Jessica Chastain’s awful Marie Claire cover: Photoshop disaster or just a bad photo?

Oh. Dear. God. WTF did they do to poor Jessica Chastain? I like her so much, and I think she’s a very beautiful woman, and this Marie Claire cover is doing her no favors. Is it just a really awful photo (that was made into a cover?!) or is this a Photoshop disaster? I’m siding more on “Photoshop disaster”. It might be the Curse of the Pale Redheads too. I’ve noticed that again and again with pictorials of Christina Hendricks and Emma Stone (when she was a redhead): magazines are absolutely clueless as to how to style and light and photograph pale redheads. Emma almost always looks strung out. Christina almost always looks like a corpse. And now they’ve made poor Jessica Chastain look like a gnome who lives in a padlocked basement. She looks like Powder in a ginger wig.

Anyway, Jessica scored the cover of Marie Claire because she’s got Zero Dark Thirty coming out – that’s the “catching Osama bin Laden movie” directed by Kathryn Bigelow. It looks good, and when Jessica said yes to this film, she had to say no to several others, so we’ll see if her instincts were good. The film has been very, very secretive – Republicans whined about the possibility that this could be “pro-Obama propaganda,” so the studio had to push back the release until after the election. You can read part of MC’s story here, and here are some highlights:

On her focus while attending Julliard: “I never wanted to be a movie star. I wanted to be an actor. I don’t really drink, and I’ve never been to a rave. I used to cut school to read Shakespeare, not to make out in the park.”

On how success has not changed her lifestyle: “I used to have a lot of anxiety about how I was going to stay afloat, because as soon as I graduated, I never asked my parents for money. I always supported myself through acting and would make money last a long time. I understand the value of money, and I’m not an impulsive buyer. I bought a new laptop three years ago, and before I bought it, I spent a month thinking about buying it. So my lifestyle hasn’t changed, except my anxiety about paying the rent is gone.”

On meeting men: “I’m very shy when it comes to guys.” One of her friends said to her, ‘Now that you’re successful, you have to be more overt with men, you have to make it very clear that you’re interested, otherwise they won’t [approach you].’ Jessica says, “I like to be wooed, but I’ve had to be more outwardly available, I guess.”

She and Michelle Williams appeared in summer stock 8 years ago: “We became like sisters,” Chastain says of that period.

Family secrets and her age: Her age has been variously reported as anywhere between 30 and 35 (the truth is closer to the latter), and has skillfully kept under wraps the name of her hometown in Northern California, if only because her family — her mom is a chef, her dad a firefighter; she is the eldest of five still lives there and her youngest siblings attend the local high school. “The two of them get to go and have a normal high school experience without people going, ‘Oh, your sister is in this movie’ or ‘Can your sister hook me up with Brad Pitt?’” she explains.

[From Marie Claire]

The fact that she still won’t come out and say her real age annoys me to no end. I get that it’s her business and a lot of people outright lie about their ages, but it feels like we – as a society, as womanity at large – shouldn’t still be playing these coy games about a hard number (side-eye at Beyonce). So what if Jessica’s 34 or 35 years old? I guess we should be happy that she’s not making journalists run with “30” anymore.

Photos courtesy of Marie Claire.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

26 Responses to “Jessica Chastain’s awful Marie Claire cover: Photoshop disaster or just a bad photo?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. La Calabaza says:

    I loved her in “The Help”. As Kaizer said the age issue is quite annoying. Embrace your age, honey!

  2. StepAwayFromPhotoshop says:

    Ugh. I’m pretty sure her head was transplanted onto a different image — head and body look like they are two completely different images. It’s probably still her body but thinned out (even though she is by no means thick in real life, in any way, anywhere).

    Check it out:

    I can’t believe the amount of Photoshop fu*kery in publications. It amazes me that these people have jobs as retouchers.

  3. victoria says:

    Did they photoshop her eyebrows away? I love her, I think she’s a fantastic actress

  4. Lisa says:

    It’s like they erased her eyebrows. Weird. I don’t know if I really care whether she’s super honest about her age. What does it matter? It’s not like she’s claiming to be 25.

  5. Koko says:

    This chick is bland and boring to me, both in terms of looks and personality.

  6. Nanz says:

    Were they trying to make her look like a tame Julia Roberts?

  7. Samantha says:

    In Hollywood, a woman’s age is still a big deal. I can see why she doesn’t want to put a specific number out there and limit the roles she’s offered.

    Oh, and that is a very weird cover, from the dress to how big it makes her head look.

  8. Gine says:

    Wait, there are rumors about Beyonce lying about her age? Why? She still looks really young (when she’s not caked in makeup) and there are plenty of videos/photos/news stories of her publicly performing when she was in her teens.

  9. As long as she looks the age she’s playing, should we really be complaining about her? I totally get her aloofness regarding how old she is. And kudos to her for having kept it under wraps for as long as she did in the age of the internet. That being said, I don’t like how they make her eyebrows looked washed out. Makeup fail.

  10. G says:

    Where are her brows?

    Sidenote: She’s from my town.

  11. blonde on the dock says:

    She doesn’t need to be photoshopped…..I think she’s so beautiful. Great bone structure!

  12. lucy2 says:

    I like her, but I have to ask…are the tabloids and fans really that desperate for info on her that they’d bother people in her hometown? She’s a successful and talented actress, but not exactly a tabloid star.
    Between that and the age stuff, it seems like she’s creating drama where there doesn’t need to be any.
    I do understand the whole women’s age thing in Hollywood, but by making it an issue and refusing to disclose it, isn’t she kind of perpetuating the issue?

    • G says:

      Thank you! I like her but she’s full of herself thinking anybody out here cares about her that much to harrass her family. She could walk around downtown quite easily and would be hard pressed to find anybody that even knows who she is. She worked in a greasy spoon diner out here for years. We’ve had bigger stars then her from here (or visit) all the time and nobody bothers them for even an autograph. Tupac (late 80′s), Raphael Sadique, Tom Hanks, Eddie Murphey (ex wife Nicole just lost her ass on thier house out here) and countless professional atheletes…

      • Ryan says:

        To all you morons obsessed with her age, it’s none of your damn business, get a a life, she doesn’t have to reveal her age if she doesn’t want to. I have known her for years, she is not stuck on herself, she’s one of the kindest most down to earth people you’ll ever meet. It’s her right to keep where she’s from private for her family’s sake

  13. Noel says:

    She has to be more than 35. She looks early to mid 40s. She looks much older than Nicole Kidman or Julianne Moore.

    • Lisa says:

      No way. Wikipedia claims she went to HS in 1995. No mention of a graduation date, but then she went to a city college the following couple of years. So unless she was held back several times, which I doubt, and assuming she graduated at the age of 18 or so, she’d be between 34 and maybe 37.

      Obviously, it’s Wikipedia, but still. The oldest I’d believe for her would be about 38.

    • Suze says:

      Good grief. She doesn’t look anywhere near Nicole Kidman or Julianne Moore’s age! Juliane, gorgeous as she is, definitely has the lines and skin of a fifty year old (AND THAT’S NOT A BAD THING) and NIcole, well, pulled and tucked and injected as she is, still looks over forty.

      I’d put Chastain at mid thirties. Not that I particularly care – I just love her as an actor.

  14. Adrianne says:

    This woman is gorg and a class act!

  15. neelyo says:

    She’s very pretty but she doesn’t photograph well.

  16. HappyPossum says:

    I read a rumor that JC is really Ron Howard’s daughter and she fudges her birth year to coincidemore with her claimed dad’s timeline. Could be absolute bunk, but gossip is…

  17. Sweet Dee says:

    Newsflash: Some people have thin eyebrows and have to color them in, and the mag stylists didn’t.

    That’s what’s up here, google it if you don’t believe me, there are lots of pics with her where she looks like she has no brows just because she didn’t color them in that day. In others, she’s clearly filled in her brows. That’s also why Dakota Fanning looks strange lately, her hair got dark and her eyebrows got left behind.

    Every time I hear of someone lying about their age, my only thought is “aren’t we past this yet?” Like, it’s whatever I guess but how insecure is she? GTFOver yourself already, JC.

    Reading HappyPossum’s post, I hope that’s why she does it. Scandal!

  18. maneki neko says:

    Its a red head thing with the eyebrows because both my hubby and one of my daughters have red hair and blonde eyebrows. Sheez though I am sure they could have photoshopped them or used make up or something other than making her look like a giant forehead and what the holy hell is up with the side under pit area of the dress??

  19. kitty-bye says:

    I have noticed many wearing what appears to be foundation/coverstick in white slathered over their eyebrows, is this attractive?

  20. matty says:

    any truth to the rumors that she and tom hardy hooked up during lawless? shia made it out that they were sweethearts on set.