Elle Fanning for Marie Claire

Posted on June 14, 2011

Now look. Don’t get pissed at us for Fanning overload; that’s just how the celebrity world works. People who have projects coming out dominate the entertainment and fashion media in the months leading up to it and while the project is still selling tickets. So don’t blame us for Elle-ing out. The girl’s got a big time Spielbergian thing on the pop culture radar right now. Besides, we really like this editorial. The clothes are gorgeous and she looks fresh-faced and adorable.

Elle Fanning for Marie Claire
“La Elle Epoque”
Photographed by Tesh
Styled by Alison Edmund

Cardigan, $2,000, dress, $3,000, Dior; skirt, price upon request, D&G; shoes, $630, Philosophy di Alberta Ferretti; bracelet, $260, House of Flora.

Top, $550, collar, $490, Louis Vuitton; gloves, $40, Carolina Amato.

Dress, price upon request, Prada; gloves, $25, LaCrasia Gloves.

Dress, $4,990, Lanvin; belt, $215, Meredith Wendell; bracelet, $150, Emporio Armani; tulle (worn as headpiece), Manny’s Millinery Supply Co.

Coat, $4,310, dress, $895, Philosophy di Alberta Ferretti; shoes, $1,055, Nicholas Kirkwood; bangles, $23 each, Pono by Joan Goodman.

Dress, $4,195, Stella McCartney; tights, $15, DKNY; bracelet, $260, House of Flora.

Top & shorts, price upon request, Les Copains; shoes, $630, Miu Miu; bracelet, $440, Sonia Rykiel; camisole, editor’s own.

Dress, price upon request, Antonio Berardi; headband, editor’s own.

We know what you’re thinking, minions. How can we like this editorial when we complained she looked a bit too grown up in the one for Blackbook magazine? Well, here’s our take, for what it’s worth: The fashion and beauty industries have been known to use models as young as thirteen. There are plenty of good reasons to dislike this practice. Ours tends to center around the idea of a young woman who isn’t even fully developed physically (in most cases) shouldn’t be used to sell products and standards of beauty to grown women. Generally speaking, it’s rare to see models that young overtly sexualized (in American fashion media at least). Done up like grown women, yes; done up to look sexually available; rarely (and there’s usually outcry when they do it).

Our issue the other day was mainly with the one picture; this one, which quite clearly (to us, anyway) references Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby. We love the pictures in this editorial because she isn’t really made up to look older nor is she particularly sexualized. She mostly looks her age and looks pretty. In other words, if the tone of the editorial is about looking pretty, we don’t mind it. If the tone is about looking sexually experienced or available, then a 13-year-old should be left alone to figure out how to do that and teams of adults shouldn’t be doing it to her for public consumption. There. That’s the difference as we see it. Or put another way: We look at this editorial and ask “What fashion-oriented 13-year-old wouldn’t want to spend the day wearing gorgeous designer clothes?” We can’t honestly and with a straight face ask, “What fashion-oriented 13-year-old wouldn’t want to be made up to look like a child prostitute by adults?”

 

[Photo Credit: Tesh via marieclaire.com]

    • MilaXX

      Actually I like this editorial. She really is a cute young lady. The photo with the pink sweater seems a bit off to me, but the rest is fine. I’ve seen her making the chat show circuit.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know, guys. I think the minute you put Bridget Bardot hairstyles, high heels, and heavy eye makeup on a 13-year old, you’ve sexualized her.  The pictures are pretty, and she’s good at this, and in a couple of them she really does look like a kid. But I feel a little squirmy. Maybe the difference with using 13-year old models is that models are made up to not look like themselves, to be anonymous mannequins. When you know who the model is and know how old she is, it feels little different.

      • Anonymous

        took the words out of my mouth

      • Anonymous

        Sorry – I’m “Guest,” accidentally double posting. Eek. (And I my duplicate I was able to correct Bridget to Brigitte.)

      • Anonymous

        Actually YOU sexual the photos.  I don’t see it at all.

      • Anonymous

        Well said. I couldn’t agree more.

    • Anonymous

      y’know if Elle’s own acting career doesn’t take off she could get a job as a proffessional Carey Mulligan impersonator.
      Great editorial tho.

      • Anonymous

        I love Carey Mulligan but I think Elle has much more personal style than Carey. 

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know, guys. I think the minute you put Bridget Bardot hairstyles, heavy eye makeup, short shorts and high heels on a 13-year old, you’ve sexualized her.  The pictures are pretty, and she’s good at this, and in a couple of them she really does look like a kid. But I feel a little squirmy. Maybe the difference with using 13-year old models is that models are made up to not look like themselves, to be anonymous mannequins. When you know who the model is and know how old she is, it feels little different.

      • Jenn B

        OK that is exactly what I was thinking. Only you said it better. I don’t think she is sexualized in a  SCREAMING SEX kind of way, but she just looks mature. I know a lot of 13 year olds and they look like kids. The “fashion conscious” 13 year olds are those who have the trendiest clothes from whatever the coolest store is.  Fashion consciousness at 13 doesn’t read to me as loving designer clothes aimed at adults. She looks pretty, but I’d rather she were 16 in this editorial.

      • Anonymous

        What I know about pop culture could fit on the back of a postcard – but even to my eyes, photographs 2 and 3 scream Brigitte Bardot.  It’s nothing to do with the clothing – the first photograph hits me as stunningly old-world and lovely; the last one is all serious business, and a really fantastic shot. It’s the styling.

        Putting it most simply: for sure, I’d let my nine-year-old dress up in fabulous fashion and get her hair done. If uh, she could please not destroy the fabulous fashion or get it grubby or something. Wouldn’t hesitate. And for sure, I’d let her model the stuff in a professional shoot, because we could have a comfortable conversation beforehand about the photographs and the job and the industry in general.  But I’d never let her be styled like that, and I couldn’t possibly explain to her why anyone would want her to echo a fabulous, famous sex kitten of yore. She’s nine.

        Putting it another way: after we saw the new X-Men, it was easier to explain the ‘Go fuck yourself’ than the women in lingerie. That women might want to wear lingerie was pretty simple. That men might want to look at women wearing lingerie …..

        Yeah. That’s the heart of it. And that’s the conversation we’re not having for a while yet. 
        Let her save the Bardot for a few years yet. 

        • http://profiles.google.com/ameliaheartsu Amelia Logan

          Way to be an awesome mom, those are great conversations you’re having with your daughter!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1214755227 Meira Niibori

        Yup yup yup, that’s EXACTLY what I was thinking.  Lolita-fied Bardot.  I don’t quite see how you guys (TLo) can be upset by the other photos and yet not see these as sexualized at all….  I think they’re equally inappropriate, just in slightly different ways.

      • Anonymous

        Spot on, Brooklyn Bomber! And, Jenn B, I agree with this wholeheartedly as well: “Fashion consciousness at 13 doesn’t read to me as loving designer clothes aimed at adults.”

    • http://twitter.com/wrenaria Kimmy Hescock

      Love the colors in that first image and her hair in the second. The girl’s got a pretty little face on her.She’ll be a stunning woman.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think these pictures are age-appropriate, but neither is the life style for child actors.  So given that her world is so different from that of typical girls her age, I think she looks beautiful here.

    • Anonymous

      The last two photos make me uncomfortable.  The rest looks charming and appropriate–young, fresh, and playful.

    • Anonymous

      What bothers me about using young girls for fashion editorials (even when they’re not made up to look much older) is that the fashion world is selling a bullshit vision of a woman’s body to women. You can only look good in these clothes if you’re a model who’s way too thin, or you’re a prepubescent girl? Where the hell are the clothes for grown women with curves?

      Rant over sorry. She’s cute, but this just annoys me way too much.

      • http://vhanna26.typepad.com Vera

        Sad that women’s fashion isn’t for most women.

    • Anonymous

      The top photo? This is what Marc Jacobs should have gone for with that “Oh, Lola!” perfume campaign. Had he, I assure you young girls who made Taylor Swift a bazillionaire would buy it no matter what it smelled like. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1344922354 Eric Scheirer Stott

      I’m getting a Lolita vibe from some of these…

    • Anonymous

      Sorry for the double post. It happened because my original post wasn’t showing up, so I reposted, and then the original showed up.  I went to my dashboard to delete the duplicate, and I’ve noticed that it doesn’t actually delete: it just changes the i.d. to “Guest.” Is there a way to really delete that I haven’t figured out? Thanks.

    • Anonymous

      Sorry TLO  I was totally with you until I saw that Bridget Bardot sexy secretary look with her whole leg showing and glittery high heels. They are definitely flirting with that line. 

      But they (her handlers, the mags, her brand) are doing that on purpose. They WANT you talking about this. Everybody knows as wrong as it is that if you sexualize an almost child that child will be a star. Ask Brooke Shields. Ask Jodie Foster. Ask Jon Benet Ramsey. The fact is there are 13 year old girls having sex right now. Coerced and of their own free will. There have been for centuries girls married off at 13. If she can have a period, she can have a child. 

      Our culture will always be fascinated by sexualized just barely teens because it is taboo for us AND somewhere inside us we know there’s something TRUE about it. 

    • http://twitter.com/susanpcollier Susan Collier

      Nice editorial. However, I don’t understand why magazine editors think that 20-30something women are interested in a 13-year-old playing dressup.

    • Anonymous

      I’ve gotta go with a no on this one–I agreed on the one photo from the other day but here it’s her facial expressions throughout–very doe eyed and too innocent (does that make sense?). She’s a very pretty girl and here (except for the Stella McCartney jumping shot) she is looking more pretty baby. Love the Stella McCartney shot, however. And the gold shorts–uh uh!
      And who are these spreads targeting, anyway? Not 13 year old girls–for that she needs be modeling in Seventeen. Do love the jump shot–I’ll say it again.

    • Anonymous

      While I definitely understand BrooklynBomber’s point of view and generally agree with it, I find myself liking these photos. I loathed the “Pretty Baby” photo TLo referenced above. This editorial seems more fun and age appropriate to me. And if you happen to read her quotes for the editorial she sounds like a young girl who absolutely adores dressing up. Good for her.

    • Anonymous

      Dressing up any girl under 18 in grown up clothes and makeup and displaying the pictures in a fashion magazine for grown ups makes me very uncomfortable.  Yes, my 6 yr old girl loves to play dress up but she’s not being put on display for grown ups to judge her looks and her clothes in terms of wearing that same look themselves.  This whole editorial is ripe for pedophile admiration and it makes me slightly queasy.  TLo, I usually agree with you guys but today, we differ.

    • Anonymous

      I love the Mary Tyler Moore jump. 

    • http://heartprintandstyle.blogspot.com Vivi N

      If acting does not work out for her, she can just be a model. Because, my goodness, Elle…Ms. Fanning, if you’re nasty, knows how to give face. WORK IT! 

    • http://profiles.google.com/rachelruthlee Rachel Lee

      Her hair does this thing where it gets wilder and wilder, then gets smoothed into a ponytail for the second last shot– then gets to experience an electric shock. 

    • Anonymous

      ““What fashion-oriented 13-year-old wouldn’t want to spend the day
      wearing gorgeous designer clothes?”” 

      except I think about my 13 to 17 year old nieces and think  – um – just no. 

      Elle looks great – but I hate the fact that designers and fashion people prefer dressing and advertising little girls and their disgust at WOMEN with womanly faces and bodies. 

    • Anonymous

      The coat picture is bothersome to me, as they give the price of the dress which can’t even be seen. And the short shorts, one, too; she is dressed up to look like Brigitte Bardot, in my view. Just gives me that “sex kitten” vibe there.

    • Anonymous

      I agree with Ceejaytee – this is an editorial in a fashion magazine for WOMEN.  Not prepubescent girls.  And BrooklynBomber is correct – the whole Bardo stuff makes these images sexualized.  Ugh.  How can anyone ever say we are “post-feminist” when this kind of stuff is still the norm? Sisters and Brothers still need to call the fashion industry on these types of images.  

      • Anonymous

        I agree.  Is it really fashion when the clothes are on a 13 year-old girl?

      • Anonymous

        No need to get off – that’s a good soapbox, FFF!

    • bookish

      It’s mainly her facial expressions throughout that makes me uncomfortable. She’s 13, isn’t she allowed to smile occasionally instead of making the sad, pouty model face? The only photo I really like is the one where she’s jumping in the air with a half smile. THAT is very cute and age appropriate, and she still looks beautiful. Also, I don’t know how you can say she isn’t sexualized in those last two shots.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=506473106 Mori Clark

      the shots look fine on their own, but as a collection i’m getting majorly weirded out by her deadface.

    • http://twitter.com/ShelfAfterlife Shelf Afterlife

      Its all people with way more money then I’ll ever have wearing clothes way more expensive then I could ever afford made up by professional makeup, hair and fashion editors.  Doesn’t matter if they’re 14 or 84, if they’re a celebrity, I’ll never look or live like them.  With all that in mind, she’s very cute and I like the pictures.  I’ll take the Fanning sisters over the Kardashian sisters any day of the week.

    • http://vhanna26.typepad.com Vera

      She looks adorable, and I can afford those cute gloves In the second photo.

      • Anonymous

        I said the same thing! Only 40 bucks? Woot!

    • Anonymous

      She reminds me of Twiggy here.

      Very cute!–GothamTomato

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Catherine-Rhodes/602850414 Catherine Rhodes

        Oh, you’re so right about Twiggy.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, that’s exactly what I said as soon as I saw the photos!  Made me forget she was Sweetie Pie in Winn-Dixie for a minute, she did.

      • Miriam CS

        I was getting the very same Twiggy vibe. I think she looks lovely here, even if she seems a bit young for it all.

    • http://profiles.google.com/trashilove { edi } ilovetrash

      the pretty baby look has become so culturally codified that i am unsure whether the team behind the reference photo has ever even heard of pretty baby.

      i had forgotten that fashion magazines occasionally note price. it’s bracing to see a $4000 dress in this economy. that doesnt mean she doesnt look nice in them, nor that this particular team didnt pull some wonderful items. i’d take the mint shoes, were i able to pay for them.

    • Anonymous

      Talk about putting unrealistic body images into our brains.

      I just don’t get the need to use girls to sell clothes to adult women.I never have and it just annoys me.And yes, the pictures are nice, she is very lovely, but she is not an adult and there is no reason on earthto use a girl who is 13 or 15 to advertise clothing for women.

    • Anonymous

      I’d be OK with this if I didn’t have the impression these are all exact replicas of Kate Bosworth shoots I’ve (inadvertently) seen — including the facial ‘expressions’ and mouth positions.  Ya know?  

      At least Miss Fanning is rather better at it (at 13!) … and Lord knows, in the acting dept. she’s the furthest thing from an impostor. 

    • scottyf

      T&Lo said…
      “Now look. Don’t get pissed at us for Fanning overload; that’s just how the celebrity world works. People who have projects coming out dominate the entertainment and fashion media in the months leading up to it and while the project is still selling tickets. So don’t blame us for Elle-ing out.

      I hope it is clear from my posts that I respect and admire you guys a great deal. I learn tons from reading your take on the world, and I am truly humbled that other commenters seem to enjoy mine.

      That said: I think your statement is disingenuous. You’re scapegoating the industry for your choices. This is your blog. You choose what goes here. The bottom line is that you think this young lady is pretty and interesting. Unfortunately she is also a minor being used to market clothing to women. Few girls can pay $6,000 plus dollars for the first outfit.  In my opinion it’s exploitive. If this were Willow Smith, the commentariat would be up in arms. But as you’ve said in previous posts about females of color in general: that’s not likely to happen because she is not white, not considered “pretty” by enough of the buying public, and probably wouldn’t be as interesting to fabulous bitchy bloggers.

      I’ve gotten used to the fact that I’m not often going to see the kind of material on this blog that I would like. This is your house, and I hope that for the most part I am a respectful and honorable guest. I keep my feet off of the furniture, and I light a match after using the bathroom. But please, don’t diminish your wonderful, classy irreverence by putting your posting choices on the industry that you so consistently and brilliantly hold a mirror up to. 

      • MC Wheaton

        “If this were Willow Smith, the commentariat would be up in arms”

        Ain’t that the truth.  First thing I thought of when I saw this was the reaction vis a vis the  somewhat hostile reactions to anything involving a Smith child.  Interesting how the tone is much more ….thoughtful… for this particular ‘person who is not allowed a childhood.’

      • MC Wheaton

        “If this were Willow Smith, the commentariat would be up in arms”

        Ain’t that the truth.  First thing I thought of when I saw this was the reaction vis a vis the  somewhat hostile reactions to anything involving a Smith child.  Interesting how the tone is much more ….thoughtful… for this particular ‘person who is not allowed a childhood.’

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jennifer-Blais/682440192 Jennifer Blais

      She has only begun her career and yet I think I am already officially over her. (She is certainly a beautiful child though.)

    • Lies L.

      I agree with everything you said, guys. I really honestly don’t think these pictures sexualize her or show her in any inappropriate way. So she wears heels – 13 is about the age girls start to experiment with things like that anyway, so it’s not like it’s something unheard of. I would’ve loved clothes like these at 13, even if they’re perhaps too grown up. :)

    • Susan Foster

      Total dead eyes in all the pictures except the jumping one.   Like the gloves, but otherwise not feeling it.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know.  If only she was smiling instead if being this serious, sort of sultry looking 13 year old.  She probably wasn’t smiling because she has braces or wonky young teen teeth, and God forbid she look completely her age.
      On the other hand, we finally know who the correct demographic is for those big underpants is.

    • kim i

      i love you guys, i really do, but i have to take issue with this: “Done up like grown women, yes; done up to look sexually available; rarely (and there’s usually outcry when they do it).”  … what is the difference?  generally speaking, grown women ARE sexually available.  and that’s where i have a problem with this kind of thing.  as a woman whose body began developing very early — i was a 34C bra size at 11 — i KNOW what message girls who look older than they actually are get.  men never asked me my age; they just tried talking me up.  other girls called and spat out words like, “whore!” at me before i’d ever even been kissed. 

      if we dress our children up like women, they’ll be treated like women.  that’s hard enough on grown-ups.  do we want to model this to other kids her age?  “but MOOOOOM, elle FANNING does it!”  for every mother who says, “well, she might, but YOU won’t,” two or three others, tired, overwhelmed, or just indifferent — or worse, those who think it’s cute — will shrug and say, “all right.”

    • http://profiles.google.com/angelarosesarno angela rose sarno

      uhhhh…. I disagree that she looks like a child.  Look at her expression!  A child poses for pictures with a big toothy grin, a woman wanting to look sexually alluring leaves the mouth open.  (which drives me nuts, btw.)  I am sick of this particular trend of a child in a grown ups clothes.  I see these pictures and I really don’t care how lovely the clothes are and how pretty ms. fanning is and how well she takes a picture- all I can think is YUCK. 

      This sort of thing is not okay, and I am not impressed with Marie Claire. (of course that has been true since “Mondo-gate”.)

    • Anonymous

      You know, it’s such a weird topic to discuss. There are two very strong sides to the argument. Every time you guys throw up a picture of a young celebrity, I make a bet with myself about how many “creepy” comments there are going to be. Some people just see sexualization and inappropriateness everywhere. I keep looking at these pictures and I just can’t see it, yet some here are really weirded out by them.
      On the other hand, with all the sickos and perverts out there, you can’t help but be concerned for the welfare of any child and it’s likely that these crazies are the first in line to pick up a magazine featuring a lovely young celeb like Elle. But they would anyway; it’s not because she has some eye makeup on or a pair of high heels.
      I understand freaking out when you see those pageant kids with all the makeup because they’re like 5 years old. Some younger. But 13? I don’t know about anyone else here, but I started wearing eye makeup at age 13 and so did all my classmates. This was 1983. We all wore makeup. Heels too.
      I guess I can see both sides of the argument, but I do think some people tend to overreact. I really can’t see anything wrong with this set of photos. I think she looks beautiful and age-appropriate. I mean, should she cover herself from head to toe or make herself unattractive because there are perverts out there?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Catherine-Rhodes/602850414 Catherine Rhodes

      If all the shots had the same vibe as the jumping one, this editorial would be perfect. As it is, the deadface gives off an unpleasant vibe — heroin chic? held in captivity? come hither? — that seems inappropriate.

      Also, during the recession where one in 10 workers is unemployed, advertising “price upon request” borders on obscene. Clearly I’m not the demographic for Marie Claire. Don’t read it, and don’t plan to.

    • http://www.lindamerrill.com Linda Merrill

      I have to differ on the purple wooly coat image – she looks like she’s doing the walk of shame, having lost her dress somewhere the ight before. Otherwise, all very pretty – she certainly is the “it” girl of the moment. 

    • Margot Brose

      HER HAIR LOOKS LIKE GOD HIMSELF DID IT FOR HER :D she needs to keep the queen who did her hair. The middle-part that she styles on the RC makes her features look odd and a titch squished, but this makes her look beautiful and interesting.

    • Anonymous

      She’s TOO young for some of these shots. Reminds me of the toddler tiara show, not right! There’s plenty of time for this later as I”m sure she’ll have a big career. She was incredibly good in Super 8.

    • Kristen Taylor

      The reason that this doesn’t work for me is that as a woman, I don’t want to wear the same clothes that a 13-year-old wears.  I agree with the other commenters’ point that anonymous runway models who happen to be 13 or 14 aren’t as much of an issue…they are living mannequins, and are chosen for their size and shape as the best way to present the clothes visually (whether or not you might agree with that aesthetic).  But an editorial spread using a “known quantity” connotes that this is the ideal customer for the clothing. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3AJ237ND3GAHDQJZ4TLCO4WLRA Emily

      I like everything in this editorial too.  Except for the Les Copains — if she had a skirt or pants instead of those “shorts” then I probably wouldn’t mind so much.  Pretty clothes.

    • Anonymous

      I’m not creeped out by the photos. She still looks like a 13 year old girl. But, as several others have said, I think it’s absurd to use young teenagers to sell clothes to grown-ass women. It sends a message that adult women aren’t appealing enough for the job. I don’t buy into it, but it’s still insulting.

      As for the subject at hand, I think she looks beautiful. She’s a born model.

    • http://twitter.com/Space_Kitty Space_Kitty

      I was with you right up ’til the gold granny panties.  Make it stop!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joseph-Guarino/13902216 Joseph Guarino

      Between her and Whip Mah Hair Back and Forth, pedophiles are finally getting their day in the sun. Humbert Humbert really missed his time. That said, she does look cute.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jessica-TallGirl-Freeman/1043623567 Jessica TallGirl Freeman

      The last shot is a bit strange, but she looks beautiful in all the shots.

    • Anonymous

      I’m not mad.
      She is the appropiate age for these clothes, which for the most part are very young looking, and would look sort of foolish on an adult woman.

    • Anonymous

      I really don’t have any problem with these pictures.  She’s not showing cleavage or a bare back.  She’s not laying on a bed or licking a lollipop or anything suggestive.  If the issue that she has Bardot eye make-up and hair, well, that’s just a look that a lot of women like.  Cat-eye eyeliner isn’t sexually suggestive…Taylor Swift does her eyes that way all the time and there’s never an issue there. 

      As for the granny-panty shorts…they may be short, but they are shorts.  And she’s not bending over and looking over her should at the camera.  Weekly circulars for Target and JC Penney expose more tween skin with ads for swimsuits.

      I think she’s cute and I like some of the clothes, even though I can’t afford them nor fit into them.

    • Jason Kramer

      not even going to talk about the editorial…but wow, in 10 years this girl is going to be a knockout.

    • Anonymous

      But she’s 13.  That means she’s pre-pubescent.  Pretty and pricey as those clothes are, that’s about as much as I can take of the whole sneaky, “under the radar” sexy-baby trend.

    • Anonymous

      In that fuzzy pink sheep coat, she looks like one of the Olsen sisters.

    • Anonymous

      I liked it up until the hot pants paired with sparkly heels. She looks great … but she’s only 13. A little icky.

    • Anonymous

      Sorry, some of this is pretty grown as well (the Les Compains, in particular).  I hope that this continued dressing her up like a woman stuff doesn’t mess with her head. 

    • Megan Sullivan

      I really like it. I don’t think it’s trying to sexualize her, I think it gives off a vibe of a young girl playing dress-up.

    • http://profiles.google.com/ameliaheartsu Amelia Logan

      I’d like to see her smile…

    • Lisa

      See, here’s the issue I have with it.  Yes, she looks beautiful, and there’s nothing “pervy” about it, technically – she’s covered, and she’s not sitting on some 40 year old guy’s lap, loosening his tie. But she looks like she’s 20, and there’s my problem with it – she’s not 20. There are plenty of 20 year old models out there.  I know, she has the celeb cred, but there you have it.  

      I remember the very first time I ever saw pictures of Brooke Shields, and it was from “Pretty Baby.”  I honestly thought that she was about 25 – when I saw her actual age was 12, I was shocked that I was 2 years older than she was.  To my eyes, Brooke never ever looked her age to me till she *was* about 20.

    • Anonymous

      She looks young, pretty and innocent, and that makes all the diference.
      She is 13 and she looks innocent. And that is how it should be.
      And the clothes look pretty good too.

    • Anonymous

      With the exception of the pussy-bow top and shorts outfit, I don’t think that these clothes are inappropriate in *inherent style* for a thirteen year old (designer label and prices notwithstanding).  It is a very fresh and youthful look.  The thing is, though, that ever since the ’60s grown women have co-opted “youth” style and looks, and even children’s style in many cases.  That leaves precious little that hasn’t been “adultified” for young girls to wear.

      For example, mini-skirts.  Today most people of taste would say that it’s inappropriate for a young girl, and certainly for a six or seven year old, to wear a very short skirt.  But children in the 20′s through the 50s wore very short skirts, because the garment itself was a marker of childhood, not “sex”.  (See Shirley Temple, etc.)  We can piss and moan about girls adopting the tropes of womanhood too soon, but women’s fashion can be just as bad about keeping the “adolescent” look.

    • http://twitter.com/Hussified Coleen D. Wybranski

      “Price Upon Request” is my all-time favorite fashion magazine phrase. 

      Dear Santa: please buy me those sparkly Miu Miu pumps.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=12500056 Joseph Lamour

      Question: Has Elle been in Elle yet? If so, what the hell are they waiting for?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=12500056 Joseph Lamour

      PS… The Les Copain’s outfit? No. You’re grounded. 

      As beautiful as she is, I’m sure she’ll be as lovely when she is 16-18.

    • Anonymous

      Ack. I was all over it until the Les Copains, “Let me just kick these shoes off and I’ll join you in the bedroom since I’m half undressed already” shot. The clothes aren’t particularly mature or womanly, but the styling most certainly is. It’s like the kid who spend thousands on their prom dress: what do you have to look forward to? That said, I need those Carolina Amato gloves.

    • http://twitter.com/Naddy_Lite Ms. Nadege

      The second to last picture has my attention for two reasons: 1. It seems a bit racier than the other pictures. Doesn’t really go with the others. Something’s off there. 2. Love the Miu Miu shoes though. Otherwise, a great spread

    • Anonymous

      she is HOW old?

    • Anonymous

      I love the photo with the gloves. Maybe because she looks the most like a child there.

    • Mary McClelland

      She is adorable but she seems to not understand the concept of “dead eyes” and she is often also slack jawed. She is super cute and of course like 14, but yeah I don’t think modeling is her strong suit.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1015284676 Freyalyn Close

      Extremely well put.

    • http://twitter.com/MarieanneDH MarieanneDH

      She looks her age in the Stella McCartney.  Coincidentally (not really), it’s the only one I like.  The second-to-last picture makes my head explode.  This child is barely older than my baby, so I feel completely comfortable saying SMILE!  STAND UP STRAIGHT!  GET YOUR HAIR OUT OF YOUR EYES!  WHERE’S YOUR MOTHER!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Micaela-Cannon/1465504041 Micaela Cannon

      To me this whole editorial looks like she’s trying on stuff in mom’s closet and making face into her bedroom mirror while hopping around her room to Justin Bieber. In my head I just kept getting these funny little remarks she’d be saynig as she tries them all on…’REALLY MOM!?! A PURPLE FURRY COAT!?! LOLOLOLZ!”

      Those vagina-eating shorts are bothersome though. You can tell from behind, there was definitely butt-cheek showing. NOT acceptable at all.

    • Anonymous

      she is adorable.  Please lord, give me the strength, I want those mint green shoes!

    • Anonymous

      Gosh SHE IS CUTE!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VA5XLSF3QRELSC3MUFSXLP4EIE rebecca

      Pardon if anyone has said this before, but there’s a real Jean Shrimpton quality to these photos. The shots are very pretty but I still remain ambivalent about the whole age thing. She still looks a bit too sexualized in some of the pix.

    • Anonymous

      Well hello there Bridget Bardot. This may not be overtly sexualizing her (there are no crotch shots or anything), but she is certainly made up to look older than 13, which is probably okay because kids never feel as young as we assume they do, and she’s heading toward movie stardom, so these sorts of shoots are far more preferable than tabloid ones. 

      Quite the genes those Fanning girls have, huh? 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6YKBGSJPVAK3AG44ASGX5UMMB4 Em Web

      I love that first photo- it suits her age and makes her look the gorgeous young woman she is. The other ones still bother me. I’m just bothered by the child to adult, even if it is the current trend.