PETA Slightly Accomplishes Mission

In case you haven't heard, Liz Hurley's the new face of Blackglama, the (in)famous line of furs. The ad itself is kind of silly. She crouches, she po
Avatar:
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
0
In case you haven't heard, Liz Hurley's the new face of Blackglama, the (in)famous line of furs. The ad itself is kind of silly. She crouches, she po
Image Title1

In case you haven't heard, Liz Hurley's the new face of Blackglama, the (in)famous line of furs. The ad itself is kind of silly. She crouches, she pouts, she wears nothing but her mink, but it's her presence in general that's worth discussing. In the past, women like Catherine Deneuve, Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland and Elizabeth Taylor have posed for the fur house and Liz Hurley, as PETA and Animal Aid point out, isn't quite of their caliber. Who is? Someone like Gwyneth maybe, but she's spent the past week apologizing for getting caught under a fox stole in this season's Tod's ads, which means that aside from the obvious reasons, she'd probably say no to a Blackglama campaign. In fact, she's the only really glamorous potential-face we can think of that might have posed for a house like Blackglama. So what does this all mean? That PETA's scary and sometimes dangerous tactics are working. That they've finally thrown enough pies and bags of flour and held up enough dead-baby-animal posters to make a serious impact on the way fashion, and the celebrities who wear it, feel about fur so that now even the most reputable fur house can't get an equally reputable face attached. We don't expect J.Mendel to actually close, but at this rate, it's just a matter of time before all the good stores, celebs and designers refuse to work with fur and PETA jumps for joy. So, could it be that PETA's (distasteful) means justify the (intended) end result? Or is this just ruling by fear?