When I tried, a few weeks back, to sing the Britney Spears song “Womanizer” to my friend–who obviously has much better musical taste than I, as she’d never heard it–it was pure comedy.  “So, the lyrics go: ‘Womanizer, womanizer, you’re a womanizer, womanizer, womanizer, womanizer, oh!’  It’s catchy!”

Nobody ever said it was Shakespeare.

Brit-Brit’s album, Circus, drops November 24th, and she looks pretty and soft on the cover–especially thanks to the obvious airbrushing and flattering lighting.  Tawny skin, pink lips, flowing locks, smokey eyes?  This is a Britney I can get on board with!  (A little self-tanner and a lot of shimmer powder and mascara go a very, very long way.)

The below promotional still, however, is laughable in its artifice.  Are we meant to think this is a real photo?  If you’re going to airbrush–we know, we know, you’ve gotta do it–please use at least a little restraint, so the subject in question looks human, and not like a cartoon rendering of a wax doll. 

Kate Winslet is one of my all-time girl crushes, and I think you can see why here in the December issue of Vanity Fair.  The Great Kate channels Catherine Deneuve in a stunning photoshoot that is coming under lots of fire by critics claiming Kate has been airbrushed to high heaven.  (Kate, by the way, denies the claims, having publicly chastised GQ in the past for digitally–and unnecessarily–slimming her.)

Guess what?  Every single magazine cover you will ever see is airbrushed.  Period.  End of story.  All of them.  Moles are wiped away, skintone is corrected, undereye circles vanish, and, most disgustingly, limbs are often slimmed, because God forbid an actress should look like she weighs more than 105 pounds.  It’s gross, but it’s nothing new.  So why are the media outlets suddenly gasping in Shock! and Confusion! over this magazine cover?  Could it be because, historically, Kate Winslet has been seen as a “chubby” actress, and for her to look gorgeous (and, yes, slender, though not unrealistically so) in a magazine means it must be 100% illusion?  Come on!  The whole industry is an illusion: the hair, the makeup, the body sheen, the military precision of the poses, the expensive clothes, the flattering lighting.  The only image below that rubs me the wrong way is that of Kate in a black dress on the floor; her arms, legs and hips do, indeed, look altered, but how am I to know?  Maybe Kate’s been spending time at the gym.  Maybe it’s all lighting, shadows and Spanx.  Or, maybe, Kate Winslet’s body is none of my damn business, and I can stick to admiring her because she’s talented as they come, and absolutely stunning…at any size.

Jeez, I’m away from my computer for 36 hours and I miss absolutely everything.  Didja know Christie Brinkley settled her divorce?  Or that Matthew McConaughey had a baby?  And Nicole Kidman popped one out, too?  Plus, Drew Barrymore and her adorable (not to mention oh-so-polite and friendly!) Justin Long split?  And Madonna has eaten A-Rod?  Oh.  You heard?  Damn, I’m behind.

I especially was behind on this, Elle’s August cover featuring Mariah Carey’s “new” body, some insane photoshopping, and—about three inches to the right of where it should actually be—Mariah Carey’s head.  Good times.

Image from Jezebel.com

Whitney Thompson was crowned America’s Next Top Model last night, becoming its first “plus-sized” (please, eyeroll!) model winner.  Did you watch?  What do you think of Whit beating Anya?  And is there any truth to the controversy that Whitney was handpicked to win by the producers?  I think Whitney’s stunning and I actually liked her, despite the demented beauty queen vibe, but I am not feeling the Seventeen cover below at ALL.  Is it just me, or does she look way over-airbrushed?  I find it hard to believe this was genuinely the best image of her.

Photo from Usmagazine.com

Dove is releasing a statement tomorrow on the recent airbrushing controversy behind their “Real Beauty” campaign ads.  (You can find the backstory here and here, but in a nutshell, Pascal Dangin, one of the photographers employed by Annie Leibovitz, who shot the ads, is claiming that they were retouched.)  As luck would have it, I’ve been invited to sit at Dove’s table tomorrow when the Dove Self-Esteem Fund is being honored by the Step Up Women’s Network at their annual Inspiration Awards luncheon. Their publicist just released the statement to me in advance, which I’ll reprint in full:

Statement from Dove about The New Yorker Article

9 May 2008, 4:45pm

Dove’s mission is to make more women feel beautiful every day by widening the definition of beauty and inspiring them to take great care of themselves. Dove strives to portray women by accurately depicting their shape, size, skin color and age.

The “real women” ad referenced in recent media coverage was created and produced entirely by Ogilvy, the Dove brand’s advertising agency, from start to finish and the women’s bodies were not digitally altered.

Pascal Dangin worked with photographer Annie Leibovitz (Ogilvy has never employed Mr. Dangin on the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty), who did the photography for the launch of the Dove ProAge campaign, a new campaign within the Campaign for Real Beauty. There was an understanding between Dove and Ms. Leibovitz that the photos would not be retouched - the only actions taken were the removal of dust from the film and minor color correction.

“Let’s be perfectly clear - Pascal does all kinds of work - but he is primarily a printer - and only does retouching when asked to. The idea for Dove was very clear at the beginning. There was to be NO retouching and there was not,” confirmed Annie Leibovitz, commenting on the ProAgecampaign.

Mr. Dangin responded, “The recent article published by The New Yorker incorrectly implies that I retouched the images in connection with the Dove “real women” ad. I only worked on the Dove ProAge campaign taken by Annie Leibovitz and was directed only to remove dust and do color correction - both the integrity of the photographs and the women’s natural beauty were maintained.”

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I was at the press event in Carefree, Arizona years ago when the Campaign For Real Beauty was launched.  I don’t know what actually went on behind the scenes, and I think it’s a bit naive to assume some itchy-fingered photoshopper didn’t indulge himself, even a tiny bit.  Does that dilute the love-your-body, we-are-all-beautiful-no-matter-what-sized-package-we-come-in message of the campaign, however?  I don’t think so—but maybe I’m biased.  What do you think? 

Kate Hudson was in London last night for the UK premiere of Fool’s Gold, looking cute and fresh and glamorous (despite the unfortunate green dress-turquoise carpet mashup). While the gorgeous John Galliano gown is nonetheless a little J-Lo-circa-Bennifer, I admire any kind of fashion risk, and there’s no denying how pretty Kate looks.  (I’m telling you, the self-tanner + smoky eye combination never goes wrong!)  However, what’s particularly interesting to me is the side-by-side comparison the Daily Mail accompanies with the blue carpet photos of “publicity Kate” versus “real Kate” in the same bikini.  Oh-ho!  What’s that?  Insta-cleavage?  Mais oui.  Photoshopping strikes again–heaven forbid we allow a gorgeous actress to appear in pictures as God made her.  I mean, who wants to see that?

Over the years—and especially these past few months in the Land of La—I’ve learned that a celebrity’s private and public images don’t always match up.  (In fact, they rarely do.)  That TV star everybody simply loves?  Yeah, she’s a total nightmare diva.  The faithful movie star boyfriend?  Er, he sleeps with anything that walks (including a friend of mine).  Mr. Bubbly himself, the internet-created star-du-jour?  Satan on earth.  Conversely, they’re not actors for nothing…but there are often those with truly horrendous reps that are exceedingly funny, nice and courteous.  The same bizarro-inversion can hold true for appearances; you’ll see a celebrity in person and think, “Eh, nothing special.”  Suddenly, there they are on Access Hollywood at last night’s movie premiere, looking prettier and glossier than Anybody You Have Ever Seen In Your Entire Life.  While walking down Sunset Boulevard Tuesday afternoon (you all know I don’t have a car, right?  That’s correct!  LA-dwelling, and no vehicle.  I belong in a museum), an SUV pulled up alongside me at the light with the passenger window rolled down, and I had the chance to surreptitiously check out Mischa Barton for about fifteen seconds.  She was gorgeous.  Flawless.  Next-to-no makeup, natural hair, casual outfit…but truly stunning, not to mention healthy-looking and calm.  So today, while clicking through photos on People.com, I was horrified to find this picture of Mischa, below—from the same afternoon!—which makes her look bloated, puffy-eyed and unremarkable.  (Although happy, still.)  It goes back to what I’ve said all along; the airbrushed photos, the shellacked makeup, the stylized face…it’s not reality.  And when a beautiful young thing looks kind of icky in a photo…well, maybe it’s the photo, not the girl.

People.com: DS-ISM/Flynet