We’re taking a purely spectator view on this considering we truly know no one at Elle. Seeing as how The New York times blew the lid off of the inner workings of Elle as it is now, we decided to sort of deconstruct what it means in the grand scheme of things; on the periphery, if you will. Elle has been behind Vogue for as long as anyone can remember. It’s also been behind Instyle as well in terms of ad pages. For awhile it seemed as if it was listing along. One person was solely responsible for their photoshoots for the most part and the editorial was neither here nor there. The elephant in the room that no one wanted to talk about seemed to be Gilles Bensimmons. The elephant may be gone and assigned to a lesser role, but that might not be enough. I’ll explain.

I went to a shoe designer’s fall trunk show/preview and met up with an editorial assistant at the time (no telling what she does there now) and she said behind the scenes it was a mess, even then. She also talked about their online efforts and how it left a lot to be desired (I believe the correct word was what a vaccum does to particles). She said that Style’s efforts seemed light years ahead and that was saying something considering Style kinda does the hole vaccuum particle thing too. Hearsay you say? I say, possibly, but to use a clumsy oft-repeated saying, where there is smoke there is fire. The smoke being the dwindling ad and subscription base at the time (they’ve managed to turn it around somewhat recently), the fire being Bensimmons’ pseudo departure.

It left us thinking that someone at Elle’s parent company was in the mood for changes. That turned out to be wrong as the New York Times article said that change mostly came from within. Already Elle for September is trying something different with Lindsay Lohan on the cover. A move that has half of us saying blech… and the other half saying… ok.. controversy.. not-bad.

So the question is, is Elle going down faster than Paris Hilton’s panties at a frat party? Or is a resurgence in the making?

I Googled for Erin Fetherston after seeing theing the list of Vogue finalists and found either a fan site (not likely) of Fetherson or an early incarnation of the Fetherston presence online. Someone please clear this up. I am not certain if it was a viral marketing type thing or if it really was her site before she became Erin Fetherston in caps. Here’s a screenshot of the site:

I found it quite interesting in the sense that everyone gets their start somewhere. While watching shows like Project Runway and taking in shows during fashion week that simply won’t allow bloggers in, I get to thinking that wow, these pretentious assholes used to be pretentious asshole interns, lackeys and wannabees. Lest anyone be mistaken, I am not grouping Fetherston in my previous statement. I am merely looking at it from a purely anecdotal perspective.

Ever wonder what MJ (not the singer) did before becomming designer royalty? What about DVF? Were they always rich, were they always holding fashion shows that were locked off to the mere underlings of the fashion world? I wonder.

Wendy over at Flypaper remarks that Winona Ryder snagged (some of you will find the word funny, with her history) Marc Jacobs’ dress from his New York showing at fall fashion week, and wore it on the cover of Vogue’s August issue as well as the Met Costume Gala awhile back. She wonders whether Ryder is angling for another Marc Jacobs campaign. Since the ads are already starting to run, we doubt it, but stranger things have happened. She could swoop in and steal (har, har) the spotlight.

As an aside, why is the American Vogue covers progressively wacker than the French Vogue covers? As another aside, they went with a model last month and went back to celebrity on the cover this month. Can someone give me the Diana Vreeland Vogues, just. one. more. time?

At the risk of giving these celebutards more coverage in the digital sphere, I had to really point out how gut wrenchingly unbearable Lindsay Lohan and her ilk have become (or maybe they were there already?). She’s gone from young actress with so much promise (see Mean Girls), the anti-Paris Hilton as it were, to becoming… dare I say it, worse. It makes me long somewhat for the actresses and hollywood starlets of yesteryear. True they had the same problems with drugs, men, money and later on, suicide, they kept their business as private as it could it be (outside of the confines of Hollywood).

The truth is that in this age of cell phone cameras, photographers hanging in trees waiting for the next celebutard to get drunk and crash into something and websites showing vagina shots of (insert actress here); I can’t help but wonder whether Marilyn Monroe would end up hiding her face half-buzzed in an SUV. Or whether a young Audrey Hepburn with her many, many, many men would flash her wares to anyone caught looking? Would Ingrid Bergman be in a sex tape that would sell on the internet?

And what about the fashion?

Would any of these women be caught wearing sweats, flip-flops and sunglasses in public? Knowing that Nicole Richie has made it ok, would they still do it to be relevant? I guess I am asking impossible questions, but you can’t help but wonder what would really happen. It was definitely a different time and maybe I long for the extravagant Chanel evening gowns with the elaborate headwear. The long cigarette stalks, the graceful heels, the sparing use of makeup all coming together for Oscar night or a walk in the park.

My whole long-winded point is, the Hollywood of yesteryear was not without it’s flaws; but for some reason, those types of shortcomings seemed more bearable. And at the end of the day, the players were still glamorous.

This was Avril Lavignes in Harper’s Bazaar a year or so ago. She was touting a more feminine/womanly look. In the Harper’s spread she was in Gucci, Manolo and other non-teeny bopper attire. She stated:

I’m starting to feel more feminine. I’m getting into hair and makeup and image. That’s the best part of being a girl.

Fast forward to the release of her new album (4/26), The Best Damn Thing, and we have the new, new Avril Lavigne this time she’s feminine but, maybe possibly less womanly. Though I won’t hold a grudge or call her out for not being true to her word, I definitely have to wonder what her stylists were thinking when they put her in tube socks, heels and fishnets. Did they forget what she told Harper’s? Was she supposed to be girly or was she womanly?