Is Christina Hendricks A “Big Girl”?
This morning I was enjoying my morning coffee with Brad, and he told me about the Christina Hendricks controversy. (I mean, first we talked about how she is hot, then we moved on to the controversy. I mean, come on.) She was wearing a dress by Christian Siriano that got a lukewarm response from T. Lo and a thumbs up from the Fug Girls, who had great comments, as usual:
Christina Hendricks has the kind of fabulous bod that most designers wouldn’t know how to handle. Any time Project Runway throws the contestants a challenge to make clothes for mothers, or divorcees, or generally people who aren’t 5’10″and 100 lbs, they all start wailing and moaning that it’s not what their designs are about and it’s so haaaard, and blah blah blah. I always want Tim Gunn to come in and yell at them that if they can’t handle actual people’s bodies, then they have no business making clothes at all, because guess what? Sometimes people who eat carbs also want to shop and wear things on their bodies.
The New York Times, however, didn’t like the dress.
Cathy Horyn, a style blogger at the Times… quote[d] a stylist who said, “You don’t put a big girl in a big dress. That’s rule number one.” And seemingly to drive home the point of just how terribly big Hendricks really is, the Times ran an altered photo of her (left image) making her appear broader than normal.
After complaints from readers, as well as some bad press, the original photo was replaced (right photo) along with an update explaining that it “was slightly distorted inadvertently due to an error during routine processing.” Sure. Forget the distorted photo; I’d like an explanation for Ms. Horyn’s distorted view of the female body.
I think it’s clear that the photo was distorted and it was probably inadvertent. But would we call her a “big girl”? And if we did, is that so bad? And do you hate the dress on her? (I love the dress, but not so much the color on her.) And is she the hottest woman alive, or what? Discuss!
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Celebrities, Christina Hendricks, Fatism, Mad Men, Media, Project Runway, TV
Email us
Not a big girl. But definitely a big-chested girl, which does have different criteria for dressing than someone less well-endowed. It certainly looks to me that she’s about to burst out of the top of the dress. Regardless of her size or shape, I do think the dress looks like a poorly constructed bridesmaid’s dress. And I don’t like the color – it’s too close to her skin tone.
The dress is definitely worthy of criticism, but not her body.
I think that the problem is with the different ways we use the term “big girl.” It’s slanted towards fatist, but not always. (And I hate to cut a style blogger any slack)
It’s just sloppy writing, someone with a little more skill could have found a better way to say that her choice wouldn’t have been all that ruffly fuss, as Christina is practically perfect as-is.
You make a great point that “big girl” could just be code for “big boobs” in this context. Certainly she’s more voluptuous than the standard Hollywood actress.
Hottest woman alive? For sure. A big girl? By Hollywood standards, she’s bigger than usual, but in the World Where Real People Live and Eat? Not even close. She’s got hips and boobs, she’s curvy in the truest sense of the word, and I don’t think many designers know how to flatter that shape. The dress is kind of a hot mess and doesn’t really do much for her except turn her boobs into pillows, but from the neck up she looks stunning.
I think the color is awful on her, especially with her hair color and lipstick color. If it was white or maybe a dark burgundy, that would have been much better. And that dress needs some more structural support in the torso area.
Also? I have no idea who Christina Hendricks is.
Definitely one of the hottest women alive. And it’s true: designers need to shut the hell up and buy a little more material.
Is this the same NYT blogger who blasted Lukemia-survivor Michael C. Hall for wearing a knit cap while his hair grows back, after having gone through chemo?
Other than it could certainly fit better in the boob area, I think she looks great in this dress and I even like the color. Christina is gorgeous and she’s a great actress, I’ve been a fan since seeing her on Firefly.
She and I have some similar body parts in common and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve strapped those suckers down thrown on a t-shirt and heard “oh my gosh have you lost weight”. No, it’s just amazing what a really tight sports bra can do. It can be really discouraging and a bit disheartening. I can’t be the skinny girl because of my boobs? It’s kinda weird. I mean look at the pic on the right (the real one), does that waist look like a “big” girl? She looks pretty damned thin to me but she’s got big boobs and a great butt (have you seen her clothes on that show!?). So because she’s not built like a 10 year old boy she’s the “big girl”. Ya know what? Fine bring it, I’d rather be the “big girl” and look just like her than look like some of these young starlets today.
Big boobed? Yep. Big girl? Not so much. She’s, what, a 4 as opposed to the Hollywood standard 0?
I have mixed feelings about the dress, style-wise, but Christina Hendricks is gorgeous, no matter how you look at her.
I thought this was a really good response to Horyn’s bizarre critique: http://disinterestandennui.blogspot.com/2010/01/big-girls-dont-cry.html
(Oh, and I’ve always been vaguely annoyed that I always look heavier than I am, simply by virtue of having a rounded face and big boobs. Ah well.)
Every time I saw picture montages from the Golden Globes, my first thoughts regarding her were 1. I have no idea who she is and 2. Wow she is skinny. That is the only picture I have seen of this woman, I don’t watch Mad Men so I really don’t know what she looks like in reality besides one red carpet photo, but I can’t fathom her looking ‘big girl’esque anywhere.
Also, thank you for pointing out the color! I thought the dress was hideous when in reality just the color was awful. I think much better in black or emerald green (particularly with her red hair). Or really any richer color than peach – I think it washes most people out.
Big girl by Hollywood standards.
Hottest woman alive? A thousand times yes. I want to curl myself into her because I have a theory that her neck smells like gingerbread. And I actually like that color on her. I think it looks gorgeous next to her skin. She’s like one of those orange and cream Lifesavers. Yummy ;)
I agree that the first photo is obviously distorted. Not even looking at her body, you can see from her face and the people around her that the photo was stretched.
A “big girl”? Now that’s a little harsh. I think she looks great in that dress. And while that fact has nothing to do with her size, I wonder then what is considered “normal” size if she’s a “big girl”?
I also have no clue who this woman is.
I think the biggest problem the media has with Christina Hendricks is not so much that she’s big, though she is definately curvier that the average starlet, but that she is unappologetic.
Miss Hendricks has not discussed her weight as a negative thing and has even *gasp* embraced her curves. She has not become the spokesperson for some weight loss program and she has not given in to pressure to become a generic stick with no personality.
As far as the dress goes, I personally did not care for it. Not because of any kind of size or fit issue, I just didn’t like it. Not my kind of style. But I thought Miss Hendricks looked amazing! The End!
I think she’s gorgeous, though as many have already commented above I wouldn’t call her a big girl, at least not by normal people’s standards! The dress is stunning, the color not so much!
What! YoSaffBridge is on Mad Men?
Why did nobody tell me?!
I’m firmly camped with those who think style editors should stick to critiquing the clothes, and not the people in them.
(Dress? meh. But that luscious lip colour! I’d defy anyone who leans at all in that direction ~not~ to take the “Goodnight Kiss” from those!)
No, of course she’s not “big.” She’s what my mom would call buxom. She’s pretty and I hear she can act well (I don’t watch her TV show), but speaking as a natural redhead who took my lumps for my coloring, her perennially dyed-red hair sets my teeth on edge.
One of my big pet peeves is pale-skinned people wearing flesh tones. It washes them out terribly. I’m also not a fan of huge ruffles—reminds me of an 80’s prom.
But this constantly referring to her as big, voluptuous, etc. really goes to show that there are so many extremely thin women in Hollywood, anyone in that industry who is a size 4, 6, 8, 10, is considered plus-size. It’s ridiculous.
She is not a big girl; she is big boobed. The two are not interchangable and it drives me crazy that even plus size fashion blogs use Hendricks as inspiration. As if she looks like me. Come on, her waist is teeny tiny!
I’m surprised that “rule number one” is to not put a big girl in a big dress. There are so many damn rules for us. Not too tight, not too loose, not too short, not too long and now apparently not too ruffle-y. I have trouble keeping up.
I would say rule number one would be don’t put a pale girl in peach. An awful choice for her colouring.
Take that dress and put it on a hanger and I’d say it’s an ugly dress but on Christina Hendricks? That woman could sell me a paper bag if I thought I was going to look as good as she does wearing it. She looks absolutely amazing even if the dress looks like a bridesmaid’s horror show.
As far as her being big… for Hollywood, yes. But I don’t know why she needs to be labeled at all as a big woman or a hollywood big woman or an average woman with big breasts, she’s just a woman. A really, really, hot, talented woman.
Honestly all the criticism of her in that dress about her breasts and all is ruffling a few feathers of my own. Every woman there had her breasts on display but she’s the one getting slammed for it? Because they are bigger than the average celebrity? Get over it, Hollywood.
I really, really do not like the colour of that dress on her. It looks to me like it totally clashes with her skin tone. And maybe a little bit of a rethink of the chestal area to show her shape off well.
But yes. Hot. Also non-standard shape for Hollywood which must be disturbing for those viewers more used to an army of “clones” when it comes to women on the red carpet.
Sorry for the swears, but this makes my blood boil.
Inadvertently ran an altered photo, my ass. They’re the New York fucking Times, for crying out loud. Every single thing they print is for the sole purpose of making money, and controversy equals publicity, which equals higher ad revenue. What if readers wouldn’t have complained? Would they still have corrected their “mistake”?
Also, I’m with Alyssa. This is the same newspaper which allowed one of their writers to slam Michael C. Hall for wearing a skull cap. After losing his hair to chemo. Another “mistake”? I don’t fucking think so.
And Jennifer Aniston practically showed her cooch in that dress slit up to there, yet no one is saying a word about it. Why so much flack for Christina Hendricks’ luscious rack?
I think it’s a bad thing to call a woman her size, “a big girl”. It’s dangerous in that it subtly moves/narrows the goalposts and alters what people’s perception of sizes and shit.
There is nothing inherently bad about being a big girl. But I don’t want to live in the world where that woman is considered a big girl, because then, what the hell does that make me?
the first time i ever saw christina hendricks act in anything was on firefly. and i thought, “wow, she’s cute.”
and then mad men (which i’ve never seen), happened. there’s photos of her everywhere. and i thought, “wow, she’s got some boobahs!” in firefly she was dressed to make her appear tiny and demure… and a big ol’ sack, which is pretty much what she wore, will do that. heh.
as for her being a big girl? i suppose if SHE wants to identify herself that way, okay i suppose. it’s not my place to tell her how she should see herself. but i wouldn’t classify her that way. she’s way more small-side-of-average-big-boobie-having, imo.
I’m surprised no one (especially TLo) didn’t mention the titscrepancy. Her left one is perceptibly lower than her right. At first I thought it was the way she was standing or the way the shot was taken but when I went to the TLo site via Mo’s link, she’s shown from several different angles and…no. Definite imbalance. Which has nothing to do with this gorgeous girl’s body & everything to do with a poorly constructed garment. The dress itself is frilly & pagenty & not the best color for her. Iwas about to say whatever makes her happy, but if this was some stylist’s pick & not hers, it’s time for a new stylist.
Whoa double negative much, Jeanne? That first sentence is embarrassing. Please auto-correct in your minds. Kthxbai
She looks fabulous! There’s nothing wrong with “putting a big dress on a big girl” when she’s at a big event, ridiculous. She has a flamboyant look and wears it well.
I think the dress is ugly, but she is pretty. She’s thin enough for me to not consider her “a big girl” although, she’s not small in the boobs lol.
I love Mad Men and love Christina! I don’t believe in defining “big girl” but if Christina feels like a “big girl”, then (in my book) she’s welcome into the big girl party.
She’s definitely a woman with curves that fit her extremely well. And I love that dress. The NYT critique was based on a flawed assumption- that Christina’s goal should be to look slimmer in a dress. Why can’t she just look good in a dress? And that she does!
I would KILL to look like that! What a figure that gal has – like a really classy version of Dolly Parton. As for the dress, well – it DOES bring to mind those Geoffrey Beene numbers from the ’80s; any woman who wore one looked like she was drowning in ruffles. The dress also needed a little more support up top. Is this woman “big”? No. Bosomy? We’re talkin’ Jane Russell here, and most men would say that’s a GOOD thing.
Now, about Michael C. Hall and his knit cap…was really surprised to see him wearing it, since he’s been quite public about the fact that he’s being treated for cancer & the chemo caused his hair to fall out. He’s a cute guy & I imagine that he’s just as cute bald as with hair, so why not let the bald hang out?
She is crazy smokin’ and I pretty much love the dress. I think a bit less neutral of a color would have been better, but other than that, love it.
I myself wouldn’t call her a big girl, just, well, busty. Very busty. It’s incredibly impressive that she found a strapless dress that not only contains her so well but keeps everything up. A few other celebrity ladies could take a cue from her.
Now, would it be such a bad thing if she were a “big girl”? Of course not. It would be awesome, in fact, because she is on a major television show and we don’t see enough of that. As it is I would call her voluptuous, because she has fantastic curves, but not big. From what I have seen of her her general frame seems average to small and she just has those knockout curves on top of it.
I’m not wild about the super-straight-across-the-bust cut on her and the color was a poor choice.
That said, I like the dress and think it would have been spectacular on her with a slightly more sweetheart neckline and in a steel blue. Really, just soak in that combo for a half a minute if you will.
Also I find it interesting that the warped version of the photo is also really washed out except for her lipstick. It makes her skin look paler, the gown look more wishy-washy, and a gorgeous lady look like she’s in the final stages of consumption. Seeing the proper color as well as the correct proportions makes it more believable that she (and Christian Siriano) chose that color. Still a bad move, but not an unbelievably bad one.
That said, the woman I really want to see this gown on would be Queen Latifah pre-diet-shill. She would rock that gown to the damn rafters.
She is absolutely the hottest woman alive, and she has the most amazing boobs since the demise of the 1950s bombshells. The gown is daring, but she can carry it off. It fits her persona, too.
After all, she’s not just Joan on ‘Mad Men’, she was Saffron on ‘Firefly’ as well. That woman oozes sex, and so does the gown. All the critics can go stick their head in a pig, to quote Douglas Adams.-
Dress: Yes
Color: No
Girl: That big girl ABSOLUTELY rocks that big dress.
Too bad that the “fashion snobs” are soooo used to aneorexic, botoxed, and saline breasted women they can not even began to absorb the beauty of a curvatious women proudly and loudly rocking her natural God given “bod”.
Rock on Christina. I get the tone on tone you acheived with this number. Keep on rocking the red carpet loud and proud.
Isn’t Cathy Horyn the one who also ran the column slamming JC Penney for daring to open a store for fat, non-New-York-approved people in Manhattan? She is clearly not an unbiased observer.
I think it’s a fantastic style on her – sometimes she wears dresses that, because of her sizable boobage, make her look a little shelf-y and blocky. This dress shows her real shape. I think the colour is terrible, though (terrible on her and far too reminiscent of a prom dress).
Strapless dresses – if you are busty, big armed, wide shouldered – just say no!
I think the fact that the dress is strapless and she is so busty equals “big” in most people’s mind.
Pingback: body loving blogosphere 01.24.10
I love the dress and the color and the curves. She looks awesome.
Christina Hendricks is a goddess. She could wear a paper bag and make it look good. Why would anyone try to characterize her as a “big girl” who shouldn’t be wearing a ruffled dress? Maybe they’re afraid that her sexual magnetism will TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
Love Christina Hendricks, not fond of the dress, but then again, I don’t go in for ruffly-fluffy like that, and the color… oh no. She would be flattered by a sapphire blue or forest green SO much more.
How could anyone suggest she is the hottest woman alive!? Does anyone even know who she is?! Sorry but she is trying to be the lady from “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”. Get ove it girl, only a cartoon can pull off that luck, not an obviously plastic surgery loving lady who wears her boobs higher than her shoulders…
She is a beautiful woman. What else needs to be said? I think the dress is lovely. I don’t know why these fashion ‘critics’ think they know better. It’s fun to try new things.
Let’s all just settle down and be happy.
Also, OMG, what the hell is it with the whole ‘fat’ debate? Beauty is beauty. And she is beautiful. Not pretty, but beautiful.
Who cares what size she is?
She’s 5’8 and has a large built. It isn’t just her breasts, I’ve seen smaller women with big breasts but they don’t look as large as she does. Dolly Parton has breasts as big as hers but still comes off as being petite. Christina Hendrick is a big girl, she’s built like Viking.Even if she was anorexic, given her frame, she would still be a big woman. The NYT lady harped on this dress because it exacerbated her large fame. Not that CH was fat.
This has nothing to do with her weight. It’s her natural body frame. I don’t believe she’s fat or even curvy. She has a naturally blocky figure. Like starlets from the 50-60s, she constantly wears very tight corsets. She and the other cast members on “Mad Men” wear support garments all the time. These corsets are the main reason why her breasts are constantly spilling out of her dresses. Copy and past the links belong to see her true figure with corsets:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/141632/CHRISTINA-HENDRICKS.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/abc_christina_hendricks_090807_ssh.jpg
I’m just calling a spade a spade but she is a big girl. There is NOTHING wrong with being big. Instead of her running away from it, just embrace it. It would certainly make people realize that being big doesn’t always equal to being fat. And big doesn’t always mean being undesirable either. If people, especially big boned actresses who are seen as beautiful, begin to associate big to beautiful. Then the negative connotations of being associated with the word “big” will go away.
And while we are at it, when she’s not heavily corseted, airbrushed, wearing weave, under the right lightening, or makeuped she’s very average looking:
http://www.trekunited.com/community/gallerypics/1158780455/gallery_722_3_38148.jpg
http://www.thelope.com/images/ChristinaAce.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Christina_Hendricks_in_Calgary_2007.jpg
http://www.superiorpics.com/wenn_album/Christina_Hendricks_-_Leaving_NBC_Studios/christina_hendricks_001_101707.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/210/478007458_8d511c285f.jpg
Perhaps that’s the appeal of Christina Hendrick. Any white woman who is fairly average looking with a big enough bust, a corset, and some hips can be her. Sigh, I find her un-photogenic. She just comes around as life-less in her photos and so-so in her acting. For beautiful big girls, I’d prefer the early 90s Anna Nicole Smith.
Sorry to post a comment so late in the game (just shows how much I give importance to news and what I think of the so called fashion business…) Christina Hendricks is hot and a 20 on a scale from 1-10 because she is A REAL woman. An example of how a woman’s body should be, instead of the now-a-days “13 year old skinny/ no shape skeletons” that movies and the media force upon us as ideal. It’s also a known fact that the majority of designers/ stylist are gay and hate the female body, so what better way to get rid of perfection by destroying the natural beauty of curves. Now before anybody points fingers and makes this out to be a “homophobic issue”.. -I couldn’t give a toss about sexual preferences and as long as it does not ruin people’s health and set a so called “ideal for our kids to follow, which is SICK in my opinion, then that’s fine by me. Cathy Horyn should be banned from writing and the Times do not deserve one single reader from now on.
oh god… she is just.. stunning. i have to remind myself to breathe whenever i see pictures of her because she’s just so gorgeous. her husband is only luuuucky guy :/
Has anyone seen her in a bikini or underwear? isnt it just because she wears corset? She looks quite big to me.