If “Gisele Bundchen” wasn’t in the headline, would you know this was Gisele? I’m really asking, because the August cover for Vogue Paris stopped me dead in my tracks. I’m not going to say that Gisele is unrecognizable on the cover – she looks vaguely Gisele-esque – but I will suggest that perhaps Gisele should have eased up on her rumored plastic surgery?
A few years ago, that was the big story: that in the midst of Tom Brady’s Deflategate scandal, Gisele run off to Paris to have some face and body work done by one of the best plastic surgeons in the world. Apparently, this is the same guy that half of all models and actresses go to when they want good-quality work, something to make them look younger but not unrecognizable. Since then, Gisele has been somewhat cautious about how she’s photographed. If you’re like me and you can go weeks or even months without looking at her photos, it can be somewhat startling to see how different she looks. At the Met Gala, I swear to God, I was surprised by how “refreshed” she looked. I really do think she’s had more work done.
Anyway, this issue of Vogue Paris is devoted to animal protection, and the “fur” she’s wearing on the cover is fake, which surprised me because it looks very, very real. Gisele posted this on Instagram: “So happy that @vogueparis dedicated this issue to animal protection, sending a strong message that wearing real fur is never an option!! All great designers now do beautiful #fakefur. Thank you @emmanuellealt and @inezandvinoodh for including me on this special project. #stopanimalcruelty #morelove.”
Cover courtesy of Vogue Paris, additional photos courtesy of WENN.
She’s orange.
Somebody’s had some work done.
She looks nice but not herself really. Yikes
She actually looks pretty in the photos and I’ve always thought she was the ugliest person. Good work!
Right! I never found her that attractive until now. I like this look and she no longer looks like a handsome man but a pretty woman.
She looks like a Giselle Bundchen / Cindy Crawford hybrid on the cover.
The cover shot is beautiful, but I’ve never thought she was naturally, breathtakingly beautiful. Some of my friends consider her stunning— I just don’t see it.
Minx: How can you tell when the cover is so heavily airbrushed? Just curious.
Looks to me like a modest bit of upper eyelid work has been done.
yes the brows are looking a little pulled and tight as well.
Maybe it’s the just the camera angle but to me it looks like her nose is smaller.
I agree about her nose also her face looks fuller and therefore more youthful I guess,or maybe it’s the fact that her face is wrapped in the fur/faux fur(I hope it really is fake)and it softens the contours and sharp angles of her features.Always thought she’s pretty in a severe very model way.She seems to me to be the kind that the industry obviously loves because she’s no classic beauty but has that bone structure that photographs well.Shes never been anyone I cared about though except like her hair color.
Her eyes are a different shape!!
Her eyes are starting to look like Robert Redfords.
I’m not really bothered bothered about Gisele, however, the authenticity of that fur is extremely worrisome
The issue was about animal protection. I’ve seen fake fur that looks 100% real. I don’t think she would use real fur, especially for this issue of the magazine
Fake fur is now done so well at the high end that you have to burn it and see what it smells like in order to determine if it’s animal protein or synthetic. They’ve really gotten that good. Next stop, diamonds! 🙂
Yup!! I was so happy to read that this issue was about animal protection – and agreed, next stop diamonds hopefully!!
Check out lab-created diamonds : ) same chemical composition and a diamond in every way, but grown in a lab! They have to be laser-inscribed that they are lab-grown as they could flood the natural diamond market.
I saw a story on the news a few years back where the “faux fur” was actual fur…it just wasn’t the fur it said it was. The did tests on clothing from Sean John, Forever 21, stuff at Nordstroms, and they ALL were real animal fur. It might say “faux mink” and it WAS fake mink….but it was actually raccoon or dog. So they were using “faux” in regards to the animal, not in regards to it being actual fur.
Hopefully that has changed! But it definitely made me scared to even wear faux fur.
I thought it was real and was pissed. But if it is truly fake, and she did this issue, I have to give her some kudos. Now, if she wears Uggs, which are made from Kangaroo skin, all bets are off.
But why the baby kangaroo? no need to make a statement if he’s gonna be treated like an exotic pet accessory.
exactly. it’s hard to take the message seriously when using a baby animal as a prop.
Vogue Paris does that sometimes – if you think a kangaroo is wild, they had a shoot in 2007-08 featuring Sasha Pivovarova and a white lion cub.
I hope she doesn’t wear Uggs, since they are made with kangaroo skin.
And if I could hate Trump any more, he has CALF skin on his private plane seats. UGH
Uggs are not made from Kangaroo skin and it’s a byproduct of the meat industry.
I think she looks gorgeous. Love her!
She looks gorgeous as always. Please do not doubt that the fur is fake. Of course it is. Doubting her is a real stretch if you’re looking for something negative to say about her.
I guess this is a new thing we need to get used to: people changing their appearance regularly.
I know this isn’t much but the eyes drastically change a face: it’s a whole new person to me.
Unless it’s really bad photoshop – and in that case why hire her and pay so much money to make her look like a completely different person?
All this beffudles me.
ITA with everything you wrote.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed.
I thought it was Liv Tyler!
“The body” has never impressed me with her facial features so can’t really say but yea she is full of hypocrisy and got work done. Im sorry not sorry but yes her body is amazingish but Ive seen some women who’s beauty is breathtaking and she’s not one of em
…#blah
First time I think she looks pretty.
I think part of what makes her look so different here is that she’s, well, a lot more covered up than she is in most of her work – no tight dress or bodycon anything.
Also, irritating as she may be, as a model I’d take her over the instabots any day. None of those nepotism brats will ever work a camera or a runway the way Gisele does, and I say this as someone who actually likes Gigi Hadid. A great model doesn’t have to be ‘pretty’, which is why the ‘ugly but striking’ models like Gisele have lasted so long.
ITA about the instabots
I could never understand how she became the highest paid model ever.
She’s white but From Brazil so she helps to create the illusion of “diversity”. Snort.
Truth.
Yep.
I think she looks the same in that photo as she always has/
Draping oneself in animals pelts is just unappealing to me, even if they are fake. It’s tough to even find a winter coat that doesn’t have one of those fake fur collars, which I think are gross.
Nip, tuck.
Is it only me or she s looking very tired, jet-lagged under her foundation and seems to have sunburn / melasma across her nose and cheeks ?
Otherwise, she had an upper lid lift, the hood has disappeared. That’s quite a change in her appearance.
Put aside all this, she pulls it off and looks stunning (but not like herself). And I am not a fan.
I think she looks good. Her eyes are a little off on the Vogue cover, otherwise, she’s fine.
My mother gifted me two faux fur items for Christmas. One a fur jacket, and the other a fur vest, both fake.
I was really taken back by how real they looked. I was somewhat upset when I first opened the boxes that they came in, b cause my entire family, especially my mom, know how much I despise seeing people wear fur. But I checked the labels while my mom assured me that the fur was synthetic, and it was.
I recognized her, no problem. She does look like she’s had a little work done and slightly different, but not shockingly so.
@Lucy2
I agree with you. And I’m tired of people (not singling out posters on this site) critiquing every woman’s looks down to the smallest detail. And yes, I know this site is called Celebitchy. It just wears on me.
Yeah I mean maybe her eyebrows are a tad higher, but even that could be her expression (which is very subtle but quite expressive). What struck me is how much she looks like she did in an old issue of Harper’s Bazaar I have lying around (google tells me it is Feb 2003). So, geez, if she has had work done, it only looks fantastic because she already has incredibly slow-aging genes. No hate here.
She looks like Gilly back in her Wildling days.
I don’t think you can look at magazine covers and claim surgery. With retouching, lighting, and makeup it’s easy to look different.
This is bull. Sorry, but unless you can claim that, any of that Fake/Faux fur was made from Bamboo derivatives (Very rare & expensive) and not plastic or plastic fibres and carcinogenic fabrics. This is 10x more damaging to animals, their habitats and the environment. How can Vogue Paris possibly sponsor and emulate a campaign promoting animal friendly alternatives without investigating how damaging faux fur can be? A coat that can take over 300 years to bio degrade, costs large amasses of land, water and is totally not recyclable. The epitome of destroying our habitat, the environment and animals that live in them.