Does red improve her face?
Lindsay Lohan is back to red hair. It’s better, for sure, for her face. It almost mutes the sh-t that she did to it while the blonde was almost like a magnifying glass, highlighting the extremes: the lips, the cheeks.
But is it enough?
Is it enough to not be distracting?
Is it enough to put her in a position of consideration for roles that are not “drug-addicted sister” or “hooker with a secret”?
Is it enough to put her in the same conversation as Anne Hathaway or Jennifer Lawrence?
To me? No.
Because under makeup and lights, the effect is the same as the blonde hair.
This is what I’ve come to realise lately. I’ve seen Madonna in person. And Nicole Kidman. And other people who’ve abused the needle. Away from the camera, it’s not that jarring. I mean, it’s there, and it’s obvious, but it’s not ... as f-cked up as it seems when you’re watching it on TV.
So what’s the difference?
I don’t think makeup and lighting have caught up with plastic surgery. I don’t think they’re talking to each other. It’s one thing to have all that sh-t done to your features under the influence of only the naked human eye. It’s another to put those results under the microscope of a studio and then flattened in two dimension. In two dimension it’s so unforgiving. And until technology catches up with the medical advances in this area, this won’t change.