Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Sunday, November 1, 2009

What Is With...

Posted by on Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:36 AM

...that picture of Michelle Obama on the cover of The New York Times Magazine today? For a long, interesting piece about "The First Marriage," the editors of NYT mag selected what has to be the single worst photo ever taken of Michelle Obama. Do they never want to get another interview with her?

 

Comments (28) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Ness 1
I'm not really sure what's so awful about that picture.
The lighting is nice, at least...
Posted by Ness http://www.collegecandy.com/author/nessfraser on November 1, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 2
I didn't have a problem with it either. I mean, let's face it, she's never going to be a "looker."
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on November 1, 2009 at 10:47 AM
dnt trust me 3
Per usual Dan, you've brought up a great point, getting readers to critically think. Don't bother with the article. Hope this post gets lots of comments discussing the image.
Posted by dnt trust me on November 1, 2009 at 10:49 AM
4
@2: I think she's positively gorgeous.
Posted by bigyaz on November 1, 2009 at 10:53 AM
5
the picture does show off her enormous hips to advantage but at least isn't close in enough to frighten with the Oscar the Grouch eyes
Posted by Bert and Ernie on November 1, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Zoroastronomer 6
Mmmmmm, hips.......
Posted by Zoroastronomer on November 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM
7
his point is that she normally looks so much better than that. michelle obama is hit and miss in that she's almost always 'hit', but when she's 'miss', it's not good. this is a mild miss.
Posted by Judith on November 1, 2009 at 11:57 AM
gloomy gus 8
The movement and their positions, the lighting, it's irreplaceable and gorgeous. Okay, she looks a little chinny. Well, she is a little chinny.

To look on the bright side, see page 37 of the front section. Best feature use of a full page of newspaper in ages.
Posted by gloomy gus on November 1, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Bauhaus I 9
I think the pic is fascinating. It's reminiscent of some of those great B&W photos in Look and Life during the JFK/Camelot days.
Posted by Bauhaus I on November 1, 2009 at 12:23 PM
seandr 10
Which picture? They all looked fine to me.
Posted by seandr on November 1, 2009 at 12:32 PM
11
i kinda like that picture. the one that seemed most unfortunate was the one of the two of them posing with 1 year old malia... the smile doesn't come anywhere near her eyes, and her whole torso is crumpled up like an old lady with osteoporosis. i think she must have been exhausted that day. he looks a little frazzled, too.
Posted by Valkyrie on November 1, 2009 at 1:10 PM
12
Yeah...which picture? I don't see anything wrong with any of them. Which photo is the cover?
Posted by tacomagirl on November 1, 2009 at 1:32 PM
13
I can't stand her perpetually surprised eye brows. They freak me out.
Posted by datajunkie on November 1, 2009 at 1:34 PM
14
Maybe not a great picture of her, but a rare really good one of him and a good picture of them together. They're looking at each other, not the camera; they're not posing. This was a good choice.
Posted by SolCat on November 1, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Timrrr 15
Newsflash, Dan: You're gay!

Despite what advertising execs (gay) and fashion designers (gayer) may have led you to believe, straight guys actually like women who look like, of all things... women!

(And not like 14 year-old boys, thankyouanyway)
Posted by Timrrr on November 1, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Confluence 16
Yeah, it's pretty bad. First, the gynormous hips (she looks like she's carrying saddle bags under that dress); Second, the mega-chin, and; Third, the bad hair/bangs. The shot with Barack and Malia makes her look pretty homely too. I'd be pissed.

Article is really interesting though. She definitely wears the pants in that marriage and Barack really seems to love her to pieces. I'm jealous. You go, Michelle!
Posted by Confluence on November 1, 2009 at 1:50 PM
17
Renowned photographer Roy DeCarava passed away last week - this photo very clearly seeks to pay him homage - and I think it's an excellent, timely choice. (Not knowing what an array the photo editor had to choose from I think it's shrewd to go with classic...) Look at the outlines drawn as unified but enigmatic cypher - entirely backlit is, well, a difficult shot at best - then note the bystanders, audience, the event and the defining separation between the couple and the location - intimate, familiar - as the entire world watches on. They float in a bubble of light that seems to reveal all but skimps on shadowy detail. This is the sort of photograph that ripens before your eyes, revealing a story that rewards patient observation.

Google him, his work is incredible. If you like that sort of thing.
Posted by PSJS on November 1, 2009 at 1:58 PM
18 Comment Pulled
lp 19
she looks gorgeous in that photo!!!! what's wrong with hips?? i think the entire flow of the pic is lovely.
Posted by lp on November 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM
20
For those of you who don't have the physical magazine -- The cover is the black and white one with them exiting the stage, but it's cropped around them with text in front. You can't see from the web version, but in print the grain and the lighting make her face look terrible, especially her teeth.
Posted by fff on November 1, 2009 at 2:48 PM
kim in portland 21
Dan, I don't get your point. Ms. Obama is a beautiful woman. I'll confess I envy her hips, I wish I had her hour glass figure. I wish that I was a beautiful like her. Cest la vie ...
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on November 1, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Will in Seattle 22
I seriously don't get Dan's point.

All the pics are MORE than fine.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 1, 2009 at 3:36 PM
mmennonno 23
Does she have to be a supermodel for you to love her, Dan?
Posted by mmennonno http://mennonnosapiens.com on November 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
24
People always go on about her hips, but I don't think they're so "ginormous" at all. They're nothing in comparison with some of the hips/backsides I see in my neighborhood, that's for sure. I think she's a striking woman and I really appreciate the fact that they have such a strong marriage, whatever their arrangement may be -- they're doing better than 50% of the population, certainly.
Posted by Calpete on November 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM
25
#19, I agree. The photo (and Michelle in the photo) is beautiful.
Posted by jade on November 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM
seandr 26
So the problem is that the photo shows that Michelle has hips? Dan, dude, WTF?

That's just her shape. It's a perfectly lovely and healthy shape. Michelle makes it look glamorous even though it's not cut from the Hollywood mold. And that's not just a bunch of PC bullshit, it's true.

That photo is fucking amazing - a candid glimpse from backstage with amazing composition and lighting.
Posted by seandr on November 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM
singing cynic 27
Usually I get you Dan, but not on this. She's got a beautiful womanly figure, and, thought we know you're critical of people who are overweight.... she's NOT!
Posted by singing cynic on November 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM
28
She's not an attractive woman to start with (come on, we all know she has the money for invisalign) and she goes out of her way to show off her worst features (my god, put on some cap sleeves and cover those 50-year-old underarms, I beg you!), so you cannot blame the press for not spending valuable time trying to make her look good.
Posted by blankk on November 5, 2009 at 12:35 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy