news

Ooops, someone ate a piece of Demi’s thigh

That’s what it seems when you take a closer look at this current W magazine cover. Ashton? Was it you? When I first saw this cover I did think ‘goodness’ but didn’t get too far beyond that. And I wasn’t looking at her shaved thigh.

Those who were paying much closer attention than me noticed Demi was missing a little bit of her leg. Don’t you hate that? When you misplace a chunk of thigh?

According to website Jezebel:

Demi Moore’s left hip on the December cover of W mysteriously receded to the point that appears narrower than her thigh. So…what happened? No one’s really saying. This is what a spokesperson for W just told us: Photographers Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott “did not do anything unusual or out of the ordinary on Demi Moore for the photo on the cover of W. Demi is an extraordinary beautiful woman and we feel our cover reflects that.”

Well, okay. As long as anatomically impossible renderings are usual and ordinary.

In respone, Demi said “I’m just skinny”:

“I don’t have any hips!” Demi Tweeted in response to the controversy on Thursday. “I love the pic and can only say I wish I had good lighting like that following me around all day.”

“My hips were not touched don’t let these people bullshit you!” she Tweeted of the cover, which critics claimed appears to have removed a chunk of her left hip. “I am [on] the skinny side lately.”


Whatevs. Obviously, the shots are heavily air-brushed. Let’s not be silly. They are. But there’s something else that’s worth noting about these shots and the accompanying interview with Demi that appeared with them in W, which is a fashion magazine (and no, I know not what W stands for).

Here is the most interesting snippet:

….the meatier issue is how her age now affects her career. Asked how she likes the indie circuit after spending so many years as a star in big-­budget studio movies, she analyzes the question with surprising self-awareness. “The frustrating part is that the type of roles I’d be interested in are not really coming to me,” says Moore, who fidgets and balls herself into various contortions like a kid but speaks in her signature hoarse whisper. “I hate to say it’s a function of my age—but yes, I think in some ways it is. The majority of [female] roles are geared between 25 and 35.”

[you can read the entire interview here]

When I first read that, there was something that bothered me about what she said but I couldn’t put my finger on it. Then I read this blog which articulated it a little bit better:

Now. About those pictures. Is it us or are they a little disturbing? She looks like she’s starving. It’s not just the alarmingly skinny arms, tiny waist, and child-sized legs, it’s the wide-eyed look. She LITERALLY looks like she’s starving.

You know, we don’t deny that there is sexism in the entertainment industry and rarely does the industry have any place for women over 40. But we look at these pictures and think “You know, you might be up for more roles if you didn’t look like, oh, say… a CRAZY STARVING PERSON?” ….There’s a certain class of Hollywood women who have dieted and surgically altered themselves to the point where they really don’t look like people. Not healthy people, anyway.

We just want to grab people like this, shake them, and say, “Despite what your insular little industry has told you, it’s okay to look like a human being.” Seriously. We look at her and all we can do, despite her fame and fortune, is feel a little sorry for her. Imagine what she sees when she looks in the mirror. Imagine the kind of stress and self-image that causes you to go to the extremes required to look like that.

There’s a reason that the leading actresses in the over-45 category are women like Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren. Because they smartly realized a long time ago that the ingenue parts were gone forever and there was no use going after something they were never going to get again.

We realize there’s no small amount of photoshopping involved here, so who knows what her real body looks like, but we’re talking less about her waist size and more about her face, which looks pinched and sharp and undernourished.

No, there aren’t a lot of roles for actresses over forty. That’s true and that’s not cool. But there are even less roles for actresses trying desperately to look 20 years younger than their age. “Desperation” is a terrible quality for a movie star to project.

Some of those words are pretty harsh and I certainly don’t agree with all of them but there is some truth there too.

There are a bunch of actresses past their late thirties….whenever they have a movie to promote or a Significant Birthday, they suddenly get their gear off as if to desperately distract us all from remembering the fact they’re NOT 25 anymore.

ADVERTISEMENT

Is that really such a problem? Obviously in their industry it is.

The dichotomy is this: nobody is saying you can’t do whatever you want to do in order to look whatever age you want. Knock yourself out if you WANT to.

But how do you actually cast a woman in her 40s who looks strangely ageless? There are a number of these celebrities – Sharon Stone is another. You can’t cast them as their actual age because they look (oddly) decades younger. But why do so many women in Hollywood have to look like they’re 23 or trying to be 23?

Isn’t there enough room in movies for Scarlett Johannson AND older women? Aren’t there stories to be told about women who don’t look decades younger than they actually are?

Which actresses do you admire and what do you think of the way women are cast in Hollywood?


EARLIER POSTS…..

How sexy is this girl?

I am in love with this photo

Baby Beauty Queens; Hold onto your lunch

Does this look like a bad role model to you? A pro-obesity campaign?

Sharon Stone wants you to see her pert, youthful boobies

Whatever her weight, Mary-Kate can’t win

Demi Moore hasn’t had plastic surgery. Not a jot of it do you hear?

Letting yourself go

Big boob prejudice – does it exist?