• Wed, Mar 21 2012

Cate Blanchett Shows Us How ‘No Airbrushing’ Is Done On The Cover Of Intelligent Life

 

In the age of both the Photoshop of Horrors and the gimmicky “no makeup” editorial, it’s pretty excellent to see someone come at this issue from just the right angle. Intelligent Life‘s Photoshop-free Cate Blanchett cover is everything such a cover shoot should be: gorgeous, honest, and not overly self-satisfied.

In a statement of purpose about the cover shoot, editor Tim de Lisle had this to say:

When other magazines photograph actresses, they routinely end up running heavily Photoshopped images, with every last wrinkle expunged. Their skin is rendered so improbably smooth that, with the biggest stars, you wonder why the photographer didn’t just do a shoot with their waxwork.

It’s a supreme example of having it both ways. Publishers want a recognisable person on the cover, with a real career; but they also want an empty vessel—for clothes and jewellery and make-up, which often seem to be supplied by the advertisers with the most muscle. (One cover shoot we spotted this week even had a credit for a fragrance. You would hope that the readers smelt a rat.) The actresses end up playing two conflicting roles: both modern women and throwbacks, both something to aspire to and something to negate.

Cate Blanchett, by contrast, appears on our cover in her working clothes, with the odd line on her face and faint bags under her eyes. She looks like what she is—a woman of 42, spending her days in an office, her evenings on stage and the rest of her time looking after three young children. We can’t be too self-righteous about it, because, like anyone else who puts her on a cover, we are benefiting from her beauty and distinction. But the shot is at least trying to reflect real life. It’s a curious sign of the times that this has become something to shout about.

The short version of his very wonderful statement is this:

1.) Most magazines Photoshop stars until they are basically unrecognizable.

2.) This is silly, because movie stars are gorgeous the way they are.

3.) Here is a gorgeous picture of Cate Blanchett! Pretty, right? She hasn’t even had any plastic surgery!

4.) We realize we’re not standing up for ugliness or even deviation from beauty norms, because it is Cate Blanchett. Isn’t it fucked up that this photo of a very good looking person feels “real” or “refreshing” to us? What a world we live in.

Why, it’s almost like Intelligent Life lives up to its name. Brb, figuring out how to download the article so I can read all about this interesting and human-looking person.

(Via Styleite)

Share This Post:
  • LCT

    *slow clap*

  • MR

    Yeah like her fellow Aussies, Kidman and Watts – all beautiful women in their early forties.

  • Woo

    I’ve seen her round the traps n Sydney and this is an accurate if not even unflattering shot, she is fucking radiant and her kids are little angels. Cannot emphasise enough, this woman is magical and possibly rides a unicorn.

  • SD

    The whites of her eyes look too white. Otherwise, it looks good (great lighting!).

  • Susan

    Wait a minute – I’m older than Cate Blanchett – & yet I look YOUNGER?? HTH did that happen?? I even have two kids!!

  • Anne

    I’d feel like some smug, pretentious pseudo-intellect if I subscribed to a magazine with the name “Intelligent Life”. but that cover/articles look enticing lol.

    For some reason I thought Cate Blanchett was in her early 50′s–not that she looks old, but I distinctly remember thinking how good she looked for her age.

  • dt

    Man, she is looking good.

  • eilan

    She is a beautiful woman. No need for photoshop.

  • Dee

    She’s always my fave…

  • STFU Susan

    No Susan, you THINK you look younger..! And whatever self-satisfaction you get from anonymously proclaiming so on a [rather obscurish] website is negated by the fact that even your two kids don’t amount to her THREE, nor does your career and the hard work it took to achieve it amount to an iota of hers.

    So, I repeat, STFU you pole-slider.

  • Jason

    …Wow. 42, huh? Looking better than most of my friends, most at least a decade younger. She looks absolutely stunning- although I’ve always found “real” women much more attractive than the plastic-looking models we get today.