Follow Zap2it:
Z-Cap
'The Rachel Zoe Project' finale: Contempt is the new black
Did anyone else come away from "The Rachel Zoe Project" finale feeling slightly better about your lot in life? That was some rollercoaster of malcontent and the RZ Inc. team should be happy about finally getting off the ride.
Brad needs a va-k: Brat Brad is showing some fatigue. We didn't want to say this, but it's the elephant in the room. He seems to have been bathing in his own hype. He's already talking about how he'll be "The Next Brad Goreski." It's fine to have lofty goals, but he's barely doing this Brad Goreski well. He's already showing the guy we met in Season 1. Taylor would remember - the one who loved to leave his work for her and socialize at the table with Rachel? Now, you remember. And he had the nerve to mention Taylor today in reference to his bad attitude. Let's not rewrite history. She may have complained a lot, but Taylor would have helped Rachel carry those fur coats. Just sayin'.
Side note: Taylor tweeted that Brad is a "retard" this evening. Coincidence?
Rodger needs a baby. Stat!: We can see two sides to Rodger Berman's baby-mania. On the one hand, if he and Rachel had discussed becoming parents for years, then he has every reason to feel angry. She may be getting older, but so is he. And in many ways, a marriage is a social contract saying you're both on the same page when it comes to these kind of family questions. And in the event that contract is broken, then Rodger should consider leaving her.
On the other hand, it's clear that Rachel has always had big goals and when it comes to work, she's a force to be reckoned with. Can Rodger adjust his expectations to the woman she is today?
Rachel doesn't know what she wants: We're starting to believe that Rachel Zoe has spent way too many years showering her clients with endless compliments, declaring proudly that she hasn't picked up a book in... ever, and saying yes to every project that comes her way that she has forgotten to carve out a personal life for herself. For the first time this season, she actually admitted that she wants a baby. Being the pleaser that she is, we're not sure if she said that for the benefit of the doctor or if she really meant it. Our advice for her? Take a week away from work and take Rodger somewhere far away from any type of fashion week and do some major talking.
If things continue going the way they are, we fear next season that Rachel will have an entirely new staff and no Rodger.
What's your advice for Rachel, Rodger and Brad?
Follow Zap2it and TheRealJethro on Twitter and Zap2it on Facebook for the latest TV, movie and celebrity news.
Photo credit: Bravo
Photo credit: Bravo
Follow Zap2it on Twitter and Zap2it on Facebook for the latest news and buzz
Zap2it Elite Sheet Must Reads from the Web's In-Crowd
Our Partners
While you are a talented stylist and consumate businesswoman, at the end of the day Rachel, you are picking out clothes for other people. A Chanel dress will not tell you that it loves you. If you lose Rodger because you are afraid to carry a baby, you will be sorry. You should get a surrogate because your "disguised" concern about whether or not you are "strong" enough to carry a baby to term shows your viewers that you ARE afraid to gain weight (possible denial about a eating disorder?) Turn your business over to others, maintain a lesser role in it and get a personal life before it is too late.
I think it's easy to throw stones because of what Rachel does for a living but really it's not the job it's the personality behind it. I know plenty of people in pencil pushing jobs where yes maybe their role is a little more important than picking out a dress but just barely. And they are just as driven, just as all consuming about, and I have thought plenty of times, dude you are just sending emails this stuff shouldn't take over your life. It's a personality thing IMHO and not really about fashion, construction, or business but being ambitious. As the outsider it looks to me like Rachel would be perfectly happy to keep the life she has and Rodger is more than enough of a personal life without a child. But it's easy for others to say just tell him you don't want a child or have one. When in truth both are life altering decisions.
Not everyone is family orientated. If Rachel doesn't want a baby then she should say so and not be bullied into having a child.
Rodger is a whiner. If Rachel has a baby and he has to take care of the baby he is going to be pissed. Dump the jerk!
Come on, if they have a baby a nanny will be raising it anyway! Do you see Rachel giving up her career and changing diapers? So, what's the point of them having a baby if neither one of them is actually going to be spending any time with it?
I feel for Rodger. Since he is part of the business there are no clear lines of work and home life. The poor guy is hanging on by a thread and is justified in his whining and crankiness. He can't even have morning coffee without an extra prima donna at his breakfast table. The guy has no privacy. I think Rachel is incredibly skilled but needs to get her priorites in order.
If I were a celeb who used Rachel Zoe as a stylist, then saw her show, I would get another stylist. How disorganized and un-professional can a company be. Rachel is thin as a rail and is still too big for her britches. EGO EGO EGO -- If you do not like not having a life, make a change.
Any woman who is lame enough to lie about her age when everyone and their grandmother has internet access isn't ready for motherhood. She's 43, not 38! Own it Rachel!
Oh for goodness sakes, I'm SO TIRED of this still-prevalent assumption that a woman's life is at its core meaningless without marriage and babies. Would we tell a bold and ambitious man that his passion for his work is selfish and that he can't possibly be fulfilled by it? That is just ridiculous. Rachel has every right to choose her work over motherhood. If she hasn't had the guts up until now to realize that or vocalize it, well, that's certainly unfair to Rodger, but the feeling isn't. Besides, if she truly DOES want children? There would be no hesitation on her part whatsoever.
Oh for goodness sakes, I'm SO TIRED of this still-prevalent assumption that a woman's life is at its core meaningless without marriage and babies. Would we tell a bold and ambitious man that his passion for his work is selfish and that he can't possibly be fulfilled by it? That is just ridiculous. Rachel has every right to choose her work over motherhood. If she hasn't had the guts up until now to realize that or vocalize it, well, that's certainly unfair to Rodger, but the feeling isn't. Besides, if she truly DOES want children? There would be no hesitation on her part whatsoever.
Roger needs to leave the self-centered anorexic brat!!