• Mon, Feb 4 2013

Which Uncomfortably Photoshopped Actress Is On The Cover Of Harper’s Bazaar UK?

Rachel Weisz2013_03MAR_Cover2Do you recognize the actress on the above cover for Harper’s Bazaar UK next month? Because upon seeing this on Huffington Post this morning, I absolutely did not. Even after reading her name, I still was unable to believe it was her.

Ready to be (probably) surprised?

Are you sure?

Hint: She looks great next to guys named Brandon Frasier.

[Insert pun about being "all wrapped up."]

It’s Rachel Weisz.

Seriously, I can’t be the only person who would absolutely not have recognized her on this cover. Weisz looks borderline creepy with her eerily smooth skin and Photoshopped face shape. Also, is it just me or does her hand sort of look like it’s there simply to steady the head onto her body because they’re not quite connected properly? For reference, this is what Weisz typically looks like:

Rachel-Weisz

Don’t get me wrong: she basically looks Photoshopped in real life already. The woman’s hair is gorgeous, lips are beautifully defined, eyes are enormous and skin is flawless, but that’s what makes me even sadder about Harper’s Bazaar‘s photo: they took an exceptionally pretty woman and turned her a bit alien-like via editing (not that anybody else should be altered to hell, either, but it is worth noting that the standards set for women are insanely high already and, upon being “met”, are increased exponentially when editing is introduced). Plus, they posed her in an uncomfortably rigid manner (though I am admittedly obsessed with that Gucci dress and how it fits her). Overall, it just doesn’t look like Rachel Weisz to me.

If you’ll recall, this is not even their first Photoshop offense of 2013. For January’s cover of Harper’s Bazaar Australia, actress Kate Bosworth looked like just about everybody except herself due to serious editing. Is there some hall of fame for publications who simply can’t hold back on shopping faces? And in all seriousness, why bother getting a famous woman’s face for your front page if you don’t even want her to be recognizably herself? Why not just interview her, smack a shot of somebody who looks the general part and call her by the actress’ name? I know it seems as though I’m being a bit dramatic, but photo editing really is quite out of hand (and yet so normalized to us all at this point). For all we know, that Gucci dress is actually a neon jersey knit from Forever 21 and that’s actually Emily Deschanel but Harper’s Bazaar just kinda forgot.

Photos: Harper’s Bazaar UK & WENN.com.

What We're Reading:
Share This Post:
  • Amy

    Yeah, she’s photoshopped and it’s silly because she’s gorgeous normally, but she’s not unrecognizable. It’s very clearly her and I didn’t have to wonder or guess. Maybe tone down the hyperbole a bit.

  • Joe & Wendy Mitchell

    Agree, I could not come up with the name but I recognized who it was right away.

  • JonWatersfan

    I did not recognize her. When you mess with face shape, it alters out ability to recognize faces. And there’s an oddity with her hefty left forearm…