Archive for Golden Globes

The best moments at this year’s Golden Globes
… a.k.a. Take that, mani-cam!


The Golden Globes were last Sunday night, and though there were a few disappointments, it was mostly a great night for women (a fact one NY Post reporter actually had the hutzpah to complain about).




On the red carpet, one of the stars of Mad Men summed up how we all feel about the head-to-toe scrutiny of women when Elisabeth Moss flipped off their ridiculous E! mani-cam. Thank you, Elizabeth, for doing what we all want to do on the red carpet. Lord knows how many times I’ve flipped off the mani-cam and the glam-o-strator and the 360 degree room and whatever other bullshit they come up with to reduce women to their looks. And, wow, was it fun to see Giuliana Rancic freak out like that.



During the ceremony, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler KILLED it with an outrageously funny opening “monologue” and other hilarious bits throughout the evening including a great rejoinder to the inherent sexism of “Miss Golden Globe” by pretending Fey had an illegitmate son who was the night’s “Mr. Golden Globe.”

They didn’t shy away from women’s body issues either, explaining that “For The Dallas Buyers Club, Matthew McConaughey lost forty pounds. Or what actresses call being in a movie” and encouraging the men to “kick off your shoes, try on the ladies’, and see how awful they are.”



Men who date younger women got BURNED when Tina and Amy introduce Gravity as “the story of how George Clooney would rather float away and die than spend one more minute with a woman his age.”



Philomena Lee stood up for solidarity among women, saying that the movie based on her life is “not just about me; it is about all the women who have still not gotten justice.”



Emma Thompson showed us what it means to be a strong woman in Hollywood when she came out to present an award carrying her high heels in one hand and a martini in another. “That red you see is my blood,” Thompson said as she held up her shoes, eventually chucking them behind her.



Several winners called attention to how much their mothers helped them, including Amy Adams and Matthew McConaughey.



Amy Poehler won best actress in a television comedy for playing feminist Leslie Knope on Parks & Rec! As one of my friends said, I don’t know who to love more—Amy Poehler or Leslie Knope—because both are such wonderful role models for women.



Amy Poehler made out with Bono after her name was called, finally getting revenge for what Adrian Brody did to Halle Berry at the 2002 Oscars.



Diane Keaton continued to challenge gender roles 37 years after she first did it in Annie Hall by wearing a men’s suit to accept the honorary Globe for Woody Allen.




Melissa McCarthy presented an award, and no one made any jokes about her body. It’s the small things, isn’t it?



Jimmy Fallon and Melissa McCarthy had phenomenal chemistry, making me believe they could star in a rom com together about a skinny dude and a bigger woman. Come on, Hollywood, make it happen!



Robin Wright ran to the stage in her giant heels, proving that women can do anything, and despite what Meryl Streep’s character said in August: Osage County, Wright canoodled with fiance Ben Foster, showing that women really DO get better with age.



Okay, I admit this one isn’t related to gender or body issues, but I also loved it when, in a moment of rare Hollywood camraderie, the cast/crew of 12 Years a Slave helped director Steve McQueen remember who to thank when he won Best Dramatic Motion Picture.





In addition to all the normal annoyance on the Red Carpet (including the aforementioned mani-cam, glam-o-strator, and 360-degree camera), a new tradition was introduced in which entertainment reporters repeatedly asked celebrities how much their jewels were worth, highlighting how out of touch Americans are with the state of the world.

Parks & Rec, one of the smartest television shows about a strong woman EVER, lost the Golden Globe for Best Television Comedy to Brooklyn Nine-Nine. Really, Hollywood Foreign Press? Really????!!!!!!

Diane Keaton made us cringe by reducing the female actresses in Woody Allen’s film to “Woody’s Women” and then desecrating A GIRL SCOUTS’ SONG ABOUT FEMALE FRIENDSHIP by singing it in tribute to Allen.

And possibly most important of all, the Hollywood Foreign Press ignored all of the amazing movies made by women this year. In fact, not one woman was nominated for Best Director or Best Screenplay even though 2013 brought us excellent films written and directed by Nicole Holofcener, Lake Bell, Greta Gerwig, Sarah Polley, Sofia Coppola, Julie Delpy, and many more.

Dear Jonah Hill, I have a request: Just say no to diets

On Tuesday, I mentioned that there were two things I noticed about the Golden Globes last Sunday night. The first one was that it was a big night for real-looking women like Lena Dunham, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, and Jodie Foster.

And the second is this: Diets aren’t just bad for us regular people. They’re bad for celebrities too.

I thought about this because of Jonah Hill.

I like Jonah Hill. I really do. My respect for him started with Superbad and peaked after I saw his subtle yet empathetic performance opposite Brad Pitt in Moneyball last year.

But not long after Hill shared the screen with America’s Golden Boy, he did something unwise: he went on a diet.

Admittedly, after the diet was over, Hill looked like this:

Of course, this whipped the media into one of their diet frenzies. Everyone on the planet—from the Daily Mail to Shape to Ellen—was talking about Jonah Hill’s diet and how great it was.


Because on Sunday night—about a year later—Jonah Hill was at the Golden Globes, looking like he’d gained back much of the weight he lost:

Listen, I’m not trying to be a hypocrite or a jerk. I like Jonah Hill and think he’s a talented actor. And I feel for him. I know what it’s like to gain weight back after losing it, and I don’t wish that on anyone.

But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to use his weight gain to point out that diets don’t work. They don’t work for Jonah Hill, they don’t work for Seth Rogen, they don’t work for Carnie Wilson, they don’t work for Kirstie Alley, they don’t work for Oprah Winfrey, and they don’t work for us regular folks either.

I mean, think about it—if wealthy celebrities who can afford personal trainers and nutritionists and private chefs can’t keep the weight off, why do the rest of us think we can do it?

We think we can do it because the media keeps telling us we can, but they’re wrong—diets don’t work.

What does work is being dedicated to healthy living… every day for the rest of your life. Not for six weeks or six months or even a year. But every single day. And a big part of being healthy is accepting yourself the way you are.

I only hope Jonah Hill realizes that before he goes on another ridiculous diet.

The Golden Globes embrace Lena Dunham and simultaneously change our notion of what it means to be a Hollywood actress

If you live in a cave (or avoid Twitter, Facebook, and the internet in general), you might not know that the Golden Globes were this past Sunday night. During the show, I noticed two really important things—one of which I want to talk about tonight.

The most important thing I noticed during the Golden Globes is that it was a huge night for women, especially regular women who refuse to pretend to be something they’re not.

1) Tina Fey and Amy Poehler KILLED as the co-hosts of the ceremony, doing a better job than Ricky Gervais, Jon Stewart, or David Letterman combined and proving that women really are funny despite what sexists like Christopher Hitchens and Adam Carolla have wrongly claimed in the past (or what Jay Leno implied Sunday with his backhanded compliments on the red carpet). If you didn’t see their opening monologue, you really owe it to yourself to do so.

2) Jodie Foster came out of the closet—again (was no one listening the first time?)—and said she refuses to put her life on display reality-show style, insisting that privacy and happiness are just as important as being a movie star.

3) But the most groundbreaking moment of the night was when Lena Dunham of HBO’s Girls won the Golden Globe for best performance by an actress in a comedy or musical television series. Her win was especially significant to me—and to I Will Not Diet—because it signals a clear shift in our expectations for women in Hollywood.

This is because Dunham does not look like a leading actress—she’s short and average looking and has bad posture. She has a nose that’s bigger than the noses of most women in Hollywood, and she has medium brown, wavy hair. In other words, she’s the kind of woman you see everywhere—in every office, in every classroom, in many homes.

But even more important than Dunham’s looks is her body. Because Lena Dunham has a very real body.

No, she’s not fat (even though Howard Stern, desperate to hold onto his biggest-woman-hater-alive title, called her a “little fat chick”), but she’s not Hollywood skinny either. In fact, the most notable thing about her body is how incredibly average it is. She has slightly meaty thighs, arms with a bit of flesh on them, and a belly with just a little bit of fat.

In other words, she’s perfectly normal.

So when the Hollywood Foreign Press gave Dunham that round gold statue, they also sent a very important message to the rest of the women in the world—It’s okay to look normal, they said. Your work is more important than how you look. Give us your best work, and we will love you.

And that, my friends, is a huge change in the world of Hollywood. HUGE.

And I am incredibly happy it finally happened.

During her acceptance speech, Dunham said, “This award is for every woman who ever felt like there wasn’t a space for her,” and she couldn’t be more right about that.

Time for the fattists to shut it

The Oscar nominations came out this morning, and I am thrilled because my favorite movie of the year—Winter’s Bone—was nominated for best picture. If you haven’t seen this film yet and can stand a movie that is pretty gritty and dark, rent it ASAP. It will kick your ass. (On top of that it’s also a movie by and about real women.)

Now that the Oscar noms are out, I guess I should finally wrap up the Golden Globe coverage. And I want to do that by shaking my finger at Time magazine for posing an article called “5 Stars Who Looked Fat and 5 Stars Who Looked Fit” after the Globes.

Yes, as a friend pointed out, “it’s not bad enough, fashion-wise, to be overweight, but now it’s a fashion faux pas to look an ounce larger than you really are.

I couldn’t agree more. What the hell is wrong with people—I’m talking to you, Charla Krupp—that makes them think it’s acceptable to call people fat? Guess what, Krupp? It hasn’t been okay to call someone fat since fifth grade. Time to grow up.

What’s crazy is that this salacious headline promises more bite than it delivers. If you read the article, you’ll see that Krupp calls Christina Aguilera “buxom” and “hippy,” describes JLo as having an “ample derriere” (see picture above), and says Jennifer Love Hewitt’s “top half is voluminous.”

Buxom? Hippy? Ample? Voluminous?

I don’t know about you, but I would have no problem having JLo’s ample derriere, Hewitt’s volumnious top half, or Aguilera’s buxom and hippy. And I certainly know it would make my husband happy.

Oddly, Krupp included Heidi Klum in this list of “stars who looked fat,” which doesn’t even make sense. If Heidi Klum looks fat, then my next birthday wish will be to be as fat as Klum.

And I think that the fact that Krupp doesn’t get this proves that she’s out of sync with so many of us—those of us who want to accept our bodies the way they are and don’t feel a need to cleave to some ridiculous model of perfection.

What’s worse is that this article ran on the Time magazine website. Really, Time magazine? Really? You think it looks good to talk about how “fat” someone looks? It’s not like this is some tabloid we’d find in the checkout line. I expect more of a “news” magazine. I expect integrity. So let’s see it.


Have you ever gone to put something on and found that—magically—it no longer fits? (I swear that must happen to me every few months just to remind me I’m human.) Well, if so, you’re not alone. As it turns out, even celebrities can’t always get their clothes to fit.

Because last Friday, Sofia Vergara, star of ABC’s Modern Family, freaked out when none of the dresses she was trying on for the Golden Gobes fit her. “Nothing fits meeee!!!! she said via Twitter. “I’m not going to the Golden Globes!!!!!!!” And suddenly I realized that in some ways Vergara is one of us—a regular person. This makes two reasons I’m happy to watch her show every week.

The picture that accompanied her tweet (above) also took me back to being a teenager . . . you remember, don’t you? Lying on the twin bed, trying desperately to zip your too-tight Gloria Vanderbilt designer jeans over your still-flat belly. How many of you did something like that???

Of course, Sofia’s tweet raises the question, if TV stars struggle to fit in their clothes, what hope do the rest of us have?

FYI . . . I’m on Twitter now. Follow me @IWillNotDiet.

Who’s really being mean here?

Ricky Gervais

Comedian Ricky Gervais (pictured above) hosted the Golden Globes Sunday night, and made some pretty cutting remarks about some of the biggest celebrities in the world.

Gervais started the night by saying, “‘It’s gonna be a night of partying and heavy drinking. Or as Charlie Sheen calls it: breakfast.” Not long after that, he made fun of the fact that no one had seen the Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp movie, The Tourist, even though it was nominated for best comedy and implied that certain Scientologists are in the closet. As Time magazine explained, Gervais also “went on to call Bruce Willis ‘Ashton Kutcher’s dad,’ introduced Robert Downey, Jr. by referencing his Internet porn flick, suggested that cast members of Sex and the City 2 were old enough to have appeared in Bonanza, and offered Hugh Hefner’s fiancé some unsolicited advice: ‘Just don’t look at it.'”

And when he introduced Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, Gervais took a dig at Allen’s fading star: “What can I say about our next two presenters? The first is an actor, producer, writer and director whose movies have grossed over 3.5 billion dollars at the box office. He’s won two Academy Awards and three Golden Globes for his powerful and varied performances starring in such films as Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Castaway, Apollo 13 and Saving Private Ryan. The other is Tim Allen.”

Almost immediately, critics everywhere were crying foul, claiming that Gervais had crossed a line and that his jokes were “mean-spirited.” Even before the show while still on the air, Hanks and Allen kicked off the criticism of Gervais.

Hanks retorted: “You know, like many of you we recall back when Ricky Gervais was a slightly chubby but very kind comedian.”

“Neither of which he is now,” added Allen.

(Call me crazy, but I think calling Gervais chubby is a lot more mean-spirited than implying that Allen is not as successful as Hanks.)

But it did not matter that Hanks and Allen—and a few others like Robert Downey Jr.—got their chance to rebuke Gervais on live television because come Monday morning, almost everyone in the media was chastising Gervais for what they saw as his inappropriate and “corrosive” humor, speculating that he would never again be invited to host another awards show and simultaneously guaranteeing he’ll be replaced by someone more polite and—you guessed it—bland and boring.

(Ironically, Gervais had said beforehand his goal was to not be invited back.)

The same thing happened a few years ago to Kathy Griffith when she made a joke on the red carpet about Dakota Fanning looking like she had just gotten out of rehab, and before her, Joan Rivers was famously fired for making fun of one too many celebrities on the red carpet.

Since Griffith and Rivers have been ousted from the awards-show circuit they have been replaced not by other comedians but by another, supposedly more benevolent creature: the entertainment reporter.
These are people—like Ryan Seacrest and Giuliana Rancic (pictured above)—whose job it is to cover entertainment news. In order to do their jobs well, they need to be able to get famous people from the film, television, and music industries to talk to them. What this means is that they spend a lot of time kissing some serious celebrity ass.

Seacrest especially is known for pretending that he is sexually attracted to the female stars he interviews, which is most of the time pretty uncomfortable to watch. The end result is that the red carpet has become a huge shmooze-fest in which entertainment reporters fall all over themselves trying to suck up to the hottest entertainers, which also makes it less interesting and entertaining to viewers.

But what I think the networks and media outlets are missing is that although Gervais may be more offensive to the Hollywood elite, it’s people like Seacrest who pose the most danger to the rest of us. The most obvious annoyance is that we have to worry about the fact that our brains are eroded by the inane drivel of the entertainment reporter. But, much more importantly, we also have to live with the frightening norms they continue to espouse and how those norms shape us as a society.

The most obvious example is the entertainment reporter’s obsession with what the stars are wearing and how they wear it. The commentary has gotten so refined that we now hear detailed analysis of the celebrity’s looks while they are still on the carpet. My God, they even have a 360-degree camera for the stars to stand in (which I imagine causes them all to have nightmares akin to those the rest of us have over three-way department store mirrors) and special television markers they use to draw attention to details on the celebs dresses—as if their clothes need to be as closely examined as plays in a football game.

What does this teach us?

It teaches us that every second of every day we are being critiqued and evaluated and judged. It teaches us that even perfect looking, sculpted, and botoxed celebrities have flaws, making us wonder how on earth we can ever measure up.

But that’s only the beginning.

Because not only do the entertainment reporters immediately break-down the stars’ fashion choices and the day’s beauty preparations (the earlier they begin getting ready, the better!), as of late they’ve also begun asking them about their workout regime. I noticed that on Sunday Seacrest asked numerous female celebrities about this—but noticeably none of their male counterparts—thereby reinforcing the notion that the most important thing about a woman is her body.
Black Swan Reviews
What was most interesting about this question was that the two women who played ballerinas in this year’s Black Swan—Natalie Portman (pictured above) and Mila Kunis (pictured below)—admitted to having to work out five hours a day seven days a week to get in shape for that movie.

Let me repeat that. . .

Five hours a day.

Seven days a week.
I’ve long said that the reason regular women can’t look like the women in Hollywood is because it is the job of these women to stay fit and that they exercise longer than anyone who has a real job or children can, and these comments prove it.

On the other end of the spectrum was Sofia Vergara (pictured below).

Vergara was arguably one of the curviest woman on the red carpet last Sunday night, and she said then that she works out “two or three times a week,” but also wears those new toning sneakers. (Note to self: get yourself a pair of those damn shoes ASAP.)

So Vergara is working out a reasonable amount and has a rocking bod, but Portman and Kunis are basically living at the gym in order to have ballerina bodies. That ought to tell us that women aren’t supposed to look like they do in Black Swan.

But, wait, it gets worse.

Because it’s not enough to evaluate every inch of these women’s bodies and demand the details of their beauty regimes and workout schedules (what will they do next—ask them if they vomited in a paper bag before they got out of the limo?), but they also have to have their self-confidence undermined while they’re at it, as Mad Men‘s Elizabeth Moss (pictured below) did during her interivew with Seacrest.
When Seacrest asked Moss what she was up to in the off-season, she mentioned that she was doing a play in London with Keira Knightley. Immediately Seacrest acted like Moss had told him she was appearing in a show with God.

“Oh my God!” Seacrest wailed. “You’re so lucky. She is so hot.” (Or something like that.)

Not only did Seacrest reduce an incredibly talented actress like Knightly to someone who was merely “hot,” he also managed to do so while implying to the incredibly talented and equally beautiful Moss that he didn’t believe she was as hot as her co-star. No, he didn’t say it, but we all know that’s what he meant: She’s so hot! And you’re so . . . well . . . not. It honestly reminded me of those boys in high school who act interested in a regular-looking girl until they meet her hotter best friend. His response was that immature and superficial.

So no we don’t have to worry about Seacrest insulting the luminaries the way Gervais did. His tongue (and those of other reporters like him) is so far up Angelina and Brad’s ass that they’re going to have to name their next child after him. But we do have to worry about him messing with our collective psyche and reinforcing the notion that what matters most in women—celebrities or otherwise—is how hot they are and how well their dress fits.

Bottom line: I’d take Gervais’ “inappropriate” digs at celebrites over Seacrest’s fuck-with-our-heads comments any day.

Curvier . . . Rounder . . . Better!

191 pounds

The internet has been buzzing all week about two stories The New York Times ran after the Golden Globes, and since both relate to the issues on this blog, I want to talk about them.

First, the Times ran an article that quoted an anonymous stylist dissing Christina Hendricks’ dress (pictured above).
The stylist said it was the wrong dress for her and added that “You don’t put a big girl in a big dress.” Thankfully, the blogosphere went crazy over the idea that Hendricks is big.
As CNN explained in an article about the controversy today, “Some were upset by the post, particularly by the use of the word ‘big.’ ‘They bothered me because they called her a big girl because she’s by no means a big girl—the only thing big about her is her chest,’ said celebrity blogger Cara Harrington. Another blogger, fashion editor Vanessa Raphaely, said that by calling Hendricks ‘big,’ the Times was ‘stretching the definition of the word.'”
I couldn’t agree more.
If you look at pictures of Hendricks, it’s easy to see that she has tiny arms, a small waist, and a thin face. But what I love about Hendricks is that she has significant curves—hips, thighs, and a bust—that we can all admire.
And I also agree with the bloggers that The New York Times was foolish to print a quote that refers to Hendricks as “big” because it’s a term that carries only the ugliest of connotations. Technically, a person can be big and still gorgeous, but unfortunately, in our society, big has come to mean bad (unless you’re talking Extra Value Meals).
Like I’ve already said about the word “fat,” the word “big” should probably be avoided as a way to describe a person’s body. I remember a few years ago, a friend of ours described another friend—a man—as a “big guy,” and this comment was not only poorly received, it sent said guy on a crazy, lo-cal diet.
At first I felt like people were overreacting a bit in their criticism of The New York Times. After all, they weren’t the ones who called Hendricks big. They were just reporting it.
But maybe going after the Times is not such a bad thing. If more of us complained about these types of comments and the people who report them, maybe the media would be forced to re-evaluate how they talk about and depict women’s bodies.
At the same time, I do believe that the other criticism of the Times’ coverage of Sunday’s red carpet is unwarranted.
On Monday, the Times fashion reporter, Andy Port, said in a post called “A Rounder Golden Globes” that she thought that three actresses—Jennifer Aniston, Courtney Cox, and Kate Hudson—looked like they had “put on a little weight.”
Bloggers and commenters unleashed on Port for this observation, but I think they failed to get her point. In the article, Port describes these women as “sporting sexier curves,” and then goes on to say that “Instead of a Barbie-doll circumference, there was suddenly, amazingly, a womanly roundess to their frames. More Marilyn than Twiggy, that’s for sure.”
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that Port is applauding this change rather than criticizing it. That’s why she uses words like “sexier” and “amazingly.” And her comment that they are “More Marilyn than Twiggy” has to be seen as a compliment because even today, even when we see far too many models with unhealthy BMIs gracing the covers of our magazines, most of us would still rather look like Marilyn Monroe than Twiggy, right?
God, I hope so.
And if that’s Port’s point, she’s not the only one who’s pleased. If she’s trying to say that Aniston, Cox, and Hudson’s new bodies might just mean that our perceptions of beauty are finally changing in our society, then I could not be happier.
Yes, Port could have been clearer about that point, but I’m still glad she said it.
Of course, he irony of this whole brouhaha is that if anyone reminds me of Monroe it is the stunning Christina Hendricks.

Clothes make the woman

191 pounds

It has taken me nearly all of my thirty-nine years to finally understand that self esteem is more about the way you dress than the number of the scale.
I started figuring this out a few years ago, and I am still learning how to dress my body for maximum appeal. As a result, I have become a bit obsessed with fashion, which is why awards shows like the Golden Globes are a big deal for me.
Unfortunately, after watching Sunday night’s red carpet show, it seems that very few women—even women who have access to stylists and free designer duds—know how to dress for the bodies they have, whether they are wonderfully curvy or fabulously fit.
Because dressing for your body is something that all women have to do and because this blog is about feeling good about yourself no matter what your size, I think it makes sense to take a day to talk about how to do the former.
There were a few women at the Globes who knew how to dress for the body size and shape, but mostly it was one fashion faux pas after another on the red carpet.
Let’s start with the people who got it right.
For my money, Meryl Streep was one of the best dressed women on the red carpet Sunday night (thanks to her designer, Project Runway‘s Chris March), and (as I mention in my Gallery of Gorgeous Woman to the right) she’s admitted to being a size fourteen, a healthy size we can all aspire to, so it makes sense to discuss why her look was so successful . . .
It’s the neckline and the fit that make this dress work so well. The off-the-shoulder asymmetrical neckline is a fabulous choice for women who want to draw attention away from their middles and up to their faces and necks. Also, the fit is outstanding. The dress skims her body but doesn’t squeeze it, highlighting her silhouette without letting it overpower her, which is crucial for curvy women. Finally, the belt perfectly accentuates her torso because it shows off her waistline without cinching it. This dress is simultaneously sexy and age-appropriate without ever wandering into mother-of-the-bride territory as so many women her age do.
Though she’s only curvy because she’s pregnant, Amy Adams also offered us a great model of how to dress if you have ample assets . . .
Adams’ little black dress is another example of how an off-the-shoulder neckline, like Streep’s, goes a long way towards downplaying busty cleavage, and her fitted waist and just-above-the-knee hemline show us how to camoflauge the area in the middle without hiding it from view. The short style also draws our eye to her legs, which look even longer because of her bronze-colored shoes. Adams’ look is a wonderful lesson on how to dress if you want to feature your legs and shoulders and hide a bump in the middle.
On the other end of the spectrum of women who looked great on the red carpet is Big Love‘s Ginnifer Goodwin . . .

What’s great about Ginnifer’s look is that it very smartly creates curves that she doesn’t really have by adding material to her hips and her waist but also shows off her slender shoulders and legs by keeping them exposed.
Though Goodwin took a risk by enhancing her frame, usually the best way to show off a super fit body is to keep it simple, and there were a handful of women on the red carpet who did that just right . . .
Kate Winslet’s dress is just tight enough to accentuate her curves rather than ruin them. If it were any tighter, it would be too much.

Julianna Margulies’ dress was a bit daring with the glittery red top, but the bottom of her dress was sleek enough that it still worked.

Courtney Cox’s straight neckline and sleek silhouette was perfect for a woman as thin as Cox because it emphasizes her frame without making her look too skinny. She’s 46 but has managed to stay extremely fit and, therefore, has every right to rock a look this sexy.
Glenn Close’s dress worked for the exact same reason: simplicity . . .
If you’re 62 and look like this, you have got to show it off. On a side note, I’m just so glad that “older” women in Hollywood aren’t dressing like grandmothers anymore.
Sofía Vergara followed this long and sleek model and wisely only added extra material to the back of her dress in order to keep the front uncluttered.
Gabby Sidibe also dressed perfectly for her body . . .
Like Streep’s, her dress gently follows the shape of her body and tucks in at her waist, emphasizing her silhouette without cling too tightly to it. This is a wonderful example of how a woman Gabby’s size should dress for a formal event: she didn’t hide her body in a tent dress but instead flattered it with clean, feminine lines.
Admittedly, Chloe Sevigny’s dress was a bit of a controversy. Some people hated it, and others loved it . . .
There were clearly a few too many ruffles going on, but what I loved about this dress was that she looked stunning without looking super thin. The dress really showed off her curves in an interesting way. My God, she even had a little tummy! (Though it was more visible in the broadcast than it is here.) I love that!
Unfortunately, there were just as many women who didn’t dress appropriately for their body.
Sadly, one of them was Christina Hendricks whose dress was designed by another Project Runway alum: Christian Siriano. . .

You might know from my “Why we should all be watching Mad Men” post that I adore Hendricks and completely worship her va-va-voom curves (in fact, I’ll be adding her to my Gallery of Gorgeous Women soon), but the fit of this dress was all wrong for her. When you have a body like Hendricks’, fit is crucial, and this one was too tight both in the front and in the back, pushing her girls (and the skin on her back, which you can see clearly in other photos) up and out rather than holding them in. I was devastated to see that the dress fit so poorly since I do love Hendricks and since, otherwise, she looked so stunning. But it’s a good lesson about the importance of finding something that fits and it’s even good for us to see that someone as amazing as Hendricks can make mistakes too.
Another curvy woman from my Gallery of Gorgeous Women who struggled on the red carpet was Patricia Arquette . . .
From my way of thinking, Arquette has a perfect body. She’s not too big and not too small, but just right. Unfortunately, the criss-cross draping of this dress made her middle look MUCH bigger than it is and actually fought the shape of her body rather than working with it. Arquette would have been better off picking a style that drew attention away from her middle rather than emphasizing it. Patterns are also notoriously hard for any size woman to wear, so it’s a mystery why Arquette chose one that was so busy.
Sigourney Weaver, at 60, is another older woman who still has a simply amazing body . . .

But though we can applaud Weaver for her physique, we cannot applaud her dress, which did the same thing that Arquette’s did—it criss-crossed her body several times, drawing attention to her middle and make it look bigger than it is. It’s a shame, too, because if you really look at this picture, you can see that Weaver has a wonderful waist, but you’re so distracted by the dress’ design here that her body almost gets entirely lost.

Oddly, the normally spot-on Heidi Klum committed a similar faux
pas . . .
Klum just gave birth and is, therefore, a bit curvier than normal, so maybe that’s why someone who normally dresses in a way that is perfectly flattering stumbled this time. Because instead of wearing a dress that showed off her assets, Klum chose a dress that drew attention to all the wrong places. The wide neckline made her look bigger on top, and the starbust pattern and mermaid silhouette made her look bigger on the bottom. Like Hendricks’ dress, this one was also too tight, a problem that may have been the result of her recent pregnancy, but one that she should have been smart enough to avoid by choosing a different dress when it was clear this one didn’t fit.
Even the lovely Penelope Cruz didn’t choose the right dress . . .
One of the main problems here is that there is too much going on—I mean lace, stripes, and a layered train?! Come on, Penelope! I know you can do better than that! I’ve seen you do better that. It looked a bit like dress by committee, which is a problem no matter what your size. (Come to think of it, this was a bit of a problem for Klum too.) But Cruz also choose a dress that had horizontal stripes that over-accentuated her wonderful curves and, like Klum, a mermaid silhouette, that made her look bigger than she is.
Rita Wilson . . .
and Lauren Graham . . .

repeated Cruz’s and Klum’s mistake—too tight, too mermaid-like—but exacerbated that misstep by adding a pattern (in Wilson’s case) and a bright color (in Graham’s) that, again, made them look bigger than they are.
While Mariah Carey took it one step further with this absurdly low neckline . . .

People made fun of Carey’s dress all night, and that ought to be a lesson to all of us about the importance of suggesting our curves rather than simply showing them.
(Anna Paquin, I hope you’re listening. This could be you someday if you’re not careful.)
Cameron Diaz had the opposite problem . . .
Her dress made her look even thinner than she is because it wasn’t as streamlined as someone like Cox’s. In fact, the repeating V-pattern (in the neckline and the waist) draws more attention to her sharp angles than her sweet curves.
If Diaz’s dress had too much material on top, Julia Roberts’ dress had too much all over. . .

Her dress was the opposite of fitted, so much so that it’s hard to tell she’s got a body under there at all. If it hadn’t been for her legs, this look would have been pretty close to a muumuu. As it stands, it looks more like a trench coat than a dress. There was simply too much material in the arms, the chest, and the stomach, and Roberts got lost in it.
Speaking of getting lost in a dress. . .

Where is Julianne Moore’s body in this dress??? I can’t see it anywhere! This is another common mistake: hiding your body behind a sea—or in this case, a wall—of fabric.
Calista Flockhart has always been underweight, and for that reason it was surprising that she too wore a long, shapeless dress. . .
There were also some women—specifically Zoe Saldana and Mo’nique, come to mind—who made the mistake of choosing a dress that highlighted weaker aspects of their physique rather than their strengths.
I almost never go sleeveless anymore, so it always surprises me when women choose to do so on national television. From my way of thinking, you’ve got to have amazing arms to look good in a sleeveless dress after the age of thirty. Both of these women would have benefitted from dresses with sleeves, proving that it’s not just curvy women who need to dress for their size . . .
Saldana’s dress is actually gorgeous, but we are so distracted by her emaciated arms that we don’t notice the dress much at all. In fact, this is not the first picture I’ve seen lately of Saldana where she appears way too thin, to the point of being unhealthy looking, and I sincerely hope that she returns to her formerly healthy size.
I realize that by deconstructing the attire of all these amazing women, I open myself up for attack. But please know that I am not trying to criticize them. I just believe that there is so much we can learn from them. If nothing else, it’s refreshing to know that skinny women make as many mistakes as curvy women, emphasizing yet again that it’s not our body size that matters but how we wear what we’ve got.
  • twitterfacebook