As we all know by now, Blake Lively’s is the latest enhanced rack of Chanel. Blake currently fronts the campaign for Chanel handbags, and her first Chanel ad was photographed by The Kaiser himself, Karl Lagerfeld. Blake even got to go to Paris and be the woman of honor (tits of honor) at several Chanel events. It’s a big deal. But there are some mutterings that perhaps this plastic American (mall) girl who couldn’t act her way out of a paper bag is perhaps the wrong “face” of the famous French brand. Oh noes! According to The Mail and NYDN, there are “internal grumblings” within Chanel (specifically, Chanel’s American branch) that Blake is “off-brand”. Which is a fancy way of calling her cheap. For real.

Karl Lagerfeld called her the ‘American dream girl’, but apparently not everyone at Chanel is as enamoured with Blake Lively as the label’s head designer.

According to reports today, the fashion label’s office in Miss Lively’s native U.S. is less than impressed that the Gossip Girl star has been chosen to represent its Mademoiselle handbag line.

A source told the New York Daily News that there were ‘internal grumblings’ at the Chanel American headquarters.

They said that the star was considered ‘off-brand’ by some U.S. employees, which the paper translated as ‘the bitchy fashion industry’s clinical way of saying that Lively’s contemporary American beauty does not dovetail with Chanel USA’s efforts to sell its fashions as the height of European sophistication.’

The suggestion was quickly dismissed by Chanel’s U.S. press office, which remained full of praise for the actress.

A spokeswoman said: ‘Blake’s spontaneity and fresh youthful image have convinced Chanel that she is the right person to represent the house and this range of bags.’

But the rumoured criticism echoes comments made to Miss Lively herself, when she admitted that she had been waiting for an opportunity from the French fashion powerhouse.

‘I had other opportunities and I would say, “Thank you so much, but I am holding out for Chanel,”‘ she told the New York Times. “’That’s who I want to be the face of.”

‘And people would say, “Well, that’s unrealistic, they only hire Europeans,” and I said: “Well, how great. I’ll be the first then.”‘

But the Daily News’s source claimed that Chanel ‘would literally fire anyone who admits’ they are not happy with Miss Lively as a spokesmodel.

Miss Lively was named the face of the Chanel Mademoiselle handbag line in January after she was introduced to Mr Lagerfeld by U.S. Vogue editor Anna Wintour. The campaign image, shot by Mr Lagerfeld himself, appeared in glossy magazines for the first time this month. It shows the 23-year-old leaning against a wall of mirrored panels allowing for a reflection of both her and her glossy red bag. It is both moodier and more colourful than past campaigns for the collection – Lily Allen’s playful 2008 version was shot in black-and-white.

Mr Lagerfeld, 77, told reporters that the shoot for the ad, which took place at Chanel’s Rue Cambon HQ, ‘was an easy job because everyone fell in love with her’.

Miss Lively herself was also thrilled about the appointment she said at the time: ‘How did Cinderella feel when she slipped on the glass slipper? How did Snow White feel when she met her Prince Charming? A dream come true is an understatement. I can say that I feel like the happiest, luckiest girl around.’

The actress joins an illustrious cast of Chanel ‘faces’ – among them Vanessa Paradis, Audrey Tatou, Keira Knightley and Georgia May Jagger.

The label’s current womenswear campaign stars model-of-the-moment Freja Beha, while its catwalk shows are a roll-call of the industry’s hottest faces, including Lindsey Wixson, Anja Rubik and Karolina Kurkova.

[From The Daily Mail]

While I do think that it’s nice to have a “fashion girl” out there who genuinely seems interested, engaged and happy to be apart of the fashionable crowd, I also think Blake’s critics have a point. It’s great to have a happy, blonde, all-American girl representing a famous brand, and at this point, Blake is “new” and “different” from other fashion girls. But there is something cheap, something down-market, something “off brand” about her representing Chanel. Is it the fake tatas? Is it the fact that she just looks like a mall girl, one of millions you could find at any American mall? Is it the fact that for a “fashion girl” she really doesn’t know much about fashion? Is it because she can’t ever be covered up, and she always has to show off her boobs, her legs, her vagina drapes? Ugh.

Photos courtesy of Google, WENN, Fame.