|
|
|
|
|
Britney Never Looked so Good!Woo wee! Photoshop, we bow in wonder! |
By Elena Gorgan, Entertainment News Editor
15th of August 2007, 12:47 GMT
Adjust text size:  
|
|
Over the weekend, I had the immense pleasure (no, really) of presenting you the ad for Britney Spears' latest perfume, 'Believe'. Although someone who is not that in touch with her latest antics could easily Believe that the photo was for real, for others, who are basically addicted to gossip and stuff, it really came off as insulting. When Elizabeth Arden took Britney's face and superimposed it on some other woman's body or simply retouched the hell out of it, the company probably didn't think we all knew only too well how Britney looks like. Or that we're just plain stupid. Which I'm sure is not the case.
If the poster for 'Believe' was absurd, this 'Allure' cover verges on the supernatural. I presume each of us knows by now that, usually, the women we see in magazines are different from the way the persons who pose for them look in real life. Airbrushing and retouching have become, by now, as normal as, say, using a handkerchief or a Kleenex to wipe your nose (apparently, the whole 'wipe it on your sleeve' thing went out of fashion a while back!). But where do we draw the line?
This, the woman we see in the picture, has nothing in common with the real Britney. Obviously, when I'm saying that, I bear in mind that some very clever lighting, perfectly applied make-up and an entire team of stylists can make a world of a difference. But that's not the case here. Everything, from the hair (which are, in fact, lame, crappy and unkempt extensions) Britney has, to the shape of her face (which is fuller in real life), to the arms and even to the shape of her lips have been altered to one extent or another.
Again, digitally altering a photo is not necessarily a bad thing and most celebrities depend on it in order to erase with a touch of a button some of the flaws they're not happy about, but this Britney presented in the September issue of 'Allure' looks more like the old Brit Brit than like the trashy trainwreck we've become so familiar with in recent months. So, if the entire world knows exactly what she looks like, why going through all this trouble and expenses to make her look THAT good? Especially when she didn't even bother to hang around for the interview, as was part of the agreement and just stormed out and never looked back.
Could this be a case of nostalgia (we all feel it - the kind 'God, I miss the old Britney! She was so sweet!')? Or are we believed to be that dumb not to be able to tell the difference? Well, in the end, who knows? Who cares, for a fact? We can always find consolation in the photo, because it looks so much with the Spears of five years ago, while the big shots at the magazine sit happily behind their desks, thinking they managed to pull another one on us. Your pick now.
|
|
| Rating: |
|
Fair (2.6/5) |
5 vote(s) so far |
|
|
|
|
User opinions: |
 No user comments yet.  Be the first to express your opinion using the form below! |
|
|
