PacMags’ Under The Covers and ACP’s Park Street is women against girls
This weekend, I mostly watched episodes of Under The Cover, the fly-on-the wall doco following Marie Claire editor Jackie Frank.
I must confess that my hopes weren’t high, but I felt duty bound to catch up with the contents of my Foxtel box.
A major reason for my pessimism was the experience of watching Park Street, the version that followed editors at rival ACP.
Now before I put the boot into the good folk of Park Street, it comes with this caveat. When I talk about the people who featured in it, I am talking about how they were characterised in this show. I’m sure that in real life, they are lovely, highly professional women of substance.
I saw Park Street and that is my main reason for not looking at Under the Cover. Maybe I will give it a go…
I’ve seen both and i actually think they are both very similar, if anything the main differences are Under The Cover focusses on one editor and Park St has to cover five. Jackie’s probably just a better actress and the Park St editors have been just a bit too real !
I thought they were both ok.
Having worked for both companies, it seemed to me that the ACP editors were all terrified to look bad on TV and instead came across as insipid and boring. Jackie, however, clearly views the whole thing as a PR exercise and is proving to be a marvellous actress. Bloody minded is a very good term for her, but in life I wouldn’t use it with any respect. Which is quite the opposite of how she comes across on the show. In particular the scene where she was giving a thank you speech to a group of women who had turned their lives around rang screamingly untrue.
I must say I agree. I started watching Under the Cover with a fair bit of trepidation and fully expected to turn it off in 3 mins. But I landed up watching teh whole show and the one after as well. Interesting and a good balance of fluff (style) and character – which epitomises the magazine.
The interesting difference between Park St and Under the Cover is that the women from Under the Cover are not all young, beautiful and well dressed. Instead they come across as professionals who have the actual experience in editing, fashion, subbing and art direction you need to produce a quality magazine.
I love Under the Cover.. having been in the publishing/magazine industry for 20 years I find this show an insight in to the day to day things that happen with putting a magazine together. Whilst I have not met Ms Frank she comes across as a strong editor with little time for crap, whilst still being grateful to those who work hard. No wonder Marie Claire is such a great magazine. I haven’t seen Park St so can’t comment on that show.
(Edited by Mumbrella) what you see is what you get.
Perhaps its acceptable in magazines?
If Jackie Frank was a man she wouldn’t have to put up with all the speculation about whether she’s nice, not nice, a bitch etc. She’d just be judged on the results. Good on Pacific for having enough balls to let her loose on TV!
Utter dross. Her industry is staffed by idiots and read by idiots. Why glorify these types of pointless narcissists? Fashion only serves to bring out the superficial in people. There is zero substance, and just another example of a show that feeds the lowest common denominator. This will be consigned to the same scrap bins as Park St in good time.
” Fashion only serves to bring out the superficial in people” – what a load of balony!!!! Fashion gives people the ability to express their individuality (even if a lot of the fashion looks the same), I don’t think it brings out the superficial side of all people – very generalised there!
@Claire – “Fashion gives people the ability to express their individuality (even if a lot of the fashion looks the same)” – thank you for that piece of paradoxical wonder! So you are saying that hordes of women queuing up for clearance sales and store openings (think the barnyard rush when Target released its Stella McCartney range), all looking to get the same pieces of clothing, reeks of individuality? More like a bunch of clones who can’t think for themselves, so they let a bunch of uneducated battleaxes from magazine land tell them what to wear this season.
My comment stands. Those who wear and talk about clothing brands like some kind of badge of honour are superficial and do so to fill the massive void where their personality and talents should be.
@ Marto- people can still buy the same fashion pieces and make them individual with accessories etc. hence the reason for my comment within the brackets. I am not going to get in to an arguement with you here because to be quite honest I have better things to do with my time. You are entitled to your opinion however you seem to have generalised people with regards to fashion in your first comment and then have been more specific about it in your second. And I am sure these women you refer to as battleaxes are not at all uneducated… but then you are entitled to your opinion..
Hey Marto – what are you wearing right now? Bet you bought it from a store and someone else out there is wearing EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!! Best you start knitting yourself a jumpsuit so you can show the world how individual you are…
@Lisa – re-read my posts again. We all wear clothes you dropkick, so your argument is redundant. My point relates to clones who think the brand of clothing on their back is some kind of status symbol to be applauded, and the fact that so many people (like you) place so much emphasis on who is wearing what. Harpies like you though who have probably jumped ship momentarily from the Vogue forums to defend clothes, well you are literally too stupid to insult. Time for your next shear you sheep. Baaaaaaa..
@ Marto – wow, so intelligent of you to resort to name calling and insults. Grow up.
@Marto – obviously knitting will not be an option – someone with that much rage shouldn’t be holding sharp objects. I suggest you macramé yourself a cape from torn strips of rubbish bags instead.
You are definitely not too stupid to insult. You are just stupid enough.
I’m surprised Marto’s last comments/personal insults were published/accepted in this thread. Any comments Mumbrella moderators?
Hi Alison,
Agreed that Marto’s tone is uncivil and close to being moderated.
If Claire was fully identified I probably wouldn’t allow Marto to make the dropkick comment.
As it is, I suspect his tone weakens his own argument.
Cheers – Tim, Mumbrella
Marto – the magazine industry is actually full of smart, commercial people who all work hard to deliver to their audiences. You might not read these magazines, you might not like them but the staff are not idiots.
Settle people! Way too serious.
I’m already sitting here worrying why the clothes I’m wearing are just so…like..like…last season! And why my wife doesn’t have a body like Kim Kardashian or a new nose like Jennifer Anniston. I’ve never fully recovered from Brad dumping her and I fret about George Clooney dumping yet another girlfriend and fear he may just like batting for the same team anyway. None of the top 10 mince recipes worked and even Dr. Harry’s tips won’t stop my cat scratching the damned couch.
Mags are sometimes great…other times full of fluff and BS. Great people work at some and air heads at others. Sounds a bit like agencies really. Time to take chill pill people.
I nearly swallowed my tongue watching that one clip. There should be an award for sitting through a whole episode.
Carolyn innis was a wonderful gift and I loved every minute of her
After watching Park St aka in most media circles as “The Devil Wears Target” and roaring with laughter at the creative director/fashion stylist/record producer I was hesitant to watch Under the Cover.
Thankfully it has delighted me. The only thing I regret not taking a job at Pac!