Bitching About the Met Gala With Tom and Lorenzo

Robot arms. Photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images

On Monday, May 6 — the archetypal Monday successful May — Tom Fitzgerald and Lorenzo Marquez are successful go-mode. It’s time for the Met Gala, and, arsenic manner bloggers, that’s fundamentally their Super Bowl. This year’s taxable is “Garden of Time” (get acceptable for Katy Perry dressed arsenic a gramps clock) to brace with an exhibit titled “Sleeping Beauties: Reawakening Fashion,” which covers garments excessively delicate to beryllium worn again. At a clip erstwhile astir mainstream manner sum volition magnitude to an outpouring of “slay” headlines paired with uninformed social-media posts, it’s up to autarkic veterans similar Tom and Lorenzo to bring intelligent, honest, and, erstwhile warranted, bitchy commentary to fashion’s biggest night.

After 18 years of blogging (and 27 years together), Tom and Lorenzo person blogged thousands of articles, created hundreds of podcast episodes, defined queer TV sum with their RuPaul’s Drag Race recaps (the lone radical to person contemporaneously covered each episode), and adjacent written 2 books, 1 astir personage and 1 astir Drag Race. The 2 started blogging unneurotic successful 2006 erstwhile they launched Project Rungay, dedicated to Project Runway, amid the blogging craze of the 2000s, with Perez Hilton, the Fug Girls, and Gawker each successful highest powers. They yet made their ain tract successful 2011, Tom & Lorenzo, which sees a monthly readership successful the millions, according to the duo who are besides married. Their opinions connected manner and the clout that comes with it are seen as adept level — erstwhile radical don’t look down connected bloggers, that is. “There are inactive civilization writers and editors 18 years aboriginal who deliberation we’re amateurs,” Tom says. “Whatever! Our full matrimony has been astir the 2 of america carving retired our niche. Fuck the remainder of them.”

I privation to commencement with Project Rungay.
Tom Fitzgerald: Right astir the 15th twelvemonth of doing it, my imposter syndrome evaporated. If you commencement disconnected arsenic an amateur, past you modulation into autarkic media and blogging, you walk each your clip wondering, Do radical deliberation I’m an amateur? Do different radical successful the media respect us? Around the 15th year, I was like, There are lone truthful galore radical who person been doing this for 15 years independently and making a surviving retired of it. We’re inactive here.

Lorenzo Marquez: We started erstwhile manner bloggers were everywhere. We would spell to Fashion Week, and we were each there, representing our sites. Now, you spot 2 oregon three.

T.F.: It’s each influencers now.

What was the blogging country similar successful 2006?
T.F.: Gawker was astatine its height, and each blog was chasing that high. Gawker defined what the dependable and the connection was going to beryllium successful blogging. We looked astatine each different astatine the clip and said, “If we’re doing this, I don’t privation to beryllium Perez Hilton.” His sanction has travel up successful interviews implicit the years due to the fact that if you’re a cheery civilization blogger, you’re conscionable going to beryllium compared to him. He got occurrence doing thing erstwhile cipher other was doing it and defined an era. But we knew we didn’t privation to beryllium nasty.

When we were conceptualizing the blog, we looked astatine the Fug Girls and Television Without Pity, and we said, “What if we harvester the 2 of them but done a cheery lens?” It sounds insane to accidental now, but that was a novelty: cheery civilization writers.

L.M.: That’s wherefore we picked the sanction Project Rungay. At the clip I retrieve thinking, My God, bash we truly privation that name? But it worked, and not a batch of queer radical were retired determination doing it.

You are comfortable, successful your self-commentary, referring to yourselves arsenic “bitchy.” What bash you spot arsenic the worth of bitchiness?
T.F.: We’re talking astir precise celebrated radical wearing precise costly clothing. You request idiosyncratic to enactment a small brackish successful the sweetener bowl. You request idiosyncratic to beryllium cynical astir it. People tin spell to mainstream publications and find retired what Zendaya wore past night, but I tin archer you from experience, due to the fact that we’ve written for immoderate of them: They’re not going to beryllium arsenic honorable astir it arsenic idiosyncratic similar us. Independence allows radical to speech astir celebrities successful a mode that is anti-fandom and anti-corporate media and honest.

I don’t judge successful bitchiness for bitchiness’s sake. I don’t judge successful being bitchy astir someone’s carnal aforesaid oregon the circumstances of their life. We conscionable did a podcast astir however overmuch everyone can’t basal J.Lo close now, and we were inactive trying to thread the needle. We’ve had a saying for years: “We don’t privation to marque Anne Hathaway cry.” But if I accidental Anne Hathaway’s formal looks similar shit, it’s not saying that Anne Hathaway looks similar shit. It’s astir being bitchy astir image-craft oregon the information that they are wearing a $40,000 outfit. We should beryllium capable to critique that, due to the fact that they’re trying to merchantability their $200 cardinal movie, and representation and branding connected the enactment for the worldly that we cover, that bitchiness is necessary.

L.M.: Bitchiness brings truth, with humor.

We request to speech astir the Met Gala. This is the archetypal 1 post-Barbie, which has ushered successful a caller question of literalism connected the reddish carpet. How bash you consciousness that volition impact the gala, which is already a alternatively literal event?
T.F.: The Costume Institute and Anna Wintour, implicit the past 5 oregon six years, person deliberately gotten much and much esoteric with their themes due to the fact that they similar the social-media speech that erupts. The twelvemonth they did “Camp,” I was like, Everyone delight unopen up astir what is camp. The twelvemonth they did “Manus x Machina” and it was each astir exertion and fashion, Zayn Malik showed up with robot arms. You person to rotation your eyes.

Every twelvemonth we station a tweet astatine the opening of the reddish carpet wherever we say, “This is our yearly reminder that this is not a costume shot and nary 1 has to formal according to the theme.” Anna Wintour ne'er dresses according to a theme! It’s not Halloween. Last twelvemonth was the archetypal clip erstwhile radical started trashing us. I astir apt won’t marque that station this year. Literalism is wherever the reddish carpet is at: taxable dressing, cosplay, method dressing, immoderate you privation to telephone it. I loved the Barbie property tour, but I knew it was going to beryllium atrocious for the reddish carpet.

I could consciousness that successful your writing.
T.F.: I was like, This is simply a batch of fun, but this is not fashion. This is drag. This is cosplay. Barbie was spectacularly good suited to that approach, but Zendaya dressing up similar tennis balls time aft time aft time is Spirit Halloween fashion. That is not fabulous. I bash recognize that Law Roach is coming from a shot and a resistance position wherever determination are literal categories. But you person to beryllium clever astir it.

L.M.: It’s a precise lazy approach. You person a tennis ball, truthful you find wherever to enactment it. It would beryllium large to person a antithetic look each azygous clip and not the aforesaid achromatic Louboutin pumps for each look.

Fashion is astir creativity. It’s conscionable gonna get worse. The studios wage for styling jobs, truthful I’m definite the studios emotion that.

What volition we spot astatine the Met Gala?
T.F.: You’re going to spot a clump of dumbass Disney stuff. But I deliberation this twelvemonth we’re not going to beryllium the grumpy aged men.

L.M.: With the Met Gala, it’s hard due to the fact that immoderate manner houses cannot bash a definite theme. It’s conscionable not their style. There’s lone truthful overmuch that Chanel tin make and inactive beryllium Chanel. And that’s the extremity — to person the houses represented connected the reddish carpet. So immoderate of them are not gonna bash thing crazy.

T.F.: You’re gonna spot a batch of romanticism, a batch of vintage-inspired stuff, due to the fact that that is what the grounds is about. But that full “Garden of Time” thing? People are gonna amusement up with flowers connected their heads.

Kim Kardashian’s Marilyn Monroe dress was benignant of a turning constituent wherever immoderate radical successful the manner manufacture asked, “What are we doing here? What is the representation that we’re trying to merchantability here? Is it truly astir the emotion of manner design, oregon is it astir these moments that go controversial?”

It’s been absorbing to ticker your sum of Zendaya connected Challengers. Because she gets truthful overmuch praise, you person much abstraction to …
L.M.: To accidental the truth!

Versus however you wrote astir Da’Vine Joy Randolph’s Oscars campaign, which had to beryllium antithetic due to the fact that she didn’t person the aforesaid access.
L.M.: Zendaya is thin! She looks similar a model. They don’t adjacent person to acceptable her. They tin conscionable propulsion thing retired of an archive.

She told a story astir being amazed she acceptable the exemplary proportions connected the Mugler outfit.
L.M.: That’s what it is. Law Roach is styling her, and he’s a God.

T.F.: And helium deserves the accolades!

L.M.: He’s incredible! But it gets to a constituent that you can’t knock this idiosyncratic anymore. “I deliberation it’s wonderful. Everything is perfect, fantastic!” Social media has caused that. You person the quality not to fto anyone person a captious voice.

I’m funny astir your ain changing tone. Look astatine that White Christmas post you enactment up each twelvemonth — it’s a overmuch much earthy tone. What’s antithetic betwixt past and now?
T.F.: I would ne'er people that now. There are notes astir kid maltreatment and eating disorders successful that. Early on, 1 of the biggest lessons connected doing red-carpet commentary was erstwhile a Black pistillate wrote to america and said, “There are different women too Michelle Obama and Kerry Washington.” I was like, “Ouch.” I realized, Okay, I’m covering straight-haired, comparatively light-skinned Black women, who are “chic” successful the accepted sense. I’m not covering Cardi B. That was an eye-opener. I was allowing my constrictive position to power what’s connected the beforehand leafage of our site, and I can’t bash that. I had to learn, arsenic a white, Gen X, cheery man, however to constitute astir Black women and fashion, however to constitute astir plus-size women successful fashion, however to constitute astir trans women and fashion.

You’ve had radical travel aft you before.
T.F.: Last year, it was Pedro Pascal fans. Suddenly, each these 22-year-old Pedro Pascal fans are saying, “Stop sexualizing that man!”

He courts that.
T.F.: We’re not talking astir a 17-year-old here. I volition sexualize an big antheral because, conjecture what? I’m an big cheery man.

L.M.: Sarah Paulson dropped our names successful the mediate of a New York Times interview. If you person immoderate power of however you behaviour yourself successful an interview, however did you fto that slip?

T.F.: Sarah Jessica Parker contacted america connected Instagram and said, “Can we talk?” We had been doing a series of “gal connected the street” posts during lockdown, and cipher was doing reddish carpet. We would write, “Good for her. She’s promoting her footwear store.” But she thought we were making her dependable truly manipulative. Now, I emotion her — I’m a Gen X cheery antheral — but we ne'er wanted to subordinate with celebrities. There’s worth successful the information that we don’t unrecorded successful New York oregon L.A. There’s a full hassle of cheery antheral civilization writers — nary tea, nary shadiness — who are making their names by befriending celebrities. I’m not naming anyone, but I stake you cognize I’m talking about.

Mm-hmm.
T.F.: I’m not present to justice that, but I didn’t privation to bash this telephone telephone with S.J.P. Still, I felt it would beryllium unprofessional to disregard the message. So we said yes, and she called us. She’s lovely; she’s precisely what you think: super-earnest theater-kid energy. I’m definite she got thing retired of it, but erstwhile we were done, I was like, “She fundamentally confirmed everything that we were penning about.”

L.M.: The happening with celebrities is that they don’t person anyone accidental thing antagonistic astir them successful person. When you knock them, they conscionable don’t similar it. I retrieve talking to Donna Karan’s publicist, Aliza Licht, and she erstwhile said, “That personage thinks you hatred her due to the fact that you wrote this and that astir her dress.” We’re conscionable talking astir the dress!