Kate’s on the cover of Vogue again AND doing a really sexy editorial spread inside AND doing ads for (at a quick glance) Dior, Louis Vuitton, Versace, Burberry, Stella McCartney, Longchamp, Belstaff and Rimmel. AND she’s Vanity Fair’s Best Dressed Woman of the Year.
She sashayed past me once many moons ago at the Prince Bonaparte in Notting Hill. She was coming out of the toilets with a friend and giggling and I remember thinking, ‘Wow, what a beautiful girl’ and only realising a few moments later who she was. I’ve never seen it in anybody else, but she did have a glow about her which lit up the room and made her seem a hundred times more gorgeous than anybody else.
So yes, I do realise that she is quite mesmerically beautiful. However, am I the only mother out there who wishes she’d had the teensiest bit of a comeuppance after all the drug revelations earlier this year? How on earth can anyone explain to their children that drugs are bad when all they’ve done for la Moss is send her career into overdrive?
Maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but she does seem a bit ‘tired’ in some of the ad campaigns and there does seem to be more black and white/soft focus being used than before.
“However, am I the only mother out there who wishes she’d had the teensiest bit of a comeuppance after all the drug revelations earlier this year? ”
But she DID get the teensiest bit of a come-uppance, and feel that it was more than enough. The hypocrisy of the Kate-bashing campaign took my breath away. Also don’t agree that it was the coke scandal that ‘sent her career into overdrive’ – surely it’s just a return to normal super-successful form, now that all the fuss has died down?
Call me an ageing hippy (actually don’t, can’t think of anything worse) but I think that if children are old enough to make choices about drugs, they’re old enough to grasp that the behaviour of rock’n’roll/supermodel Olympians has very little to do with real life. It’s like loving the Stones, and finding the shenanigans of Keith Richard wildly amusing, but also knowing that for every Keith there is a Jimi and a Janis. Think that if the average teen is offered an informed and realistic view of the ways of the world by parents and teachers, they’re able to cope with its grey areas and inconsistencies?
She still looks good to me !!!!!!!!
Ah, the uncomplicated male take on things… ;-D
Lxx
I suppose my point is whether kids today are given an informed or realistic view. The dark side of drugs doesn’t seem to get so much publicity nowadays.
Here’s what Kate Hudson has to say on http://www.vogue.co.uk.
THE KATE DEBATE
KATE HUDSON thinks that publishing the infamous photos of Kate Moss last year could have been “the stupidest thing the Daily Mirror ever did”. Despite losing a handful of contracts in the wake of the ensuing furore, Moss now has more work than ever before and has reportedly doubled her income, making the photos, says Hudson, “an ad for cocaine”. The message sent out to the public was that if people do drugs, they will end up more famous and richer than before – as Moss has, she told CONTACTMUSIC.COM. “Nobody can wear clothes like she does,” Hudson adds. “It’s like that whole horrible thing, it could have been the stupidest thing the Daily Mirror ever did. It was like an ad for cocaine. ‘If you do cocaine, you’ll look like this.’ She’s so gorgeous it doesn’t matter what she’s doing. She looks great!” (August 7 2006, AM)
…but I think the issue here is that Kate Moss gets a lot of work not because she takes drugs but because she is Kate Moss.
“The message sent out to the public was that if people do drugs,they will end up more famous and richer than before”….. well if the public believe that then they’re very very stupid.
But surely you can’t believe that she would have doubled her income and been used in so many ad campaigns if she hadn’t had all that publicity?
Advertisers love the fact that she now has notoriety and that if they use her in a campaign they’ll get talked about.
The headline story on Vogue.co.uk yesterday was the number of ads that she is starring in http://www.vogue.co.uk/vogue_daily/story/story.asp?stid=37516&date=&sid= (remember you read it here first) with all the advertisers and even the pages where you can find the ads carefully enumerated
Well anything with “reportedly” next to it immediately makes me sceptical. What’s probably happened is that Companies that dropped her so quickly are now realising that there’s no-one quite like Kate to advertise their product, so she has them by the proverbial short and curlies, making them pay her more than before she was dropped. If I remember rightly from sometimes browsing through the Elle’s that are about in our flat she always been used by an amazing amount of companies for their advertising and it’s probably just getting back to pre revelation levels. She’s always had notoriety and I reckon there are very few people who hadn’t heard of Kate Moss before the drugs, who suddenly know about her now.
Ah, Mitchell gladiatorfest – I’ll just edge around the arena…
“I suppose my point is whether kids today are given an informed or realistic view. The dark side of drugs doesn’t seem to get so much publicity nowadays.”
Yeah they are. Schools make sure of this, or at least ours always have; my kids take a very dim view of drug-taking, and it hasn’t come from us. The teenagers I know seem pretty grounded – am ceratinly not complacent enough to predict that they will never go off the rails, but if they do I don’t think it will be anything to do with the up-and-down career path of a thin tart in a Dior frock.
Think kids turn to drugs for all kinds of social reasons – and I don’t just mean those growing up on desperate estates, think it’s probably just as bad at the other end of the social scale. But I don’t really think that the career path of the Kates of this world really have that much impact – it’s more down to peer pressure.
Anyway, thank god for Pete Docherty… 😀