Make no mistake that here at theFashionSpot, members of our forums are no advocates or admirers of Samira Nasr’s Harper’s Bazaar and have regularly called out the editor’s choices from day one, when she took charge of the American fashion glossy back in 2020. Not even covers starring the likes of Vanessa Kirby, Jane Fonda, Gigi Hadid, Beyoncé or Nicole Kidman have sufficed over the past three years, and the magazine’s offering just last month (with Kendall Jenner, Doja Cat and Paul Mescal) was a total flop.
For October 2023, Nasr drops Bazaar‘s latest which stars Margaret Qualley. Photographed by Amy Troost, the American actress and Chanel brand ambassador wears a look from the French fashion house’s Fall 2023 collection in the cover image, worn over an Eres bra and matching briefs, as chosen for the occasion by stylist Taylor McNeill.
Immediately after the cover came to light on our forums, BlueRuin shrieked “no!” which was to set the tone for comments to follow.
“The pose and angle are not working. I wish it was a more closeup portrait,” said kokobombon.
Sharing the same sentiments was blueorchid, adding: “When I saw Margaret Qualley’s name, I imagined a nice portrait. Of course… Samira would never.”
“US Harper’s Bazaar has the strangest cover poses. Something is always off with the styling, and they are in the habit of making beautiful women look less than their best. This magazine is such a wasted opportunity,” voiced a disapproving NYLA22.
MagazineAddict89 ultimately agreed: “Bazaar really has lost its mind. The cover photographs are consistently disastrous. Please can we bring some excitement back to this magazine!”
“Given the level of low to which US Harper’s Bazaar has sank under Samira Nasr, I am somehow able to tolerate this cover. I like the warmth this radiates, the back-lighting, the red masthead and the fact it’s Margaret Qualley in Chanel. Of course, there’s room for improvement but I don’t exactly hate this,” vogue28 reasoned.
WAVES described the cover as “terrible” but do you agree? Share your thoughts, here.
