you guys, prepare yourselves...

today we're going to talk about bad plastic surgery. this is is going to be scary, because we're going to be looking at some horrific plastic surgery. it's going to be so scary that this is going to be at least a special two part series, because i don't think even i can stomach to do this in one sitting. if you've eaten recently, you might be in danger of having a free lunch (shout out to sharon! and sharon's sister! best phrase ever). yep, you might crap your pants. it's that scary.

i'm not talking about kiddy work like boob jobs and nose jobs. leave that for the dumbos hanging out with hugh hefner. i'm talkin' bout crazy stuff: mature ladies who took it too far. we're talking: crazy. lady. faces. this is going to be a mixed bag because it's a little funny, just a little, but it's mostly really sad... like, reaaaaally sad. reaaaally. ok, let's begin.

this whole posting is inspired by one woman, in truth. you may call her my mutant muse, if you will. i had noticed her from time to time over the years. she's an unusual woman by hollywood's standards: tall, strong-jawed, a little masculine, but definitely a woman in touch with her lady business. it took me awhile to find her in a movie that interested me, but when i finally saw her in "the contender," i was in awe. (if you haven't seen it, i implore you. it's brilliant! much, much better than the tv show it spawned: "commander in chief." speaking of crazy faces... poor geena davis. i digress!)

in "the contender," joan allen was radiant, lovely, charming, disarming, dare i say, brilliant? as a senator nominated to ascend to the vice-presidency, she was incredibly authoritative. cool, calm, but tough and ballsy. it was an excellent movie (ok, it was a better-than-most movie) centered upon her excellent performance, which is all too rare for women of a certain age. she got a well-deserved oscar nomination for the role (she lost to julia roberts. that was a tough year: laura linney in "you can count on me," ellen burstyn for "requiem for a dream."). joan was in her prime and she looked great.


look at that sexy biatch! perhaps she's a little over-made up here (that lip liner, those spider lashes!), but overall, she looks like a woman confident in her skin! embracing her age! loving that menopause! she followed up the contender with a few nice roles here and there and, if you can imagine it, (no need to imagine, my friends, photographic evidence is a'comin') she looked even better a few years later in "the upside of anger."

dayummm, woman! look at that hot mama! maybe standing next to kevin costner makes you look hotter. maybe it's that low cut dress. maybe it's that sassy little flippy haircut she's got goin' on, but something is working here. but, we're still looking au naturel. but, you know, roles weren't necessarily flow joan's way and, methinks the lady got a little desperate. i mean, the same woman who won a tony for "burn this" and was nominated for oscars for "nixon" (that movie was insane. and long.) and "the crucible" agreed to co-star in a little film called "death race." 'nuff said. ya dig? perhaps she thought she needed to freshen things up a bit. give herself a little edge over some of the other baby boomers.

so, before her big return to broadway (in a stinker of a play called "impressionism" - don't even bother to google it. you're wasting your time, chasing that cultural reference) she decided to have a little work done. thankfully for us the new york times decided to do a big profile on that famous punam. and, well, this is what the photographer found when he showed up.

ahhh!!! it's horrifying!! whatever you do, do not look directly at the image. for the love of god, use your peripheral vision! i mean, it's shocking. i'm pretty sure the first time i saw this photo in the times i gasped out loud. i can't even discuss what we're seeing yet.

let's talk about the circumstances: firstly, if her publicist was present at this photo shoot and knew that this shot was occurring, he/she should be fired. secondly, said publicist should have told the photographer beforehand: "i swear to god, if you shoot a picture of my client's crazy chipmunk cheeks up close, i will castrate you." (or, steal your lady parts if the photographer in question is a woman.) why not take a cue from the title of her play at the time and insist that they publish an impressionistic portrait of the lady? eh?

but, no... that new york times photographer knew he had struck gold with this train wreck. he saw those porked cheeks and that mound of barbie hair and must have thought: this is too easy. can you imagine being that photographer? i mean, i wonder if someone prepped him for what he was walking into. a little aside, like, "by the way, don't make a big deal about it, but joan had some crazy plastic surgery. she looks like a muppet now, but it's totally hot. totally normal. she's going to look great. just shoot her from behind. can you imagine trying to keep a straight face in the presence of this? if not crack up, i'm pretty sure i'd at least get caught staring at that blob of silly putty that used to be her face! perhaps what impresses me most though is that they not only convinced her it was a good idea to do a closeup, but that they should do it with her playing the role of an asylum candidate. how in the world did they convince her to do this manic, over-the-shoulder, death stare? and why so much barbie hair in the frame!

ugghhh! joan, i'm so sad! why?! whyyyy!?! it's all so bad now. all that intelligence, all that dignity, all that loveliness gone! and for what? so that you can look like kelsey grammer's dumbo wife? (all due respect, camille, you've stuck with frasier through thick and thin. big ups.) my face hurts just looking at your face. it just looks like your poor skin could pop at any moment! take those chicken cutlets out of your cheeks so that you can frown again.

to be continued...