French Elle: Celebrities without make-up and photoshop
The April issue of French Elle features eight female European celebrities--including Eva Herzigova, Monica Bellucci, Sophie Marceau, and Charlotte Rampling--all without makeup and, perhaps even more revealing, all entirely without Photoshopping or retouching of any kind. The mag's headline "Stars Sans Fards" translates to "without rouge/makeup," but it's a French saying that also suggests a sense of "openness."
I think this is great, particularly in an era when the only time you see celebrities without makeup is from terrible paparazzi shots.
What do you all think?
Via Shine
H/t to llevinoso
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: French Elle: Celebrities without make-up and photoshop.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13084
Thats pretty damn cool.
How long till this sort of thing happens on this side of the pond?
I don't speak French, but does Ms. Marceau apologize for co-starring in that David Spade movie?
which one? I think the last David Spade movie I saw was Joe Dirt.
Lost and Found. I'm ashamed I remember it without having to resort to imdb. It's actually not aggressively stupid, but the idea of transforming the Spademeister into a romantic lead was probably induced by large amounts of cocaine and lack of sleep.
This is great. Magazine covers are often so photoshopped that the actresses (or models, musicians, etc) actually look unreal, nothing like themselves, or even like real people, whose faces have contours and shadows. They end up looking like the Madame Tussauds versions of themselves. It's eery.
I love it, especially monica belucci. Her natural beauty really shines.
Hey, I sent this article to you guys! Great to see it up here :)
Thanks! Sorry for the absence of hat tip--to be corrected now :)
This is awesome. I hope this encourages other magazines to do the same!
It does happen here every once in a while. I seem to remember a photo spread of Jamie Lee Curtis from a few years ago. The pictured showed Curtis in her underwear without the benefit makeup or hair styling, and then the process that resulted in a magazine perfect picture. I'll have to try to dig up the article.
Yes I do remember that, but I don't remember if it was just an article in a mag or if she was featured on the cover in no makeup also. Not sure. But you almost never see this in American magazines.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2002/08/27/ED242187.DTL&o=0
This article shows the before and after photos from that shoot.
I think ending your post in "what do you think?" or even worse "thoughts?" is annoying. Let the post speak for itself. Be a journalist, not a second rate blogger.
Sorry. We didn't know we were in the midst of a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist.
Sheesh. Do you criticize every post author for not adhering to New York Times' journalistic standards? Do you have anything to contribute that's of any real substance?
Oh please. The great thing about blogging is the interactive community discussion aspect of comment threads. This is a blog site, not the New York Times, and I like it that way.
Irony: using the comments section of a blog to declare that caring about people's comments makes you WEAK!! WEAK I SAY!
What a random complaint.
This is awesome. I hope this encourages other magazines to do the same!
Wow Destra, isn't it a bit early for such negativity? There are much better ways to get your point across. Have some coffee.
This blog is anything but second-rate.
This is wonderful! Only about 2 percent of women look like supermodels/actresses and sometimes even they don't look like the images portrayed in magazines and the media.
Not that I don't agree with you, but where on earth did you get that statistic?
Much like everyone else who has posted already I agree that this is absolutely fantastic! Great post!
I think it's about damn time, especially with Jenny McCarthy even admitting that she's been airbrushed on the cover of Shape.
As for the comparison to Jamie Lee Curtis I think there's a big difference. Jamie Lee was lionized as a heroine and while I agree that it took bravery to do that photo shoot in this society, she was no longer expecting to be cast as the "hottie" so the career risk was likely minimal.
Agreed. There's a big difference between middle-aged women presenting themselves in their 'imperfections' and young supermodels. It's great either way- don't get me wrong- but Jamie Lee Curtis certainly does not have the same expectations on her that these models do.
Europe is way ahead of the game. Between this and the weight minimum for runway models- we have a lot of catching up to do.
This didn't seem right to me, and your categorizing of the actresses rubbed me the wrong way, so I did a little research. Jamie Lee Curtis did More magazine without retouching when she was 43. According to IMDB Sophie Marceau will turn 47 and Monica Bellucci 49 this year. For those that don't feel like doing the math that's 4 years and 6 years older, respectively, than Curtis was on her cover. It can be argued Marceau and Bellucci have sexier images than Curtis, but she was younger, not significantly older when she did her shoot. There's literally no reason to devalue Curtis' act as her being middle aged so her looks are less of a factor, and denying these women credit for doing the same, while still angling for sexy roles, being even older.
Just FYI.
Spain was the only country to enact weight guidelines for models. France, Italy, and other EU countries scoffed at the decision - which relied solely on BMI. BMI is not a wholly accurate way of evaluating health in regards to weight. My BMI has always been under 18.5 - my whole life - and it gets pretty aggravating to have people with little to no knowledge of health make all sorts of claims about me because of that.
[[This topic irritates me because... I am physically active (I still enjoy swimming and as a kid played soccer, basketball), and I LIKE my vegetables (I don't like it being called diet and exercise because these are not sacrifices I make these are things I enjoy). I model part time (but not fashion, I'm too short) because it pays the bills better than most of my other employment opportunities, and it gets pretty old being made a villain...
(Although I know your comment was not meant to be rude in any way, I am just pointing out that BMI is a really stupid guideline and people can be really nasty to "skinny" women as much as "fat." Not all models who are thin are sick!!!)
I second that. Your diet and exercise choices are your own, and when people start assuming all skinny girls are fragile, or diet all the time, it's as disrespectful as making sweeping claims about any other group of people based on their appearance.
I love this! I tried to get my college students to come to class without makeup for one night--and they wouldn't do it. This is in a feminist theory class, mind you. I think they are so attached to the idea that they wouldn't look "acceptable" that they won't even chance it. One young woman, who is actually very smart, said "but my eyelashes would be invisible!"
Anyway, I love French Elle for this--I think we should demand this from our own chicken-shit publications. As for the Destra comment, please, don't you understand that this is a feminist blog? It's not a top down operation--but one dedicated to discussion, ideas, egalitarian communication and at times, a bit of conflict. And, it IS absolutely first-rate journalism, in my view.
Wow! I never wear makeup and I work in corporate America. Today I have a client presentation and I am still not wearing makeup.
'One young woman, who is actually very smart, said "but my eyelashes would be invisible!"'
Can we have that sentence without adding the caveat "who is actually very smart"? We don't have to reassure other feminists that we're still smart even if we adhere stringently to some beauty regimen. I do not have hairy legs if I will be wearing clothing that reveals them. Do I have to have someone defend my intelligence, because the fact that I regularly shave my legs somehow detracts from it? Absurd.
you know, the point is that she can still be smart and perpetuate a ridiculous beauty ritual--on which requires her to worry that her eyelashes being visible is somehow important to her appearance which equals, for women, her value as a person. I think shaving is also a ridiculous ritual--but I try not to criticize those who shave, although I admit I think it's absurd.
But it isn't your place (or anybody else's) to call someone's beauty ritual "ridiculous." Everybody has certain bathing rituals, beauty rituals, and clothing rituals that they complete in order to feel like themselves. If that ritual is wearing mascara and shaving your legs, that is not any more ridiculous than getting tattoos and dyeing your hair blue. Sure, the mascara and shaving may be following a more "mainstream" beauty ideal, but it's not like the people who get tattoos and blue hair are exempt from the desire to look a certain way.
Calling the ritual ridiculous implies that the person doing the ritual is ridiculous, or that they are being duped, or that they will find a more enlightened path if they stop doing that ritual. Really, that's just demanding that the person look a certain way, which is exactly what you're reprimanding the media for doing.
Of course we can pick apart beauty ideals, and the especially insidious and demanding ideals placed on women, but this must be done in a manner that acknowledges that conventional beauty and feminism are not mortal enemies. I mean, if I find that a current trend in jeans is flattering for my body, and that wearing those jeans makes me feel confident and beautiful, or if my friend who loves eyeshadow finds a pretty new shade in Glamour magazine, then is that really, categorically, bad for feminism? At the risk of being accused of relating my personal experience to the population as a whole, think about something. Where do you learn what looks good on your body, or your face, or your hair, and how do you decide what styles make you feel the most confident and beautiful? I think if feminism could accept that, part of the time, fashion and beauty are avenues of self-discovery and sources of confidence, then we could analyze the detrimental and dangerous effects of beauty ideals in a way that does not chastise women for following them.
I respect your opinion, but I do think that many beauty rituals are ridiculous--especially when they are time consuming and, this is the key part, when women who do not participate in them are disregarded and seen as not feminine. I just worry that the ideology we are perpetuating is that confidence and beauty go together. I can be confident without needing to feel "beautiful."
I think we need to emphasize other aspects of women as having value rather than appearance-- like strength, intelligence, wit, perseverance, humor; and we also need to resist in very powerful ways the idea that beauty is the main value of a woman. So, yes, I think shaving is ridiculous. Who fucking decided that shaved legs were more beautiful than unshaven ones? Why are so many beauty rituals for women about changing and modifying one's body? Until the female body can be seen as beautiful and fine just the way it is I will resist "beauty rituals" because I find them oppressive and worthless. Sorry.
I doubt you don't complete *any* beauty rituals. Do you brush your teeth? That's culturally constructed as necessary.
Though, I like this point:
'I just worry that the ideology we are perpetuating is that confidence and beauty go together. I can be confident without needing to feel "beautiful."'
My goal would be to have beauty included in the list of things that make women feel confident, and not as either a) the only thing that should make women feel confident, or b) something to be thrown out altogether by feminists who can't reconcile the fact that they do things to their own appearance that are not "natural." Natural, really, doesn't even mean anything. Natural is a social construction.
Boodle, I just realized I misread your comment. I read "resisting" beauty rituals as "not doing any." Sorry for the beginning of my comment :/ But the second two paragraphs still stand.
I think we can agree on some things, at least--I hope too, that we can value women for many things. Thanks for your willingness to engage in a dialogue!
Wow, I never wore makeup to class when I was in school. I was far too lazy for that. I would just roll out of bed, shower, brush my teeth, throw on a hoodie and jeans and be out the door! I never got how some girls came to class with their hair all done and makeup all perfect.
Nowadays I do wear makeup at my job, but I don't put it on until I actually get to work (and I put on a very light amount, usually just some foundation and blush). It saves me time in my house in the morning when getting ready. But I look on the train on my way to work and I swear I'm basically the only woman I see that isn't wearing makeup! I just think it's utterly ridiculous that American women basically think they cannot leave the house without makeup on.
What a great idea!!!
I actually didn't ever wear make up until I went to college... in part because my teachers told me I needed to.
Of course... I was going for a degree in performance and the complaint I got was that with no make up, the audience couldn't see my facial expressions. A little different than normal classroom situations. I was also told to wear more flowers in my hair (for some performances), which is fun, and pretty, and smells nice, so it wasn't all bad!
If anything, college was what squashed my urge to wear makeup at all. I already have a 30 minute communute. I'm sure as heck not going to wake up even EARLIER just to put on makeup. Eff that. I don't fix my hair anymore either.
I'm glad it happened too. I look just dandy without all that stuff.
I really liked how you tried to get your students to try and ware no make-up, that’s up-setting that no one did. Not only would it be good for your skin but I also think it would be embracing. I would like to challenge woman who do ware make-up often to not ware it for a weekend or even just a full day. Embrace your true beauty.
Yes! Make up is so bad for your skin!... Too bad this idea isn't told to young teenagers more often.
What a viscous cycle, especially for a kid. Wear make up to look pretty. Face breaks out. Cover up break outs with more make up. Face breaks out more....
Actually, most makeup today is made oil-free and doesn't clog up the skin. Granted, if you go to bed every night without washing it off, that will make you break out, but the makeup itself generally won't. At least, in my experience (I get pimples when I wear makeup and when I don't, doesn't matter either way).
but, in a way, aren't you buying into the idea that it matters what women look like, and aren't you teaching that to your students?
isn't it just as damaging to say that? it's kind of like saying, well, a good feminist scholar wouldn't wear make-up because she is more enlightened than that.
I think your efforts should be applauded, but I think they are still bound up with the idea that women are judged for how they look -- too much make-up or too little. People always judge women on how their appearance, and your task tried to ask why, I suppose, but weren't you (aren't you) still judging them based on their appearance? You think it says something about them personally, when it is just make-up.
Listen, I rarely wear make-up, but I don't judge people who do. I know that for people with bad skin, make up is a god-send. Maybe acne is a bad example, but it really does change people's view of themselves when they can feel more attractive. I know that is problematic that beauty matters, but we shouldn't expect that feminists feel any different. Many feminists I know wear make-up -- for fun, to look pretty, to play around...whatever.
No, I'm not judging them at all. I'm just asking them to consider how beauty rituals or body modification is considered a "necessity" in order for them to be considered feminine. I certainly don't expect them to discontinue their practices--I simply brought the idea up to see how they would react. This was also in response to reading Beauty and Misogyny by Sheila Jeffreys, and in the context of the course where we were analyzing the power of the dominant culture in terms of socialization for women. That's it.
I love the idea, but this reminds me a bit of American Allure's article of "fresh-faced" Eva Longoria, which featured the actress's face covered with makeup everywhere except her freckles (to show what she looked like without makeup).
If you click the Shine link and look at a few of the pictures, the actresses' skin all looks perfectly clear and wrinkle-free. I know they've got pretty French skin, but still, "make-up free" is a relative term in the entertainment industry, one which I usually understand as "with the basics": foundation and concealer.
I think the most important part of this photo series, as many have already commented, is the lack of Photoshop. I don't think there's anything wrong with makeup and good photographic lighting, but using Photoshop on cover photos is just disingenuous and deceitful.
Big ups to these actresses for partaking in this feature. I won't call them "brave", but after years of relying on Photoshop and other entertainment industry tricks, it must be hard to shed it all (or mostly all) for a magazine cover.
I think this is wonderful. All too often, even "natural" photo shoots are anything but natural. Even if the celebrity isn't wearing makeup, they retouch any undereye circles, stray hairs or pimples.
It would have been nice to see more diversity in terms of body shape on the covers.
This is the link to a photo retouching studio.
http://www.iwanexstudio.com/
It would be good if more people saw things like this. We often forget just how much they manipulate images in the media (I know I have). The before pictures are all far more beautiful.
I also loved this guerilla ad that brings attention to the use of photoshop, though it may be an insider's joke for anyone that isn't familiar with the application:
http://i.gizmodo.com/5130163/photoshopped-subway-ads-get-exposed-in-berlin
C'est le pied! Je suis très heureux!* I love the French! Most of the time anyway ;-).
*Trans: That's super! I am very happy!
yeah, I can't help but think of the comparisons to "stars without makeup" articles that you see here, which are just hostile and . . . well, predatory really. I always feel that they're looking for the worst angle, worst shot to try and then act like that makes whomever was photographed a worse person, and trys to make it a punishment. not so here. It's about time.
kind of wishing that they sold it in the us.. I would be excited to look through it.. a friend of mine got me a subscription to ELLE but its too fashion-y for me.. i like to smell the perfume samples. thats my favorite part!
Photoshopping is Satan. Any magazine with integrity needs to seriously examine how they use Photoshop, and when and why -- which should be rarely or never, IMO. As for the cosmetics-free spreads, awesome! I'd love to see more of them!
I've seen a couple American magazines do this, and I always really enjoyed it. These photos are a great way to celebrate natural female beauty, and a way to show that even the most admired celebrities are just regular woman with wrinkles and cellulite and blemishes. I wish more magazines would do this!
"I think this is great, particularly in an era when the only time you see celebrities without makeup is from terrible paparazzi shots.
That's so true. Last night I saw a headline on AOL News "Michelle Obama without make-up." I didn't go to the link but it angered me. How is that news?
I was disappointed when I went to check out the article on Yahoo.shine.com, and found this one side by side:
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/our-beauty-advice-for-internet-sensation-susan-boyle-446657/;_ylt=Ap6CZ4Cmp3GXSkY_tD0zS.xdbqU5
Wow, I went and YouTubed her performance and I feel horrible... I can't believe I judge that woman based upon her appearances. That woman has an amazing voice. I guess it is true you can learn something about yourself through other people.
Hypocritical bastards...
I saw Boyle's performance online yesterday and was astounded and thrilled - then ashamed that I felt that way. I said to my roommate, "$10 says that next week she's been given a haircut, makeover and wardrobe to be more palatable." She brings everyone to tears (according to every blog I've read), theoretically due in part to the fact that she can be successful without conforming to the world's beauty standards - and the first thing they do is tell her to get a makeover (can't imagine Shine are the only folks doing it).
Dammit, that makes me angry.
Yea, this is what was being featured when I went onto thefrisky.com (??) that links from Shine: http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-michelle-obama-fashion-watch-pocketgate/
That woman...on the cover...
is absolutely gorgeous.
Why the hell would she even need make-up?
Also, part of the reason 'natural' photo shoots have foundation/concealer is because, otherwise, the cameras and the lights create a very washed out effect that isn't at all natural.
My friends and I found that out when we were making a movie. We had to reshoot half of it so we all looked normal, not like zombies. I don't know if the same applies to professional photography, but perhaps?
I think so. Maybe. I know when I was doing theatre we had to wear makeup to even show up... it was fun doing a smaller theatre, because less makeup was needed. It took so much time to look "natural" and and as if we weren't wearing any makeup... which I always found funny, until I started realizing how many commercials for non-theatre, everyday makeup uses this to sell their stuff! Cover Girl, etc talk a lot about looking like you have nothing on. Then, uh, why don't you just have nothing on? They also phrase it as, It's you...just better! Ugh.
Definitely. Makeup for a photoshoot is different than regular, everyday makeup. Natural lighting is much more flattering than a gigantic light bulb.
I don't think Photoshop is evil. We did photo retouching in the dark room for years before Photoshop appeared. But what many people do with Photoshop is instead of correcting imperfections (oh, take away the ugly pimple on the forehead), they go completely overboard and change the whole face.
I always make it a point to do some very careful Photoshopping that doesn't dramatically alter someone's face. Removing all wrinkles and lines is ridiculous.
There's also an idea, prevalent nowadays, that "we'll fix it post-production." This means lazy people who don't do good lighting, poses and then expect you to fix their mistakes with your computer.
word.
even for the little snapshots i take with my digital camera and print out and frame and put on my desk, i typically use photoshop to take out zits, or scrapes or cuts if they're visible. on everyone. i remember one photo of my cousins that i printed out and framed as a gift. one of my cousins had had a really bad breakout a few days before, and he was self-conscious about it. it took five minutes to fix it, and he was really grateful.
also, it's nice to equalize the grays in a black-and-white image, or increase the contrast, or remove red-eye, or what have you.
the problem comes when one tries to completely change the entire thing. but for small stuff, it's lovely.
More, please!
That's nice and all. I mean, it really is nice that for once they spared us the God damned fifty-tons-o'-Photoshop. And I say this as a life-long girl-watching kind of guy.
But the fact remains that we're all supposed to worship these women because they are rich, famous and gorgeous. Yawn! Hollywood's OK I guess, but it just isn't the whole, entire world. Wake me up when they put Katha Pollitt on the cover of Elle.
Oh wow, this is so wonderful! There are those stunning pictures of Michelle Rodriguez without make-up ( http://gallery.michelle-rodriguez.com/displayimage.php?pos=-5879 , the rest is in the 3rd and partially 4th row of this gallery; she also has equally gorgeous pics with unshaven armpits btw :))), but they were the only non-paparazzi no make-up celeb pics I'd seen before this post.
I never wear any make-up whatsoever. I first refused to wear it simply because I was a tomboy and it was such a boring thing... It still is, but one day it also hit me that a man doesn't have to paint his face no matter what important event he's going to attend, and I'm supposed to do it everytime I leave my house so that I don't look ugly? (And women are considered prettier!) So I thought HECK NO. I'm 24 and my mother still seems to think that one day I'll feel grown-up enough to start wearing make-up. :D But I've always been the freak of the family (= the girl with the most innovative ideas), so it mostly just amuses me. :) It's sad to hear from a woman "But you're not a man, so you have to!", I hope one day our culture won't be like this anymore and this magazine does its small part to help.
I tried posting in the community forum about this very thing, cross posted from an article at Empowher: http://www.empowher.com/news/herarticle/2009/04/15/are-magazines-ruining-your-health
I have to say, I love the cover...
I don't see how this is that revolutionary. If anything, I read it as "Here are thin white stars....see, they look beautiful WITHOUT makeup and Photoshop touch-ups!". They are STILL being held as the IDEAL...."Here women, here is what you shoud look like without makeup". I can imagine a 20 something year old woman going through this and wondering in her mind "They look far better than me, and they're in their FORTIES!" It is still natural beauty as an ideal for women: the fact that we are so interested to see women without their makeup doesn't change the fact that we're still so interested and judge women by their physical appearances.
But I could be pessimistic.
Is there a link to the rest of the pictures? I would love to see the other shots.
The thing is, French women don't really wear much make up anyway BUT they do take all these weird diet medications..
I don't know...
Make-up tends to be the great equalizer. We all hope that we would be as beautiful as celebrities (okay, maybe just me) if we had their team of trainers, stylists, hairdressers and make-up artists.
It kind of says...okay, but these women are more beautiful than you naturally, which in itself is a problematic discourse (or in the least, it gives me lower self-esteem -- haha!)
Isn't it weird that we are obsessed we seeing celebrities naturally? Nothing is natural, per se. THere is no given, natural body, you know?
I think the obsession with seeing if women are naturally beautiful must be related to seeing women as being closer to nature, as those earth-mother, goddesses.
Maybe I'm making a tenuous link, I don't know.
This is still part of the idealization of women's beauty. Sure, it's a fashion magazine, but let's not just laud women for being naturally beautiful, let's celebrate them for their accomplishments. I don't care if celebrities wear make-up, they should do whatever makes them feel most comfortable (nothing wrong with a little foundation, really), but if they are in magazines, write about their accomplishments, not just about their beauty.
Just my two cents.
Makeup, like clothes, can be fun and cool and make you look nice. Who hasn't worn a well fitted outfit in a flattering colour and felt happy at some point? The same thing with makeup.
But many magazines go for a look that is way beyond what good makeup, good hair and good clothes can do: when you Photoshop a new jaw, a new set of boobs and remove all wrinkles you are creating an artificial creature. And the problem is many people compare themselves with these artificial creatures and feel bad.
It's not only the magazine's fault. It is our culture. For example, you say "these women are more beautiful than you naturally, which in itself is a problematic discourse."
Why? There are women who are taller, thinner and younger than me and I do not find it problematic. The problem arises when you keep comparing yourself to others, feelings bad if you do not reach some invisible passing grade, etc.
Makeup and fashion should be about feeling good about yourself, maximizing your best points, playing with colour. Not about feeling bad because you don't resemble a beautiful model.
For me, I worked in photography and so I love looking at an attractive or interesting person's face. Admiring a nice pose and a pretty composition. But I seldom try to compare myself to the people in the photo, no more than I try to resemble Boticelli's Venus even if I think she is lovely.
Hurray for French Elle! I also wrote about this in blog called
newsgallery. Have a look! http://www.delardogallery.com/
Hurray for French Elle! I also wrote about this in blog called
newsgallery: Free from the shackles of the ubiquitous custom, known as the anti-realism scent for women, eight actresses including the ever so striking, Monica Bellucci...
READ ARTICLE HERE! http://www.delardogallery.com/