04.27.11April 27, 2011 at 11:50 am | Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment
I try to keep WWJW positive. I have felt the indignant flush rush through my cheekbones and send a prickling, fever-to-chills sensation as it penetrates the rest of my body, upon reading a hurtful, hateful comment from a cowardly flamer; one of their malices has lingered in my psyche too long after such an occasion. Some of my experiences blogging and putting myself out there have given me a sensitivity to the criticism that public figures endure. Surely I’m not comparing the exposure I receive on my silly little blog to that of an A-List — or F-List even — celebrity. But I do try to keep it complimentary because it’s simply small-minded to dish out spiteful slander in a public place.
That being said… I do have a grievance I can’t keep quiet any longer. The last straw came when Blake Lively was named the new face of Chanel Mademoiselle. Baz Luhrmann helped Nicole Kidman for Chanel win me over. Fresh, French, and having played Coco herself in a biopic, Audrey Tautou was easily likable. But Blake Lively? Last I checked the credits to her name include a gossip girl, a coke fiend, and a sassy soccer star. Sure, she’s hot, but shouldn’t the face of Chanel be chic? Coco Chanel herself said, “A girl should be two things: classy and fabulous.” Though Blake Lively may very well embody those traits, I can’t concede that she is the perennial example. Chanel’s not Dior… it’s not Dolce & Gabbana… it’s not Gucci. Chanel is in the upper eschelon of fine fashion. Their representatives must have that enduring extra special something to be just right. Blake Lively is a stunner for sure, but I’m not convinced she’s The One for Chanel Mademoiselle.
Karl Lagerfeld, take note.
…And now, someone who’s definitely not chic enough for Chanel.