As you've probably noticed throughout the past 11 months, there are a handful of Hollywood women on whom I tend to keep a close watch.
Some of them, Scarlett, Monica, Kim and Jessica, to name a few, hold my interest for no other reason than their physical beauty. Put simply, these women, like this (my new favorite photo from The Sartorialist), are like art -- they're nice to look at from every angle.
Others, for example Katie, Natalie, Audrey, Ali, Rachel, Cate and Sienna, while still quite pleasing to the eye, are the women to whom I turn for style inspiration. They are the ones whose tastes and senses of style are most aligned with - or, as is the case with the last two, whose fashion choices challenge and expand - my own.
And finally, the last tier, a tier I've only recently discovered, includes those women whose figures I believe are the most style-versatile. These are the women who I believe have the legs, the arms, the shoulders, the back, the waist, the muscle tone, the height and just the right proportions to wear anything. I'm trying to work out on paper exactly what my indicators for entrance into this elite group are, because at present, the sole criterion for selection is the not-very-scientific whether or not I picture their figure in my head while I'm running off the two teaspoons of peanut butter that complemented my English Muffin that morning. So far, this category belongs to one woman and one woman only -- Jennifer Connelly*.
And the fact that I don't really care for her as an actress, a human being or a style star should lend credence to her selection as my ideal mannequin. That's right, feminists, to me she's nothing more than an objectified body on which I'd love to play dress-up.
As you'll see below, October was a busy red carpet month for Ms. Connelly. Her wardrobe choices varied from Tory Burch-looking cruise-wear (yick) to a dramatically-draped LBD (swoon) to a dreadful watercolor explosion (what's left to say that hasn't already been said?) to a prim and ladylike, ASJiNE hall-of-famer (double swoon).
Though I'd like to see her wear a little more McQueen and a little less Balenciaga - spokeswoman obligations or not - overall, this was a month of which JenCon should be proud.
At the "Women in Hollywood" party in a bead-trimmed, floral Balenciaga tunic
At the NYC premiere of Reservation Road in a bell-sleeved, ivory satin Versace mini
At the Hollywood premiere of Reservation Road in a highly-structured technicolor Balenciaga mini
On the red carpet at the Hollywood Film Festival in slim, belted cherry-red strapless Alexander McQueen
Arriving at "The Late Show with David Letterman" in a mod-style cropped jacket and high-waisted pencil skirt, both by Giambattista Valli
*those on the cusp include Eva Mendes, Catherine Zeta-Jones circa now and Angelina Jolie circa 2004
41 comments:
She look anorexic just like all of young and old(er) Hollywood. When are you going to wake up and realize her figure is NOT attractive?? Given the choice, a man would much rather see a size 10 than a size 2. This is a harsh thing to say, but I truly believe you're perpetuating eating disorders with glorifying bags of bones like Jennifer Connelly and Angelina Jolie.
sincerely,
Size 10 and GORGEOUS
you have a long way to go if you're goal body is jennifer connelly's, and I mean a loooong way.
her body looks just like every other actress's body. what makes hers so special? how is hers different from jessica alba's or jennifer lopez's?
As a man, I can't say I'd prefer a size 10 over a size 2. Maybe in some cases, but definitely not always. And Jo, I think Jennifer's figure is gorgeous, not at all anorexic looking.
But what do I know, I'm just a guy...
That black Balenciaga dress is sooooo pretty!
Anonymous 1:39, you're tiresome.
i think she's beautiful but her eyebrows kill me!
Which outfit is the "ASJiNE hall-of-famer"? I'm guessing it's the last one, but I can't decide between that one and the pretty red McQueen!
Jennifer has one of those bodies that you just know she's earned through hard work at the gym and yes, hard work at denying herself every indulgence she might want. I second Johanna's nomination of her as the ideal female form when it comes to looking good in all types of clothes.
whoops, I meant to write "denying herself every other indulgence," not "every indulgence."
I'm not sure if I agree or not. I feel like if I took any seven photos of one given actress - half of them I would like and the other half I wouldn't.
Funny, but I find the photos where her knees are covered MUCH more attractive. Her legs look too sinewy in short dresses. But again, just my taste and preference. I love the last photo though - she looks sexy and sophisticated. That topcoat is to die for...
Seriously.
She undoubtedly has a flattering figure, the kind that can get away with most if not all styles. And I know you don't care of her as an actress, but you still got to see Requiem for a dream. Not for the faint hearted, this movie stands as a masterpiece with an excellent performance from Connelly...
Jencon has a fabulous body - not at all too skinny. Rather - very toned and lean. I don't think it's about comparing sizes either. Embrace your body - don't hate on the size 2s.
And hello anon 1:39 - have you not seen J-lo's ass? I think that alone puts her in a different category. Not saying that is a bad thing...I'm just saying...
I personally find both her knees and shoulder blades a bit bony and, to steal Mandy's word, sinewy. Not that I think she's unattractive by any means, but she'd not be my ideal. Love the black Balenciaga and the mod coat! Really really hate the Balenciaga floral mini - my grandmother had that dress in vase format.
size 10 and gorgeous-
While you may be as you say you are, J's point wasn't to say that smaller is always better, it was that certain figures are predisposed to look better in more types of clothing than others. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never met a size 10 and thought, "wow, she'd look GREAT in a mini dress." I have, however, seen lots and lots of heavier-set women in strapless dresses and thought, "Hmmm, not so much a good decision."
anon 1:39, why don't you check out Johanna's photos from July 29, and get back to us. Silly haters.
Wow, I didn't know a being a size 10 made you heavy....I thought that term was reserved for the obese and beyond.
"heavier," the comparative, was used to describe those who weigh more than Jennifer. I wasn't trying to say that a size-10 was equal to "obese and beyond," though my own definition of "heavy" does start around the double-digit sizes.
I myself am a former fatty and I think Jennifer Connelly definitely looks like she stays up in the gym working on her fitness and that’s all that counts. If you’re a 10 and you’ve worked hard to get to a 10 and you’re living a healthy lifestyle that’s all good. If you’re a 10 and haven’t seen the inside of a gym, don’t watch what you eat, and don’t even attempt to live a healthy lifestyle then don’t come here complaining.
As far as J is promoting anorexia then you need to check out hers posts about Kim Kardashia. If that’s promoting anorexia than I’m all for it.
Frankly, I think Jessica Alba has gotten too skinny and not in a sexy, healthy, working-out kind of way. As for J. Lo, current "situation" aside, she has a FANTASTIC body, but because of her disproportionately large bottom, I think she should steer clear of certain form-fitting dresses to avoid looking more salacious than she intended. The same goes for very large-breasted women like Salma Hayek and Heidi Klum.
Remember, this is about the clothes, *not* what I find sexiest. I'm trying really hard to make that distinction clear.
p.s. glammy, the last one is the hall-of-famer -- that coat, that skirt, those shoes...scrumptious!
I agree with Virgle... I have a close friend who works hard to be a size 10 and damn! she looks gorgeous in a mini dress or a strapless dress - but then I know some size 10s who couldn't pull off either.
I think it has less to do with the size and more to do with the "jiggle" factor - a firm, toned body looks great up to the point of being a body builder, but nobody wants to see cellulite no matter the size.
I can see liking JenCon as a hanger of clothes not the ideal frame or as a sex symbol. That's what you're getting at right?
Anonymous no more-
Yes! Yes! YES!
She is a hanger to me, nothing more. She's pretty, I suppose, but gets me about as excited as a rerun of "Perfect Strangers." No, scratch that, "Step by Step."
I'm actually a former waif-like gal who saw herself on camera and couldn't believe she looked so sickly. I have a love of clothes as well, and there are some things that I will never be able to wear unless go back to looking how I used to...but I appreciate what does look good. I love the way I can rock a pencil skirt with my slim waist and curvy hip ratio. And I appreciate what works for other body types as well....size doesn't matter - what works for you is what matters. And Johanna, I think you do a great job of explaining that..some just take it way too seriously.
Personally, I think she's awfully plain. Nothing about her distracts you from the clothes, which is a bad thing when she's wearing that floral minidress.
When Johanna decides to discuss "what a man would rather see," I'm sure that size 10 and gorgeous would be an ideal candidate to weigh in with her view on the matter. But this is about CLOTHING, not the number on the label.
I think that some of you only read the first couple of sentences before you begin formulating your responses. Either that, or you just have very poor reading comprehension.
I dunno, I kind of liked her better at her Rockateer weight. But I *do* like your description of her as a mannequin/hanger. She does that well.
And Farah, "Requiem" was a great movie. Not for happy Saturday afternoons, but great nonetheless.
clothes do NOT look better on this stick than they do on America Ferrara or Sara Ramirez. They just don't. wake up, people, healthy can never look like this.
Love love love the Balenciaga, esp the new one, the floral with corset lacing! She does always look fantastic.. and I'm kind of glad that you've picked someone who takes some fashion risks
I think *your* body is perfect for clothes - yours is slightly more filled out than hers, but man, that ass...it's a whole lot more interesting to look at in a fitted skirt than Jennifer Connelly's inferior excuse of a behind.
I think it's telling that you make a distinction between what body type is most attractive for clothing and what is most attractive to a man, but still, you want your body to look good for the former, not so much the latter. Says a lot about what your priorities are these days. And doll, I don't mean this in a bad way at all. I think that means you've hit the height of self-confidence.
And for the record, I'm happy to finally see it be all about what YOU want ;-)
You must have put on 10lbs since those picture on 7/29. What a shame...
Not 10, but maybe 5. And you needed it! You look so much healthier now!
A celebrity as a "hanger" is an interesting concept. Degrading somehow, but then again not really. Hmmm.
There is no way Jennifer looks anorexic. She's thin but totally toned and glowing in the face. Gorgeous.
I think J Conn is incredibly beautiful. And I think the quality you're describing, of making clothes look good, is probably part of why she scored that coveted Balenciaga deal...well that and her close friendship with Nicolas Ghesquiere. But it's hard for me to see how anyone could find her "plain" when she's so exotic looking. How many people do you see on the street that look like her? Not many. On the other hand, you could see Natalie Portman walking around on any college campus. Natalie is a plain jane to me, while J Conn is in a very rare group of gorgeous...like Halle, Charlize, Salma...it's funny how different individual's perceptions of beauty differ.
For the record, men do NOT know the difference between sizes, nor do they care, as long as a woman looks good and is confident in her size. Just look at Kim Kar - she must be a size 8-10 (I can't see her ass fitting in any smaller sizes - and most men would pick her over JenCon.
I would wager that in the last three days alone I have put on 10 lbs. What with Trainer Monte's imposed "no exercise" rule and having consumed an entire box of Cinnastix with TWO containers of frosting dip on Sunday night...yeah, I'm definitely not in fighting bikini shape right now.
But I'll be back. Just you wait.
I'm a size 8, size 10 when the going gets rough. I work out, I eat well...and by "well," I mean I am healthy and also know how to enjoy myself. I'm far from perfect, but I appreciate the female form, from the voluptuousness of KimKar, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Kate Winslet all the way down to the itty bitties like Natalie Portman. Ladies who know how to play up their assets and mitigate their flaws are hot...be they a 2 or a 12.
Johanna looks great, and she has a point of view on what looks great and WHO looks great. If you don't like her, or don't like her point of view, don't read her blog.
Here's the deal. Size don't matter. There are plenty of women who are sexy; plenty of girls who are hot; plenty of men who are handsome; plenty of guys who are cute. What's rare is "It," as defined long ago:
"To have 'It,' the fortunate possessor must have that strange magnetism which attracts both sexes. He or she must be entirely unselfconscious and full of self-confidence. Conceit or self-consciousness destroys 'It' immediately. In the animal world, It demonstrates Itself in tigers and eagles--both animals being fascinating and enchanting, and quite unbiddable."
In my judgment, Jennifer Connelly does not have "It." Neither does Scarlett. Or Kim. Monica B., yes. Jessica B., definitely yes.
Johanna--emphatically yes. Just look at her.
For my money, John Goodman has "IT", but I think Johanna made a good choice by having Jennifer Connelly illuminate the range of gaspinducing moments of sartorial perfection. So thanku.
I want to meet anonymous 12:59! He sounds romaaantical.
But seems he's quite taken with you, Miss Johanna ;-)
Normally, I love Balenciaga, but this collection is terrible, in my opinion. NO ONE looks good in that stuff. Yuck.
Post a Comment