me at all. If anything, I'm dumbfounded that anyone, fan or critic, would think that these are cool at all.

Am I just being too conservative? I hope not, as I always prided myself on having a clean, appreciative eye for the finer things in life. These creations really look shoddy and uninventive to me. I don't understand the hype, if only to allow ppl to hate it, much like I do, and spew venom about it on blogs. Haha...but I digress...really, this is is JUST - SO - UGLY!!!

I took a quick look at Comme des Garcons' designs, and there are some really cool, edgy stuff in there. Their color thematics fall into the blacks and whites, the lines are very post-modern and not frilly at all. I would have LOVED to see them re-invent the LV brand into something that was in line w/ their usual perspective. That to me would be a true collab. Taking stock LV canvas and changing (or in this case, adding) stupidly useless handles does not equate a genuine collab for me. It's an insult to a true LV lover and anyone who has the moneybags to afford this useless crap. It is a sad day in the world of LV.

Source & Source

Sacrifices...

Although this isn't the first time I've given this some thought, after reading this article, I started to re-evaluate some of my own consumerism and spending habits.

I graduated from college 7 years ago, and it took me exactly this long to be stable in a career and position where I can spend quite freely, have a lot of autonomy and authority at work, and again, spend quite freely. The last few years were the worst times of my financial life, not due to debt, but to the very fact that I became a big spender. As if freed from years of miserly tendencies (one can't really do too much when one doesn't have an income), and with a discovery of designer goods that appealed so vastly to my slowly growing and adapting tastes, I splurged on vacations and bags, shoes and jewelry, all because of my "new found wealth." Don't get me wrong; I hardly regret any of my purchases, as my parents always taught me to be frugal and not wasteful, so I still had some of those values instilled in me. I didn't exactly spend it on junk. I also spent generously on family, and I have no regrets on that either.

But what am I left with now? I bought a car last year (love my Prius!), and I'm very proud of this purchase. As that was a hefty purchase, I've pared down buying loads of other crap, such as magazines (I can read most glossies online these days), CDs (I can listen to streaming radio), and clothing (rummaging at Marshall's or TJ Maxx is not beneath me).

I see my home right now as a giant storage closet filled with items I sometimes forget that I own. I always wanted a condo, but was not wise enough to save up my money for that, so I am doing that right now, although anyone who knows Boston will tell you that without half a million dollars to your name, a nice, liveable, decent condo is hardly within grasp, so I have some time before I get to that point. Several weeks ago, I set up a poll asking your thoughts on which purse to buy, a Louis Vuitton or a Fendi. The LV won, but I reassessed after I decided I really wanted a new laptop computer, so I am now looking for the best deal (would love something like the Asus Eee, although only Windows, please, and maybe a tad bigger, and more memory...thus, still looking).

In short, I got tired of buying, no, WANTING stuff. It gets very superficial, to the point that sometimes I don't know what to write about on this blog, which if you've been following, has been teetering on more about entertainment (movies, music, art) than fashion these days. In some ways, having this blog has been cathartic because I can go on and on about an object that I'm crazy about, but after several viewings, I might already be satiated, or maybe even tired of it. While I haven't been blogging all that long, when I scroll back to some of the archived posts, I don't even recall being all that excited in the first place, be it be about a bag, or a dress, or a piece of jewelry. In fact, lately, I've found that I am better when I have less stuff around me.

For instance, in my office at work, I hardly keep anything here. And I remain tranquil, calm, subdued. All I really need is a computer so I can write or read, some music in the background, and an occasional onslaught of tabloid rubbish to keep things interesting. I don't need the latest in home goods (although it's hard to say no when I pass through a West Elm or Ikea; that's why I only peruse their catalogs), clothing (that's why I love the pictorials online), or anything that will take up space. I just have to constantly tell myself this when there is a moment of weakness.

I've been wanting to do this for a long time, where I want to just sell off everything I own, just to clear up the space, and give myself a makeover. How many LVs do I need to own (as I have so many I've lost count completely)? I have tons, TONS of stuffed animals, because I can't resist sometimes and think they're cute so I buy them. How many does a grown woman need of those? And books! I love to buy books. But now I'm getting better...I buy on eBay, where a decent used copy is better than a straggly, dirty one from the library, and it keeps the book circulated without too much of a sacrifice on the wallet.

My point is that we are a culture of things, where we are obsessed with the latest and greatest, because all of these creative people out there continue to churn out wonderful, delightful, fanciful things that we can't help coveting. I know I'm very guilty of that. I am that person, that coveter, who is always so easily joyful in a cute I-don't-know-what, but I'm learning to stop being that person. Well, not to the point that I won't blog about it here. :P But more or less, trying to move away from that so I don't spend my $$ on useless crap.

My biggest indulges this year will be my planned trips to Paris, France, and Cancun, Mexico, both in the fall. I absolutely CANNOT wait, as they are both beckoning to me for very different reasons. I've discovered that my best purchases are trips, where I can eat really good food, see beautiful art, take in a different culture, dabble in some languages. The experiences are sometimes better than owning stuff. I won't sacrifice a nice trip for some thing; I can easily stop myself from buying an object if I know I have a trip planned. But of course, I also have to hold myself back, 'cause I love to buy for a trip...new clothes, bags, shoes...it's an addiction that I need to slow down on.

I think with the value of the dollar slipping so quickly here, it's more important, more than ever, for every person to focus on their basic needs before spending on frivolous things. To be fair, I am in a very good situation in terms of the economy. I work in an industry that can hold itself better than most when the economics are bad. I commute for a very short distance, and driving a hybrid, I hardly have to worry about gas. So I'm not complaining about the $$. I'm just saying that these days, I have to value what I breed into my life, which basically means owning less stuff. Can I do it? I am trying, very hard. Not making too big of a sacrifice, but I am no longer jumping to buy something right away on impulse. Holding myself back, that is what I am trying to do.

Kira the Russian Princess

While I'm much too old to be anywhere near the target audience, I've been very interested in the arrival of a new brand that is coming to the States from Russia. The chain of stores, called Kira Plastinina, are named after its chief designer and founder, the 15-year-old daughter of a Russian millionaire. With nary a design background, but a taste for what's in with teens and tweens, and with the help of her father's wealth, she hopes to have 50 stores in the US in the next three years. Currently, there are about 49 stores all over Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. The first US store is in NYC.



I have read several articles (read here and here) about her background and her goal of an empire (or is it her father's goal?), but I think the most intriguing aspect of her story is not just the success factor (her business is worth billions already in Russia), but that this young girl is actually living the dream of every other young girl who loves fashion, art, and design. To be bankrolled by a father who is fully committed to her, to be able to doodle designs and hand them off to real designers and seamstresses/tailors so she can wear the real thing, to go to a store opening that is designed like her own dream closet, that is what is so fascinating about her. She is living the life of a princess, with no rules of the game. She can pick and choose at her whim, have a creative outlet that isn't held up by boundaries; that is the true goal of any entrepreneur. No one would ever say no to her, especially not at this stage. It's her level of power and wealth that can cause envy or dismissal, but she is truly the mistress of her own domain, and owner of her own conglomerate. There is a sense that you would want to root for her, but when everything is so perfect, there are definitely critics out there who want to see her fall.

The brand aspect of "Kira" is also appealing to me, mainly because while we make a brouhaha of young celebrities like Miley Cyrus who are owned by Disney and can't really steer their own careers without living a certain level of values, or compare this self-indulgent young girl to the likes of Paris Hilton, who sometimes has no business calling herself a celebrity, Kira's meteoric rise without having to answer to critics gives her a definite freedom that is different from the rest of us. One of the marketing goals of her brand is that she is young, and thus, would appeal to her target audience, from teens into women in their early-20s. But is her success story believable? Maybe the girl herself, she is still young and we can buy into her aspirations and dreams, but the truth is, she has lived the success of 10 lives over; many older, more cynical people will realize this and see past the rose-colored glass, that she is anything but ordinary and "your average teenager." She is obviously a very pretty girl and will be an idol for many little girls, but one mustn't be fooled by the PR blitz.



The question remains to be seen on whether or not all the hype will bring her brand to the level it has performed in Russia. I took a look at the early catalog of designs on her website, and they are cute, quite ok, although nothing groundbreaking. In fact, with all of her love of pink and rainbows and butterflies, she reminds me a lot of a design that I grew up with back in the 90's, of the old-school Lisa Frank designs, which were enmeshed with neon colors, and were always of unicorns, roses, puppies, etc.


Kira's designs at most appear to be ultra-fem and a little subversive. But if these designs are any measure, she will quickly build a fan following amongst the Wet Seal/H&M fans.

Gucci disappoints me...

I'm somewhat miffed at Gucci right now, because of their lack of customer service response! Last week, I inquired about this rose shantung top that was on sale on their website. Granted, it was actually too large for me (only size L remained), so I filled out their customer contact form to ask about alterations for the top if I did indeed purchased it, or if it was outright ill-fitting, if it could be returned. Now, it all doesn't matter, since the top is now sold-out, and I have to go look for a knock-off top or something.

When I purchased my Bottega Veneta bag last year via their website, I received stellar responses from their customer service, and that was just one woman who was operating from the NY store. So of course, I expected the same level of courtesy from Gucci (since they claim they will get back to you within 24 hours), and even if the top is sold out, maybe there are other things I am eyeing, so shouldn't they at least TRY to respond?

I suppose I could've called instead of the passive-aggressive approach of using the Internet, but I see these two channels of communication as equals, so why wouldn't I expect the same levels of service?

Anyhow, I suppose I can buy something else w/ my hard-earned money, even though I thought this top would be lovely to wear on my 30th birthday (in just a lil' over a month!), but yes, I mourn the loss of this top, even if it's the color of Pepto Bismol.

I was a fool to fall for you!

Sharon Stone's comeuppance keeps on coming

In light of my angry tirade last week over Sharon Stone, while I don't apologize for it, rereading what I wrote, it was definitely a visceral reaction that was triggered as soon as I heard what she had the nerve to say, which was to blame the devastating earthquakes in China on "bad karma."

Here are her original statements.



Good God, even hearing the rest of her quote, I'm dumbfounded by her lack of heart and common sense in breaking apart the politics of the people and a natural disaster! What a brainless twat!

Anyhow, I was glad to hear that Dior is doing the right thing, which is to distance themselves as much as possible from this dumb idiot.

Luxury retailer Christian Dior has pulled advertisements featuring Sharon Stone from stores across China after the actress suggested the country's earthquake was "bad karma" for Beijing's policies in Tibet.

At least 68,000 people died in the May 12 quake in southwest China, which came months after unrest in Tibet that sparked an international outcry over Beijing's handling of the predominantly Buddhist region, which Communist troops entered in 1950.

"Due to some customer reaction we have decided to pull her image from all of the department stores and from all of China," Christian Dior China said in a statement.

Stone has a modeling contract with the cosmetics arm of the luxury retailer for which newly rich China is a fast-growing market.

"We just want our customers and fans to realize that her personal comments are not related to the company and of course we don't support any type of commentary that will hurt the feelings of our customers," Dior said.

The best way to get at her is really her wallet, which is quite sad, as I think she deserves more than boycotting. No amount of apologizing from her will make what she said any better. I know she's done many charitable work, but if the charity is coming from such a cruel and insane woman, I think it better that she stayed out of it.

Read more about China's reaction here.

Sharon Stone is a dumb bitch!

She said that the earthquakes in China could have been caused by bad "karma." Is she retarded or what? Sorry, but that's pretty much telling a whole race of ppl that they deserved death, suffering, hell and more 'cause the gov't did something that these ppl had nothing to do with!!! What a stupid bitch! I can't help it, I hate ppl who are so damn ignorant and heartless. I'd like to see her reaction if her whole family suffered through some tragic, NATURAL disaster. Is that karma, too? 'Cause payback's a bitch.

In an interview with Hong Kong's Cable Entertainment News, the 50-year-old actress (and staunch Tibetan rights advocate) tied the natural disaster -- which has claimed at least 65,000 lives -- to Beijing's policy on Tibet.

"I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else," she said Thursday at a Cannes Film Festival bash.

"And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, 'Is that karma? When you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?'"

Not that anyone cares what Sharon Stone thinks, but she's eternally a bitch in my book now. What a dumb idiot. Boycott, boycott, boycott everything she's in!!! In Beijing, they are already removing all the Christian Dior ads that feature her. I would tell her to screw herself, but she's probably doing that already. Sorry for this uncensored rant, but she totally deserves it. Talk about diarrhea of the mouth. Dumbass!

Source

I would love to accept your rose...

While I haven't posted much on this topic, I must confess that I'm an avid viewer of reality shows, although they mostly fall into the areas of fashion ("Project Runway", "America's Next Top Model") or food ("Top Chef, "Iron Chef"). Sometimes I watch "American Idol" (currently rooting for David Cook, only after hearing his rendition of Mariah Carey's Always Be My Baby), and I still enjoy "The Apprentice" for the ridiculous pseudo-corporate America drama, but my guiltiest pleasure has to be "The Bachelor." This time around, it's "The Bachelorette," and I'm really rooting for DeAnna Pappas to find true love.

Many years ago, a friend talked me into joining her and her co-worker to apply for "The Bachelor." It was a very strange experience, and one that I certainly didn't prepare for, as it was short-notice, and I literally knew about it 2 hours before I walked into what looked like herded lambs ready for their sacrifice. Granted, the only thing different was that the women there wanted to be there, of course. Sans make-up and a hot outfit, I blended in like a pale leaf, while all of the other women, who REALLY wanted to be chosen, got dolled up, and tried to look hotter than the next, hoping to impress the producers. I could hear them being interviewed, spouting their dreams and desires for their knight in shining armor, and I could all but gag. At the time, at a mere 23 years old, marriage was the last thing on my mind, and I only went to see out of boredom and curiosity. When it was my turn, I found myself making up stuff about how I wanted to get married w/ the next man I met, and that this would be the perfect platform to meet him. Standing under hot lights and answering questions from a very good-looking guy (heck, he could've been meeting lots of chicks, that's how cute he was, but he was obviously there to make the women more comfortable and relaxed), I could all but hold back a smirk and snort before the interview session was over, a sense of relief hiding the fact that this can't be real, these women around me didn't REALLY want to meet their future husband on a reality show, did they? Anyhow, now that you have learned about one of my more horrifying and embarrassing moments, it should be mentioned that I still enjoy the series, despite the normally lackluster men who ARE chosen to be the bachelor, and the silly women who go on this show to fight for his love.

I really liked DeAnna when she was one of the women who might have been chosen by the bachelor had he not been so misleading and decided that despite their love and chemistry for each other, he couldn't see a life with her, and just ended it. She was pretty, sweet, and something about her made it feel like she could be your friend, too. What guy wouldn't want to be with her? Alas, the idiot didn't even want to try it out, not even date outside of the show, which leads me to think he was in it only to see what it was like to have 25 women fighting for him. All of us girls know what it's like to have your heart broken, and not understand the WHY. Ladies, as the bestseller already lays out so eloquently, "He's Just Not That Into You." Sometimes, there are no answers, and you just have to move on.

Move on DeAnna does, where this time she's in charge, as the bachelorette, to figure out of the 25 men vying for her, who could be her future love. I watched it last night, and those men were either nerdy, scary, or both. If I ever met these guys in a bar or party, I'd quickly steer clear of them. Some of them were so smug, so righteous, I felt like smacking them in the back of the head and telling them to haul ass. The only one who I recall who might be great for DeAnna is Richard, the really dorky, shy, science teacher who actually is pretty cute, but, uh, yeah, dorky. He was less intense, which I think is how a first meeting should go, not like that martial arts instructor who's kicking lemons off of people's heads (violent tendencies?), or the Greek guy who tries to impress DeAnna by speaking in Greek (she's part Greek, too), but bores his eyes through her like he owns her, or the lawyers and bankers who think their nice suits and job titles instantly make them desirable.

Deanna & Richard - future couple?

Maybe you think I've been harping on this topic for far too long, but I think the reason I love this show is because you get to see how a couple falls in love, regardless if it lasts or not. I think of all the things we struggle for, love is one of those intangibles we simply can't live without.


The Bachelorette, Mondays at 9PM EST on ABC

when self-promotion rubs me the wrong way

I don't know why, but I hate it when designers or stores market their products with a "as seen on celebrity x" flyer or newsletter. I feel like it's the poor-man's marketing route, with a giant scream of buy-me-'cause-so-and-so-has-it-too. I have no probs if a celebrity was paid to actually endorse it legitimately, or on the other hand, if the celeb was walking around wearing/carrying items and the paparazzi catch it for the tabloids. (It's no secret that celebs get freebies all the time, so yes, that's also a sly way to endorse something, but I would imagine they'd have to like it somewhat to want to be photographed in/with it, correct? I digress...) That's fine with me, but it's when the celebs' paparazzi photo is used by the designer to endorse said product, then that really irritates me.

For instance, in the latest Anya Hindmarch newsletter I received, they attempted to sell me on the lovely attributes of their Cooper bag because Angelina Jolie was seen cavorting with it in high-style. You won't see this on their website, it's only an enticer by way of a "what's-in-style" newsletter, like they're sharing fashion advice, but it's super lame-o to me.


First of all, something is only cool if everyone's buzzing about it. Anya Hindmarch shouldn't feel compelled to tell us that Angelina was seen carrying their cool bag. It's not cool if you're telling us it's cool. That's the job of fashion mags, bloggers, etc. Something that characterizes this bag as having an It-factor is removed when it's being buzzed about by its own creator.

Secondly, if Angelina is the only celeb carrying this bag, then maybe it's not so cool? Was she the only A-list celeb to like it? Angie is hardly renowned for committing to any designer (I would definitely define her as classic, but one-designer-devotee she is not), so you see her carrying it a couple of times today, the next time she's carrying a brand new purse by someone else. What does that say about the real attractiveness of the product?

Lastly, the bag is not all that. It's a modified version of a standard hobo, with some metallic leather detailing. Big freakin' kahooey.


Am I short-sighted, or does this kind of marketing really pull at your wallet-strings? Do you jump at the chance to own something because a celebrity is seen with it? Even if that's the case, isn't it irritating if the designer themselves are promoting the products via this channel? Thoughts?

Anya Hindmarch Cooper bag - Smooth Calf in Cream - £675.00

beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Is it me or does she look eerily like Goldie Hawn here, esp. w/ that expression?

People magazine just posted a sneak peek of their "100 Most Beautiful People in the World" list, and looking at the previews, I can't say I'm too impressed. As a kid, this was THE list to look forward to each year, because in the time before the Internet (I'm dating myself here), TMZ, and all of those entertainment news outlets that barrage our every days now, there was a mystique as to the way People selected their beauties, gorgeous photos were dedicated just for this issue, and of course, celebs all wanted to make it on this coveted list.

However, I've all but stopped buying these issues in the past 5 years or so because these lists have less to do with beauty and more to do with popularity. People post the people who are in the news the most. They post the celebs who frequently appear in their covers anyways. There are also way more beautiful pictorials from many other magazines, such as Vanity Fair, Vogue, and W. The photos in People are designed to be "friendly" and "comfortable," and they never push the envelope. What does this all mean? DRABNESS. The photos are dull, the people they pick are dull, therefore, the magazine is dull.

I don't know if I agree that Kate Hudson should have been their cover girl. Yeah, she's all sunny and bright, but to be THE most beautiful?!? No, I don't think so. Maybe back when she had a hit with "How To Lose a Guy in 10 Days," I thought she was adorable in that, and much prettier, but she's pretty worn out looking these days. The Cantonese term I can think of is "chahn." Just, she's not who I would've picked.


I mean, they put Rumer Willis on the list, and sorry if this is mean, but she's pretty darn fug. What has she done? Nothing but be the spawn of Demi and Bruce. Everybody on the list is pretty blah and predictable. Eva Longoria, check. Jessica Alba, check. Carrie Underwood, check.

The only person I liked from the sneak peek was Salma Hayek. There is no debate from me that she should be on this list; she is absolutely stunning!


And at least the cast of "Gossip Girl" made it on. Again, is that because they are THE most beautiful, or because they are the hottest cast on television now? You be the judge.


Source

sweet valley high redux

There is no other series of books that marked my youth in the late '80s and early '90s more than the Sweet Valley series. While I was more partial to the Sweet Valley Twins (the cover art to me was less creepy, plus, I was quite young when I started to read them, maybe around 8 or 9 yrs old), it was the success of the Sweet Valley High series that launched all the spin-offs. Fluffy, superficial, at times repetitive to the point of ad nauseum (if you'd ever noticed, every book had at least one and a half pages devoted to the descriptions of the twins, and line by line, were the same in every book), this was a pure guilty pleasure, sugar for the brain at a time when little girls still read for pleasure.

Fast forward 25 years, and Francine Pascal, the creator, is relaunching the SVH series with all new references, bringing my favorite twins, Elizabeth and Jessica, back into relevance. The texts are the same, but any references to the '80s are all but trounced so that a new generation of little girls can fall in love and choose their favorite twin.


I don't know how this repackaged series will fare when it's up against more salacious offerings like "Gossip Girl," "A-List," and "Clique," which are supposed to be much more risqué. Sweet Valley High was designed for quieter, more conventional times, and they are as familiar as apple pie, not sour apple martinis.

Anyhow, I won't be buying any issues, but it definitely brought back memories when I heard that they were going to try to make these books a part of pop culture again. I must confess, the new covers starring soap actress Leven Rambin are kinda icky. I'm not feeling her look at all. There was a (God-awful) TV show that starred real-life twin actresses Cynthia and Brittany Daniel, and while I hated the show, they emit more life into the characters than this girl, who looks kind of snotty in the photos. She looks like she smelled something bad. :p

Leven Rambin above

Cynthia and Brittany Daniel below

Fun fact, all the cover art from the original series were painted by an artist named James L. Mathewuse. I never thought too much about the artwork until they replaced him, and now I'm all fawning nostalgia.


BTW, my fave SVH issue has to be #50, "Out of Reach." It wasn't any classic to write home about, but I remember feeling in awe that there was a Chinese-American character at all (!), and that her challenges were on how to blend in with that very vanilla society. I would say that for a series that hardly ever rhapsodized on the issues of race, this was a defining moment for me as a reader.


Source & Source & Source & Source & Source

a Renaissance woman she is not?

Beautiful actress Maggie Q will appear in "Deception," a new film starring Ewan McGregor, Hugh Jackman, and Michelle Williams. I like to avoid spoilers, so I didn't read too much on what her role is, but it sounds like she will be playing a high-priced call girl.


Maggie's career has come a long way since she started in Hong Kong, speaking broken Cantonese et al. My earliest memories of her was when she appeared in a karaoke music video for the HK boy band Grasshoppers 草蜢 (how I wish I could locate that video for you!). Doing the math, she was probably 16 or 17 at the time, and the only reason I remember her in the video was because 1) her features were less refined then, so she actually looked very strange to me, but also 2) her exotic looks stood out in a cast of standard Chinese performers.

She obviously grew into her looks and her star has steadily risen, but now I feel like all she's ever been is the tough sexpot. Her recent arrival into Hollywood has her either vamping it up in a sexy red dress in "Mission Impossible III" or performing unbelievable martial arts in "Live Free or Die Hard." Hello, do you smell STEREOTYPE a mile away? When can she really become a first-tier actress? Can any Asian actress break through that barrier without having to stoop to obvious levels?

In "Deception," she isn't listed anywhere on the movie's poster or official site, but all press photos of her show her in lacy lingerie.


A long time ago, I did a history paper in college about the pitfalls of Asian women portrayed on-screen as either a venomous, manipulative dragon lady a la Lucy Liu (see examples in "Ally McBeal," "Charlie's Angels," or "Kill Bill" to name a few), or subservient, soft, and submissive. This trend of two divergent female types started in the 1920's starting with Anna May Wong. It's been nearly a decade since I made that observation of hope that Asian actresses would play just people in America, not polarizing symbols of sexual fantasies, but I'm sad to say that this stance doesn't seem to have changed much.

Obviously, I have not seen this movie yet, so I shouldn't jump the gun, but really, doesn't her body of work speak for itself? Is it her fault that better roles aren't up for consideration, or is Hollywood still stuck in the times? Should I just be excited for her that she's in ANY Hollywood movie?


Deception - opening April 25, 2008

Source & Source

joker style

The first time I saw Miu Miu's Harlequin bag, visions of clowns and jokers danced in my head. The design reminded me of costumes of yore, akin to something a court jester would wear while parading in front of the king and queen.


I actually wondered who would carry this, a mishmash of colorful diamonds like a painted soccer ball, but surprisingly, this bag is starting to grow on me. The likes of Victoria Beckham and Lindsay Lohan are saying it's ok, it can be stylish to carry a patchwork bag. So join us as we strut our stuff!


The disconnect of this bag with their outfits isn't the point. It's about the confidence that anything you wear can look great if you believe in it. I see this bag easily being knocked off and sold at the closest flea market. It's not about high design here, but a decent, colorful, easy-to-sling bag for the every woman. Don't take everything too seriously. I think even a vixen like Harley Quinn would be proud. She is, after all, the epitome of sexy joker style.


Source & Source & Source & Source & Source

come here to get your designer bag!

I found this to be an utter riot. Outside of the Murakami exhibit in Brooklyn, they created sets of faux vendor stalls that were selling real LVs. I love the irony of forcing these wealthy people to have to feel like they need to be bartering in the streets in the cold for a $3,ooo bag. While this was an obvious poke at the counterfeited bags that you can buy on Canal St., there is a certain level of poking fun at the rich, too. The fact that they would buy into this marketing concept and will play along only shows what the power of a brand will make people do. It is kitschy rather than low-class to be buying a designer bag from a street vendor. How the times have changed.


I think all that's missing are the Street bags from LV's last spring collection. Those fit the Chinatown theme MUCH better...


Source & Source & Source