07 March, 2009

I Don't Get It.

This photo is from a Vanity Fair feature on "Comedy's New Legends." It is Seth Rogen, dressed as Frida Kahlo:

Could someone explain to me precisely if and/or why this image is supposed to be funny? Frida Kahlo's work is not exactly a barrel o'laughs, and if you look at the rest of the photo set, this image doesn't quite fit in with the other photos. I could see how it makes some sense given that the rest of the photos are of new "legends" dressed as those of yesteryear, but...I'm stuck, and unsure of what this image is trying to convey. Man dressed as woman = automatically hilarious? Frida Kahlo is/was manly? I have no idea.

Also, re the cover image: Is male nudity really so offensive to various delicate sensibilities that all of the "nude" guys on the cover have to wear bodysuits? I get that it's supposed to be a takeoff on VF's ridiculous Tom Ford cover, but there is something about the bodysuits that makes it, at least in my eyes, less satirical and more shaming, as Melissa/Shakes so eloquently puts it. That said, the thing that I do like about this image is Paul Rudd's exact aping of Tom Ford--he's got it down to a t.


ouyangdan said...

I don't get how it's funny either, and add that I find it kind of insulting to Frida. Ya know?

RE the Vanity Fair cover: Spot on. I also noticed that the Fattest of Teh Fatties happened to be the only one w/ sleeves on his unitard. I don't think that was a coincidence. That cover was classic shaming 101. The more of Lebovit's (sp?) work I see the less impressed I am.

ouyangdan said...

Ack! I think there is a Z in there too, that I forgot to toss in. I am too tired to look it up.