Nicole Kidman Photoshopped Into A Mutant For New Jimmy Choo Campaign

Variety's 5th Annual Power Of Women Event Presented By Lifetime - Roaming Inside

The Internet got its first look at the Jimmy Choo pre-fall 2014 campaign this morning, featuring a pants-less Nicole Kidman. Allegedly. If I had not explicitly read that this was in fact Kidman (who has been the face of Jimmy Choo for three seasons now), I would never have in a million years been able to identify her. The photoshopping here is so flagrant that I’m basically throwing my hands up, looking around, and hoping someone will be like “yes, Julia, that’s fucking beyond.”

nicole kidman photoshopped jimmy choo

Photo: Jimmy Choo

Photographer Willy Vanderperre tried to capture a harder look for this campaign–Kidman said that “[t]t was fun to embrace a more rebellious spirit for Jimmy Choo; we listened to a lot of great rock music to get in the mood for the shoot.” Nothing alters a face beyond recognition quite like great rock music. That’s just science.

Nicole Kidman is a very beautiful woman, and so I’m not sure why the multitudes of people involved in the shoot decided to put a different woman’s face on top of hers. And to be clear–when massive campaigns or covers get digitally altered like this, it’s not a case of one overzealous design intern being too zoomed into the screen. Scores of people look at these images before they’re made public, and sign off on the look. Photoshopping at this level is rarely anything but intentional, and we’re all just not supposed to notice that this might as well be an entirely different human. I see a bit of Kate Upton in there and other features that seem familiar, like one of those composite monsters that everyone’s so attracted to.

I’m not going to bemoan Photoshopping in its entirety for the zillionth time, because as much as I dislike the digital manipulation that we see all the time and find it harmful, it’s the nature of advertising and fashion (to our detriment) and you don’t need to hear me go on and on about it again. But my question is this: why even partner with a famous actress? I quite literally would not have been able to identify Kidman from that photo without the little caption at the bottom, so what’s the point? If they wanted a generic looking composite mutant, they could have just saved some money and made one themselves.

Photo: Michael Buckner/Getty Images

Share This Post:
    • Kaitlin Reilly

      That’s absolutely unreal. Nicole Kidman is so beautiful — why did they Photoshop her to look like someone completely different? It looks like they doubled the length of her legs in Photoshop. She sort of looks like Rachel Zoe to me.

    • elle

      She looks like a Rachel Zoe/Sophia Coppola hybrid. Why do these companies who pay big money for celeb endorsement Photoshop them beyond recognition?

      • Julia Sonenshein

        yes!! absolutely–i couldn’t put my finger on it. spot on.

      • MerlePerle

        I thought she looked like Taylor Swifts stepford-aunt

    • Lindsey Conklin

      YIKES

    • CMJ

      That picture is horrid but god I want those boots.

    • http://batman-news.com J_Doe5686

      What happened to her legs?

    • Olivia Wilson

      They also made her look approx. 17 years old which is weird because she’s not 17 and is stunning in real life —gasp— without needing to look like a teenager.

      • Kaitlin Reilly

        I completely agree! She looks SO young. And not in a great-for-her-age kind of way, but in a time-machine kind of a way.

      • Olivia Wilson

        Right. In a get-out-of-that-Fountain-of-Youth-right-now-girlfriend kind of way.