Kristen Stewart named the new (lip-biting) face of Chanel’s Paris-Dallas collection

FFN_Chanel_PFW_PC_CHP_070213_51144965

Even though you guys didn’t care about yesterday’s Kristen Stewart post, I am undeterred. In fact, your ambivalence just makes me MORE interested in seeing what she’s up to. As it turns out, she was NOT flying out of LA to meet up with Rob Pattinson or some sketchy, as-yet-unknown lover. She was flying to Dallas for a Chanel event – you can see the photos here. CB and I were laughing about what the Chanel people gave her to wear – those are the most hideous leather palazzo pants I’ve ever seen in my life.

Ordinarily, I would just think that Kristen was just picking up some supplemental income by flying all the way down to Dallas for that event, but as it turns out, Kristen has just been named the newest (lip-biting) face of Chanel. She will be representing the 2013/14 Métiers d’Art Paris-Dallas collection – it’s “Texas themed” apparently…? Apparently, Karl Lagerfeld is shooting the ad campaign himself and the first images should be out in April or May of next year.

Previously, Kristen has represented Balenciaga’s perfume line, although I think her contract was not renewed after Alexander Wang took over the line (but I could be wrong about that). I think this is Kristen’s first time representing an actual fashion line, and why not go for Chanel? Chanel has been trying to appeal to the younger American consumers for a while – remember how Blake Lively was the face of Chanel’s handbag line? Hahaha. But overall, I’m not expecting much from this ad campaign. Kristen isn’t a great model and Karl Lagerfeld doesn’t shoot the best ads. It will be a non-event.

FFN_Chanel_PFW_PC_CHP_070213_51144963

FFN_CHP_Chanel_Interior_070213_51145567

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

84 Responses to “Kristen Stewart named the new (lip-biting) face of Chanel’s Paris-Dallas collection”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. raindrop says:

    Well … I LIKE Kristen Stewart. Granted, she isn’t the best actress, but she does have some decent performances and overall there’s something appealing about her (to me.) I’ve been watching her since Panic Room. So, good for her.

    • Sloane Wyatt says:

      I find Kristen Stewart riveting. Kristen has a lip curl almost sneer reminiscent of a female James Dean. I love the way KStew is so fey and delicate, yet IDGAF. There’s just no comparison between her and the wide eyed “please love me ’cause I’m so cute and harmless” Dakota Fanning. You could put her in a sack (or these hideous tent flap leather pants, and she’s still captivating.

      With her rebellious in your face persona, Kristen could even be the next Angelina Jolie ‘Bad Girl’. It wasn’t that long ago when the public was baffled and disgusted by Angie’s blood vial necklace, love of cutting, and reckless love affairs. Then, a few good roles later, Jolie ascended to the heights she enjoys to this day. The girl has an “It” factor, and I can’t wait to see what Kristen’ll bring to her next performances.

      • Lucy says:

        You’re right. There’s no comparsison between Kristen and Dakota because Dakota is a much better actress.

      • Lourdesdx says:

        Angelina can act,Kristen can’t act..Kristen has no facial expressions,Angelina has the most expressive face I have ever seen.But to each his own

      • NerdMomma says:

        You know Sloane…I agree with every word you said. She is riveting. Obviously so, as she’s been hired for many projects and has lots of fans. I can’t say I find her acting to be very good, but I’ve only seen her in Twilight.

        I’m glad there’s room in this world for all different personalities. I DO like her sneer and attitude! I also like the gals who are people-pleasers and love their jobs. And one thing I’ve always thought about Kristen is that she can rock any kind of makeup- she just wears it well.

      • V4Real says:

        I thought Kristen was great in “Panic Room” but I also loved her in the little cheesy horror flick “The Messenger.” She played a teenage girl who was getting attacked by an unseen entity but her parents didn’t believe her.

        I’m not a fan of KStew but she is an attractive girl with striking features. I’m not going to take that away from her just because I’m not big on her. I don’t think she should change who she is as long as she is being true to herself. However, I do feel as if she should try to find a balance in the way she presents herself. It wouldn’t kill her to crack a smile every now and then. Perhaps it would make the general audience believe that she does enjoy her job as an actress and appreciate her fans. Hey, but maybe that’s just her resting face that the public is interpreting as a bitchface or angry face.

        Sloane is right in saying that Angelina was a blood vial necklace, love of cutting, and reckless love affairs kind of bad girl but from my understanding people loved Angie for that. All the tabloids and media attention is most likely what led to Angie getting those great roles. She had become more popular than her counterparts at that time. I don’t know if the path that Angie took to super stardom would actually work for Kristen. Plus there’s a lot more competition these days with the young starletts of Hollywood.

        The Twilight Franchise made KStew a household name. She has her fandom but as soon as The Hunger Games came along a lot of those fans geared towards JLaw. On the surface JLaw demostrates an aw-shucks down to earth approachable kind of attitude whereas Kristen can come off as a bit cold and standoffish. As they say you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

      • renata says:

        “riveting” — “James Dean” — ” the next Angelina Jolie” — “an “It” factor”

        I’m laughing so hard I don’t even know where to start with your post…. Girl, pass me some of the kool-aid you’ve been drinking, maybe my whole entire world will become a better looking place!

        I don’t think she’s the worst actress I’ve ever seen, and I’ve actually enjoyed a couple of her performances. I thought in particular she was excellent in “Adventureland”. However, your sort of over-the-top fandom is probably what is at the core of much of the ‘hate’ you read about Stewart. Its so cringeworthy it forces you to have to start spelling out all the many reasons to think she’s an overpaid spoiled brat who has had success that way, way, way exceeds her actual skills. And that is the very plain truth.

        I guess it was last year that she became the highest paid actress in Hollywood — but does anyone out there (besides Sloane Wyatt) actually think this girl is a Meryl Streep or a Kate Winslet or a Cate Blanchett? I feel for you if you do. Stewart would have a hard time even rising up to the level of a Winona Ryder, though I could envision her aspiring towards a similar career trajectory; lots of publicity combined with some occasional decent roles and kindhearted forgiving fans.

        I appreciate your enthusiasm Sloane. But I hope you approach the real world with a greater sense of reality. It would probably serve you well.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        renata -

        Thank you so much for pulling me out of my unreal dreamworld! I post on Celebitchy frequently, every time hoping someone will save me from the brink of my delusional self. I’m not sure, however, that you’d benefit from drinking my flavor of Kool-Aid when you clearly favor sipping from your own vale of tears flavor – Sour Punch.

        My Kool-Aid is way more tasty. It’s called Blue Razzamatazz Splash. I highly recommend it. It got me to where I am today, having achieved all my dreams and living a happy life. Being an enthusiast, it’s true I do have an unbridled, unabashed appreciation for just about everything, but maybe enthusiasm’s not your cup of Lapsung Suchow tea, (which some say tastes like it has a piece of smoked herring soaking in it).

        BTW, it’s intellectually weak to ascribe an opinion to me that I do not hold, as I’ve never expressed the opinion that Kristen’s acting is on par with the luminaries you’ve listed. Rather, I clearly stated my belief in her potential.

      • renata says:

        @Sloane –

        Your welcome! It does me good to know I was able to yank you before you fell through the precipice, into what so many now think of as the ‘KStew Mud”.

        Actually, I assure you I have all the enthusiasm in the world — I just save it for that which is meritorious. After all, a sense of discernment is what ultimately makes the difference between intellect and silliness. Calling Kristen Stewart “riveting” — sorry, but that is indeed silliness, a position underscored by her new employment as a ‘spokesmodel’. And as everyone surely knows, spokesmodels are generally “riveting”. In fact, the last time I saw something quite so provocative and “riveting” was the James Dean commercial for Louis Vuitton. Surely you saw that one, yes?

        Few of us expect discernment, in this regard, from those notably highbrow fans of all that is “Twilight”. Lord knows those kids have the keen sensibility to guide us through the future of all that merits our day-to-day enthusiasm. Clearly you’ve learned much from them Sloane. I guess I just missed those particular classes. I promise in the future I’ll attempt to catch up so that I can learn to be as wise and enthusiastic as you.

        Have a great day Sloane!!

      • Janna says:

        I can see why Chanel put this picture up instead of the one at the recent Chanel festival. The wide legged leather did nothing for her as well as the crop top for she wore that braless and she doesn’t have good boobs. They are off to the side and one looks bigger than the other. A bra would have least helped the look of her boobs and she had the same hairstyle like when she wears that ugly cap, all of it swiped over to the side. Dakota had a cute, sexy dress and a styles updo which was more fitting for a fashion show. I know some of you like her for you think she is badassed but as the face of Chanel, she is going to have to get some expression instead of an open mouth look showing those big front teeth.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        Your first paragraph made me laugh, renata. I like a good sense of sarcasm, and the ‘KStew Mud’ crack was especially funny!

        Again, you have surmised incorrectly as I’ve never seen ‘Twilight’. My enthusiastic appreciation of Kristen’s look and budding career comes from her other roles and her print campaigns. I’ve not seen the James Dean commercial either; so, although my unabashed enjoyment of Kristen Stewart’s work may greatly vex you, I do think she possesses a magnetic beauty that’s quite compelling.

        If you’d correctly discerned my viewing habits or accurately ascertained my thoughts on Kristen’s ranking amongst other actresses, then I might give your opinion of my opinions a bit more weight.

        As always, I appreciate your well wishes and hope you have a good day as well.

      • LadyMayhem says:

        I completely agree with you, sloane. I’m not a fan of Kristen’s, I think she’s probably an uneducated hipster wannabe. However, when she’s onscreen I constantly have my eye on her. She’s got something, something that intrigues me. I wouldn’t even necessarily call her beautiful… just interesting? And her acting is not as bad as people make out, not wonderful but certainly no worse than most.

        Also one more point in her favour: she DOES smile at events, I’ve seen many pictures of it, the pictures just don’t get as much exposure.

    • anna says:

      @sloane
      Just curious, but why do you, and seemingly all the other fans of this girl feel the need to trash other actresses almost every time to make her look better?… Seems like you were sucking down the sour punch talking about Dakota, or is that okay when it’s about someone who isn’t Stew?

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        anna, I can see where you think I’m slamming Dakota, but really I’m only pointing out the differences in their expressions. At this event, Dakota has the typical winsome ingenue countenance that’s done a lot and is kind of vanilla.

        I actually love Dakota too, especially in ‘The Runaways’; so much so, that I posted a really cute link of her and Kristen below. I’d really like to see Dakota in some meaty Diane Keaton ‘Looking for Mr. Goodbar’ role, as she was so excellent as Cherie Currie.

        I can’t speak for Kristen’s other fans though. As for me, I’ve never watched ‘Twilight’ because I hated the movie & couldn’t get into the book, and I’ve not ever ‘trashed’ any actresses to make KStew ‘look better’.

    • Yima says:

      all this hate has nothing to do with you dislike of her clothes her films
      The dislike is because she had the sheer audacity to kiss another man 18mntsh ago
      It wouldnt have mattered with any other young girl BUT this was Beloved Rob
      So shes forever damned. You lot make me sick half of Hollywood are married and adulterers
      BUT that OK its all because of Rob how could she well she did so get over it HW have

  2. Amelia says:

    Somewhere in Heaven’s most exclusive cocktail bar, Coco is sitting at a table with a glass of red, shaking her head.

  3. harpreet says:

    How about an actual TEXAN?

    Beyonce? Sandra Bullock?

  4. original kay says:

    close.your.mouth.

    this one and keira knightly both. ugh.

  5. Mika302 says:

    Whatever people say she is very pretty. I just don’t understand the hate towards her.

    • bns says:

      Being pretty doesn’t make up for her shitty personality and bad acting.

    • Janna says:

      It’s hard for people to get over her cheating on Rob Pattinson with a married 42 yr. old man. That’s the image they see whenever she appears.

    • Nina W says:

      I don’t hate her but being pretty doesn’t whitewash her behavior. I found her affair distasteful and disrespectful and because it was so widely publicized it’s difficult to see her as just an actress in a film. Films are about immersion and suspending belief and her face has become a jarring reminder of tabloid reality. Strange choice for any advertising campaign in my book. Not only does she have this stupid scandal associated with her she seems so awkward and ill at ease in most photos I see of her. I don’t think she’s a very good choice editorially.

  6. Lark says:

    Alright, I may be biased because I kind of like her but I’m cracking up because you always pick the least flattering photos of her, Kate Middleton, etc. (granted, she can look pretty damn awkward and I admit this as a fan of sorts but still…of all the photos it’s these). She’s still representing Balenciaga’s perfume line this year and there were new photos, so I’m surprised she has this deal because I didn’t think one could do two at the same time (maybe because this Chanel thing is for one specific collection and only for one year?). Also, she and Sparkles will never need supplemental income along with the HP kids…they earned ridiculous amounts of money and backend for the Twilight films. I’m pretty sure the Twilight and HP kids got something like 5 or 6 % backend of WW gross plus DVDs in addition to 15 million dollar paychecks…so even after paying taxes and their agents that is a hell of a lot of money.

    Also, I say this as someone who likes Rooney Mara, Emma Stone, Emma Watson, JenLaw, Kristen, Michelle Williams, etc BUT I am sick of actresses representing clothing lines and perfume lines. Bring back models!

  7. Mel says:

    I like her too. I thought she was great in Adventureland. She is pretty but sometimes she photographs odd.

  8. Scout says:

    Paris to Dallas? Sounds kind of low brow. Have these people ever been to Dallas?

    • Hautie says:

      When Coco Chanel reopened her house of fashion in the 1950′s. The stuck up Paris fashion press turned their noses up at her and her line. Coco Chanel was always loved in American. Especially by the women who shopped at Neiman Marcus.

      Stanley Marcus – the man behind Neiman Marcus at that time – which by they way is a Dallas made company… invited Coco Chanel to Dallas and threw a big love fest for her and her clothes. And got her footing in high end fashion again. And Chanel has always had a huge presence at Neiman’s… even to this day.

      This is why Uncle Karl brought the show to Dallas. And maybe he wanted a reason to come look at our good-looking cowboys too. :)

      • Caz says:

        thanks for the background. I too was scratching my head at the connection.

        Has Choupette given this the “meow” of approval?

        When Miley appeared at an awards event and took the joint out of the Chanel purse it became very obvious that King Karl is taking part of Chanel to the younger market with more money, not high-brow snobbery. Kristen makes sense as a model choice.

  9. Lee says:

    How does someone who badmouthed the house she has a contract with and gives so little f*cks about fashion at all still gets fashion campaigns? It’s almost offensive.

    • emmie_a says:

      Lee: ITA, especially about her giving so little f*cks about fashion. She has zero fashion sense. Whenever I see her dressed-up it looks like she can’t wait to get out of the fashionable clothes and back into her trucker hat and pajama pants. She walks around with greasy hair, looking like she needs a bath, wearing clothes that look like they haven’t been washed in weeks — I cannot believe Chanel would want their name associated with her. She must have the best agent in Hollywood.

      • Lark says:

        Well, to be fair Mila Kunis and Rob Pattinson landed contracts with Dior, and that’s after Pattinson made fun of men who do modeling or perfume advertisements. And uh…she may have greasy hair but her clothes look clean even if they aren’t stylish. There are a lot of “actors and actresses” that have fashion contracts that have no personal style.

    • Lark says:

      She never badmouthed Balenciaga. That was her good friend the former designer Nicolas Ghesquiere who did, and Nicolas even got hit with a defamation lawsuit. She said in some interview in an article about him in a fashion mag that she “offered to run away with him” once but I wouldn’t call that badmouthing….As far as her fashion sense, I kind of think none of the actresses or actors should be modeling and it should go back to models. LBR, the only one who actually has fashion sense is Marion Cotillard out of the bunch.

  10. QQ says:

    So the Balenciaga thing is a no?

    Also That sounds like a shitshow paris To Dallas???

    • Anna Moon 85 says:

      She does Balenciaga’s perfume, saw an ad recently.

      • mimi says:

        Yes, Kristen is in her second year promoting the Balenciaga fragrance line Florabotanica and now its newer scent, Rosabotanica. A new picture of Kristen’s campaign was just released not too long ago and she looks lovely in it. I have no idea how many years she has left on her Balenciaga contract. One more year maybe? I believe Rob’s Dior fragrance contract is a 3 year deal. I would imagine most fragrance contracts using high profile celebs are in the 2-3 year range.

        I think she is a good fit for Chanel. Karl seems to adore her. Didn’t she do a Vanity Fair layout with Karl in Paris two years ago? She even landed the cover in that issue. She’ll be fine as the new face for their new line. She’s very photogenic and looks good in most photoshoots when she’s given the right clothes to wear. Honestly, I wasn’t too crazy about this Dallas event outfit but I blame her stylist for that, not Chanel.

  11. stellalovejoydiver says:

    I guess Chanel’s next face will be Miley.

  12. Nerd Alert says:

    I think she would be a good model. She’s a horrible actress, so frozen and one-note, but she’s very pretty and pulls off good photos. Her face is very versatile for makeup, too. The only thing about her that drives me nuts is her bad acting, but I think she learned that at the Twilight School Of Bland Characters.

    • Anna Moon 85 says:

      She’s very uneven to me as an actress . Disliked her in Twilight and Snow White, found her decent to good in the few indies I’ve seen her in. I read something on The Wrap about franchise actors that said a similar thing in that she is well received in indies but then there is Twilight. She needs to do supporting roles in indies and get back to that in my opinion, but then again I read she’s going to Sundance so maybe that is what she is doing. Considering Blake Lively modeled for Karl, KStew is fine.

      • Nerd Alert says:

        Fair enough. I have a tumultuous relationship with Twilight in general from a literary standpoint. The source material is bland, boring and all-together awful, so I give the actors second chances. I saw her in SWATH and she was also really bad, so I never saw her in anything else (besides Panic Room). I’m not the kind of person who will just watch any movie for something to do, though, I’m pretty selective.

        I forgot about Blake Lively! Man, talk about gorgeous (IMO) but boring. I guess that’s how Karl likes ‘em, eh? I suppose the same can’t be said for Tilda Swinton, but since she’s a Polanski apologist I don’t support her at all, ever.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        Nerd Alert, You might want to try catching Kristen’s performance in ‘Welcome to the Rileys” with James Galdofino. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iin1bfKXkrk

        And OMG! Kristen and Dakota super flirty and fun in a montage of interviews about their kissing scenes in ‘The Runaways’! – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxvrV5UH2NE

      • Nerd Alert says:

        Thanks, Sloane! I will check that out. Hell, I gave Hemsworth a second chance after SWATH, maybe I should give Kristen a 3rd.

        I’ve written a couple of novels lately, trying to publish one now. Anyway, I always imagine Dakota Fanning as the lead in the most recent one.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        What genres are your novels, Nerd Alert?

        ‘Welcome to the Rileys’ is a touching study in grief and redemption, but ‘The Runaways’ had a ploddingly leaden storyline.

        In spite of ‘The Runaways’ formulaic plot, all the actresses delivered such naturalistic performances it felt like watching a documentary. They sang the bands’ hits themselves so well that I rocked to the original Runaways’ soundtrack for weeks afterwards, and the movie’s neon colors gleamed as brightly as the glitter stuck to their platform shoes.

      • Nerd Alert says:

        My first finished novel is disaster-sci fi about aliens abducting humans to keep as house pets (really its about how the people cope) and my latest is a short-ish urban fantasy. The main character of the urban fantasy (a woman who gets everything she ever wanted just in time to lose it all becomes nearly deranged before an ancient Mesopotamian demon-goddess takes her under her wing and trains her to be an immortal), was based on Dakota Fanning, at least appearance-wise.

        I will give “Welcome to the Rileys” a try, and perhaps “The Runaways” too, although the storyline sounds like it might drive me insane. Thanks for the suggestions, and taking an interest!

  13. Hannah says:

    From Tilda Swinton to Kstew? Talk about downgrade.

  14. MisJes says:

    I actually like Kristen’s editorial photo shoots. I think she is incredibly photogenic and I’m sure her campaign for Chanel will be just as lovely. And yes, she is still the face for Balenciaga Florabotanica, Kaiser. They released her new ad in August.

  15. Another Ann says:

    For people questioning the Balenciaga thing: her contract with them was for a fragrance campaign, not fashion. Her campaign is still active, btw, Balenciaga just launced a new offshoot fragrance that she is also the face of. The first campaign was a success (enough that they launched a second fragrance in the line), which is why they continue to work with her. These are business relationships. If everybody’s making money, everybody’s happy.

    For those questioning the Chanel relationship: it’s not that surprising. She is just the face for this one campaign. If it goes well, they could extend it. If not, they move on. But Chanel has been trying to draw a younger market for a long time. They’re trying to change their reputation as a stuffy/older/safe brand, and one way to do that is to pick younger, edgy, famous “models”. Yes, Kristen doesn’t align with the brand’s heritage. That’s the point. They’re trying to attract attention from a new generation.

    I do think Chanel would have been smarter to start being more inclusive, and show some diversity in their faces. They need to stop using Native American “costumes” that are offensive to many. They should have collections shown with older models too so they don’t piss off a loyal part of their fan base.

    Karl is out of touch and set in his ways. Some forward-thinking designer leading one of these fashion houses is going to get it one of these days and fully embrace diversity, and not just appeal to skinny, white 20-somethings.

  16. kiki says:

    I took a look at the pics and thought that everything looked pretty good – much less boring than regular Chanels stuff… except for poor Kristen… the girl is all legs and no waistline. why choose to show off the waistline and cover the legs. ugh.

  17. Ely says:

    Oh so is she even an actress anymore haha good luck selling that super racist collection.

  18. bns says:

    LOL she is such a hypocrite.

    And the whole trend of using celebrities for ad campaigns is dying. Models are making a comeback and Karl needs to get hip.

  19. Janet says:

    She looks like a busted kewpie doll.

  20. Tig says:

    Dear God- those pants are a horror show! Well it can only go up from here. Lauren Hutton looks miles better- guess once a model, always a model.

    Hopefully, whoever styles her hair for the photo campaign will ditch the comb-over

  21. jane16 says:

    Horrible choice. She is not a beauty and her legs are awkwardly shaped. I hate it that the only criteria for a big modeling gig now is that you are famous, even for nothing noteworthy, rather than being beautiful and/or having the right look. Fashion and beauty mags used to be arty and fabulous. Now they are morphing into tabloid trash with their reality or lowbrow actress models who are ridiculously photoshopped. I’d a million times rather look at a real model in a real photo.

    • *unf* Joan Jett says:

      lol @ “rather look at a real model in a real photo” – because fashion photography is all about selling reality, hahaha

      • jane16 says:

        selling reality? I always thought it about selling makeup and fashion. I couldn’t afford the high end fashion in the 80s, but I bought a lot of makeup that was advertised by the great models of those days. The ads and fashion layouts in those days were works of art compared to the digital cartoons they have now. I was walking through our local Nordstroms with my teenage son last year and we walked past the Lancome counter with a giant poster of Julia Roberts. My husband has worked on a couple of her movies and we have all met her several times. The ad looks so ridiculously fake, my kid pointed at it and laughed. He said something like look, its a cartoon of Julia. The UK passed a photoshopping law because of Lancomes fake ads with Julia and Christy Turlington because they said it was false advertising, these (beautiful) womens faces were altered so much they looked like dolls. So yeah, I think things were a lot more “real” back in the good ol days of the 60s through the 90s. Bring back real models!!!

      • Nina W says:

        She didn’t ask for reality she asked for a real model not a tween princess.

  22. Anname says:

    I find Karl Lagerfield to be one of the creepiest people in the world, and really do hate those pants on her (agree with what someone else said, you need to be tall to wear those giant pants). But good for her, I guess? There really is no downside to a relationship with Chanel, aside from dealing with the creepy guy.

  23. Camille (TheOriginal) says:

    Well good for her.

  24. Lila says:

    I think this is an awesome choice. It really isn’t relevant to this whether she is a good actress or not. How conventionally beautiful she is also doesn’t matter that much. A lot of models aren’t that pretty IMO, but they can take some awesome pictures and look very striking. Elegance is not always Kristen Stewart’s strong suit but she can pull off striking any day and that is what I think of with Chanel. I think she can also do a good job with pretty but that’s more Chanel perfumes.

    To me, Stewart is a much better choice for Chanel than someone like Blake Lively (who I think would be perfect for a brand like Michael Kors). She’s more in line with Nicole Kidman and Vanessa Paradis IMO. Like them, Stewart has worked in the mainstream but she also does a lot of indie stuff with less commercial people. She can wear things from across the fashion map and can carry a lot of different hair and makeup looks. She makes sense to me for a high fashion house like Chanel that isn’t avant-garde but also isn’t particularly wearable for most people, especially runway looks. Like those awful orange leather pants. The pants are ugly but she’s working them in those pictures.

    Not related to Chanel, it made me stupid happy to see that the trip all the gossips and Twi-Hards were speculating was a secret trip to see Robert Pattinson was actually to announce a new contract. Work instead of chasing a romantic relationship that has by all appearances been crappy for a long time? That Kristen Stewart I can support. Just like I can support that she apparently shows up and does her job without drama. Maybe it’s because I just got off one of the reality threads but God bless a 23 year old in Hollywood who can do their job without constant hand holding and public drug binges. I know, my standards are low.

    And yes, she is still the face of Balenciaga. The new ads were covered here back in August-http://www.celebitchy.com/319326/kristen_stewarts_latest_balenciaga_ad_better_than_last_years_but_not_by_much/- as was the announcement that she was still contracted after the designer change back in May- http://www.celebitchy.com/295863/kristen_stewart_wasnt_fired_from_balenciaga_after_all_how_shocking_links/.

    • megsie says:

      Nicole Kidman was one of the few actresses (you could count them on one hand) able to carry a well made designer piece with the required presence and confidence. Kristen in no way emulates that. Sadly, Chanel wants her rabid fanbase and, by proxy, her newfound ‘dangerous’ persona. Her looks are irrelevant.

  25. megsie says:

    Dear lord, when will the celeb as fashion model era end? Enough, already.

    Yes, she has a pretty face. Yes, her eyes are remarkably beautiful. No, she does not possess a model’s body. No, she does not in any way carry herself or designer clothes well. Can she act? Sometimes. Maybe. So perhaps better to concentrate on honing your craft than parading around for Karl?

  26. Nic says:

    That’s some poor quality photoshopping on his face!

  27. tracy says:

    Could the author do just a bit of research, Kristen still has her perfume line. In fact she has been add as the face of a second perfume.

  28. St says:

    It’s so funny how she hates publicity and all those stuff. Because she is like so real and is true artist and hates every minute during which she has to promote movie and give interviews and go to premiere. And then she does things like that when she would have to do publicity that she hates. And she doesn’t have to sign for this contract. No one was forcing her. But hey – everyone loves money.

  29. Jerri says:

    She is a young woman if that is what they want so be it.