I read an article in the Style section of The New York Times the other day called, “You Won’t Look Like Sharon Stone at 59.” Now, this is not news to me. I am not even disappointed. Because I have had many, many years — indeed decades — to adjust to this truth. I will never look like Sharon Stone and there was never a time in my life when that would’ve been a possible “look” for me. For starters, she’s taller than I am (though at 5’7″, not nearly as much taller as I thought she was). And she’s got short blond hair (well, okay, I’ve got short blond hair too). And she’s white and a model and an actress known for her beauty.
Sharon Stone is gorgeous and has been since the first day I laid eyes on her (I think it was when I saw Basic Instinct). We all know this about her. And I do not begrudge her her beauty one bit.
But I had to roll my eyes when the lengthy article that goes into painstaking detail about her beauty and fitness regime, naming specific products and where she gets them and so on, ended with this:
Also, for me, it’s more about real inner beauty. It’s important to have a philosophy or way of life or faith that keeps you balanced. For me, that has been Buddhism. It’s something that brings you back to center, and is really the key to serenity and beauty — an internal sense of form and elegance.
Now maybe she has this. I mean, I like the neutrality of Buddhism too and though I wouldn’t say I’m Buddhist, I’m naturally drawn to some of its tenets. But the simple fact is, whatever she would like it to be about, it’s a rare confluence of many forms of privilege that allows her to eschew the outer for the inner. I mean, would it be as easy to say, “I’m really all about inner beauty,” if she didn’t already have the conventional good looks of a blond, thin, white Hollywood celebrity?
Just to be clear, the article is as follows: Three detailed paragraphs about skin care are followed by an additional SEVEN about make-up (granted there was a two paragraph foray in to false eyelashes that she devoted several hours to learning to do herself). Then we get a couple of lines about fragrance (Chanel No. 5), three paragraphs on hair (she cuts her own but goes to a salon for color), and a little synopsis about “other services” (regular massage and a steamer in her shower). Finally, we get a paragraph on diet (no processed food, no caffeine, very little soda or alcohol, no gluten because celiac, meat and dark chocolate, a bit of sugar in her tea … and other than that “I just eat like a person — whatever I’m hungry for.”) And then there is that paragraph about how what really matters is inner beauty.
So why the long account of the ins and outs of the outer routine? It’s just not convincing. And I like Sharon Stone (I remember the time she wore something from The Gap to the Oscars — no “who are you wearing?” for her that night! The Gap!).
But don’t go into all that detail about your beauty routine and then end by saying you’re all about inner beauty. You’re not. You’re gorgeous, have always been gorgeous, spend a bit of time and money maintaining your goregous-ness (which is fine), and wouldn’t have the life you have today if you didn’t look like that. I need more proof that Sharon Stone actually believes it’s all about inner beauty.
I got exhausted just reading her outer beauty ritual. Clearly it’s a thing that really matters to her! I was overwhelmed by the product list.
Bravo Tracy. Unfortunately we are constantly bombarded by this sort of celebrity ‘bunk’ in the media. Has anyone been convinced that they too can become an elite athlete like Tom Brady if they buy his book, products, and follow his regime? Thanks for all you do Tracy, you and Sam…
We don’t really know if she spent more time talking about cosmetics vs. spirituality with the interviewer. The author of the article decides what message is put out there. I’ve been interviewed a few times for magazines, and it’s shocking what the interviewer takes away from what you shared.
I don’t think what is written on the page is is exactly what the person being interviewed meant, at least I can’t be too sure of it. It’s the “Style” section of the Times and in addition to the more serious topics, they have to try to appeal to a wide audience. That photo of SS was taken 26 years ago, I would have preferred to see the one listed in the article. And given the fact that we as readers don’t really know what SS meant, I have to take that article with a grain of salt. Also, as someone who is beauty obsessed, wear makeup, never leave the house with flip flops but also practice forms of spirituality, I can’t see where someone can embody both.
All we can go on is what the interview says, and what is in fact on the page. Presumably, what SS said is a good reflection of what she meant; that’s the standard we use for people in general. So I’m not taking the article with a grain of salt; I’m taking the article at face value.