Remember that really creepy Lancome foundation ad where Julia Roberts’ face had been airbrushed until she looked ghostly and unlike herself? The UK has banned it (along with a similar ad featuring Christy Turlington wearing a Maybelline foundation). The government over there has this interesting idea that airbrushing the hell out of a photograph intended to show how well a foundation works constitutes a fraud – and that girls and women are suffering enough from the pressure to look a way that no human being ever could with just makeup.
It’s too bad the US doesn’t give a crap about either problem, but you’ve gotta admit that’s the brilliance of capitalism. For proof, we’ve got the strongest economy and a healthy middle class and… oh, right. Never mind.
A clause in Roberts’ contract prevents anyone from seeing the untouched photos for the Lancome ad (some sources presume this is about vanity, but I think there could be business reasons for it and prefer not to judge). Here’s Roberts today side by side with the Lancome image:
Uh-huh. The untouched image strikes me as more attractive because it looks less bizarre. But it also actually makes me wonder what foundation she’s using, because her skin looks great. The second image erases a lot of what makes her Julia Roberts, and while it looks flawless in the same way that anime characters look flawless… well, that states the problem right there.
Lancome insists the airbrushed photo accurately represents what the foundation will do for you, but that’s patently absurd: she’s been made up by a professional, skillfully lit by another professional, and carefully photographed by another professional, but they need to airbrush all that to show us how good it’s really going to look on us? I don’t think so. We’ll be applying the damn stuff ourselves and then appearing in whatever grotesque wrinkle-seeking, melasma-illuminating, redness-enhancing, oil-spotlighting, ashy-looking, sun-damage-emphasizing lighting the world throws at us. (Note: it’s not just this photo – read the comment thread derail on this post as a review of a Lancome product turns into a discussion of the eerie promo picture).
The company behind both Lancome and Maybelline is L’Oreal, but they’re hardly the only company responsible for this sort of thing. In fact, I’ve spend the past couple of decades grappling with two very contradictory messages: that Julia Roberts is gorgeous and I should want to look like her, and that she is aesthetically inadequate for Hollywood. It started with Pretty Woman.
That is Julia Roberts’ head on the body of model Shelley Michelle. Now, it’s been said that the only reason this happened was that the poster was put together well after the film had wrapped and neither actor was available for posing (apparently the male body isn’t Richard Gere, either). Fair enough. Let’s accept that. But that was not the explanation of the day for this next poster, which featured the legs of Donna Scoggins, Roberts’ body double in the film, who is famous for her legs and cast as a leg model in commercials:
Now, here’s a shot of Julia Roberts’ legs now, from last fall when she was promoting her 2010 movie Eat Pray Love:
For real, Media Goons? She was about 42 when this shot was taken, so it’s hard to imagine her legs look better now than they did twenty-one years ago. If those legs aren’t good enough (and for whom? the hetero boys we’re assured will “sleep with anything”?), then fuck dieting, fuck exercise, fuck cosmetics and fuck cosmetic surgery. I hereby call on all women to give up on all this shit and tell our critics: “Why should I? I still wouldn’t be good enough for you anyway.” With this regime in place – let’s call it the “Hathor Prescription” and I’ll go make some videos and launch a line of leisure wear for it – you should become considerably more relaxed about your appearance in approximately thirty days, and completely stop giving a fuck at around ninety days.
L’Oreal spent a lot of years telling me I was “worth it.” I never was sure what that meant. It felt like some kind of lip service to my self-esteem, but when they confront me with a spookily airbrushed photo of one of the most successful actresses of all time, I wonder if there has ever been a woman born that L’Oreal considers “worth it.”
I recently sampled the Lancome foundation myself so I could give you a better idea of what it can really do for you. Here’s a slighty retouched photo – honestly, I hardly did anything to it, just corrected some red eye and stuff – which I may use in the promo for the “Hathor Prescription”:
Yes, those are my real eyelashes.
{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
In discussion with some straight male gamer friends, I discovered something telling: all of us tend to be most attracted to women who have a distinctive appearance – for example, finding Claudia Black much more attractive than Megan Fox.
It’s just anecdata, but it is further evidence that the cookie cutter mold that Hollywood and the cosmetics industry keep telling women they have to fit into isn’t even what men want, despite that being the supposed rationale behind the campaign to control women’s appearances.
Patrick McGraw(Quote) (Reply)
Patrick McGraw,
See, I hear this a lot, but I’ve also seen and heard men ruthlessly tear into objectively* beautiful women (like actresses, models and porn stars) for failing to meet some standard or other.
*objectively is a loaded word, but these women DO perform femininity/sexiness as dictated by the culture. So if they are not enough, what is????
JT(Quote) (Reply)
JT,
“Conventionally attractive” or similar might be better than “objective.” They fit a socially prescribed mold. And you’re right – some men tear them apart. And not in an honest, “Hmm, I just don’t get why people think Angelina Jolie is so gorgeous” way, but in a “Her arms aren’t quite skinny enough – what an ugly bitch!” way.
So let’s tally the social messages: guys will sleep with anything, except Julia Roberts isn’t good enough for them. And guys find all sorts of things attractive, except when they are dissatisfied by anything short of a living Barbie doll. I think all of these things are actually true. I think there’s no pleasing misogynists, and there are plenty of them about, representing “men” quite vocally, and they’re the ones who demand perfection in the way emotional abusers do – just to keep you jumping. I think guys like Patrick’s talking about are probably not misogynists, and genuinely appreciate women.
Who’s the media catering to? Emotionally abusive misogynists. Interesting. If they ARE the majority of the populace, we are doomed. If not, why are they getting catered?
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Jennifer Kesler,
they’re the ones who demand perfection in the way emotional abusers do
Several, mutually exclusive, perfections no less.
SunlessNick(Quote) (Reply)
Jennifer Kesler,
I wonder if there’s a large difference between what rich and powerful males consider attractive and what other males consider attractive– considering the way society is set up to reward the misogynistic, maybe the ones with unreasonable beauty standards rose to the top and now the ad campaigns have some variation on author appeal?
Ara(Quote) (Reply)
Ara,
I don’t think there’s a class gap in what hetero men find sexy about women’s looks – I suspect men in every group are all over the place in their tastes, based on just my own experience (which is not universal, of course). But I do think that a lot of people in the higher-ranks of society are status-obsessed, and it’s a mark of high status to have a “trophy” wife or girlfriend, and she must have a certain look and certain other attributes in order to be the perfect, well, fashion accessory for the successful man.
I also believe that a lot more people than realize it are asexual or aromantic, or simply have activities that mean far more to them than any sex or romantic relationship ever could. One example of this would be someone who loves making money or business deals far more than they love romance or sex, and if I’m right, I’d expect that sort of person to show up more among the upper financial classes than the lower ones. That person probably wouldn’t develop his own taste in women’s looks (because nothing about a woman has ever raised his pulse the way closing a deal does), so he relies on the media to tell him what he should be looking for.
Just my theories, of course.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Yes, there are a frightening number of men who will tear into conventionally beautiful women for some perceived imperfection. I think this has more to do with how our culture has encouraged a narcissistic attitude in men towards regarding women as existing to feeding male desires than the impossible beauty standard, which is directed more at women.
Patrick McGraw(Quote) (Reply)
Patrick McGraw,
I agree that the men are reacting to encouragement to behave narcissistically, but would clarify that I think the impossible beauty standard is a product of male narcissism, too. It’s designed to keep women’s self-esteem low so that the vast majority who can’t meet the standard:
–will tolerate bad male behavior and mistreatment, believing they don’t deserve better because they’re not beautiful enough
–won’t try to compete with men in the workplace and slots of power and authority
–if they manage to have self-esteem and decide to compete with men, they will still be held back for not being gorgeous enough.
If you make your own way, there is a sort of “handsome” look you can go for as an alternate to “super model.” This look says “Take me seriously – I have wealth and power” – Chanel suits, expensive makeup, expensive hairdos – the look you see on female politicians and famous lawyers. But I’m not sure even this look is available to everyone: while there are some buffalo sized powerful men out there (politicians, Rush Limbaugh), I can’t think of an obese woman who’s powerful. Nor do these women tend to be all that far off from the impossible beauty standard. And they tend to be white. Condolezza Rice really does look like she might’ve been a model, and for that she had to endure a lot of objectifying comments.
As a girl looking out into this world with ambitions, you just don’t get the feeling your prospects are much good. Boys – at least, white ones – can aspire to be movie stars or presidents (or both!) or uber-wealthy geeks running software empires or whatever. I can’t imagine what it’s like. Everything I wanted to do for a living would have forced me to endure massive sexual harassment, because that’s just a fact of life for women in male-dominated work.
And people think the reason women “opt-out” is some hardwired female nesting drive. Please. We have to put up with SO MUCH FUCKING SHIT all the time that we’re ready to give up around age 32, regardless of whether we have an “opt out” option or not.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Agreed, I wasn’t clear that both messages come from the same source. I just think that the messages sent to men and women are often very different, even if the end result is the same shitty situation.
Patrick McGraw(Quote) (Reply)
Patrick McGraw,
That’s true, and a good point to keep in mind. Sometimes people argue that the message is different, so the sought result must be different too, and, um, no.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments
{ 1 trackback }