Nicole Kidman, the 46-year-old Australian actress who was once the highest-paid actress in Hollywood, appears in a new series of magazine advertisements for high-end fashion designer Jimmy Choo in which she looks stunning and alluring. That’s fantastic. There’s only one problem. She looks nothing like Nicole Kidman.
She also appears without pants or a bra, which would also be just fine if Nicole Kidman looked anything like herself in the ad campaign.
The pre-fall 2014 ad campaign is the fourth season that Nicole Kidman has been the face of Jimmy Choo. But is that really Nicole Kidman’s face? The radical Photoshopping, or whatever kind of extreme retouching has been performed on the mom of four, makes her look in the words of fashion site The Gloss, like “a mutant.”
“Nicole Kidman is a very beautiful woman, and so I’m not sure why the multitudes of people involved in the shoot decided to put a different woman’s face on top of hers,” wrote Gloss fashion critic Julia Sonenshein. “When massive campaigns or covers get digitally altered like this, it’s not a case of one overzealous design intern being too zoomed into the screen. Scores of people look at these images before they’re made public, and sign off on the look.”
On social media sites, the new Nicole Kidman look was described as “Photoshop murder” and Kidman as appearing to be “a plastic alien.”
“The world-famous Australian actress looks at least 20 years younger,” noted the Canadian site Canoe.ca. “The 40-something is hardly recognizable in these images taken by Willy Vanderperre.”
Adweek Magazine, which though Nicole Kidman looked 30 years younger in the ads, noted, “She could easily be mistaken for somebody who is not Nicole Kidman, what with her looking like a platinum blonde teen model rather the perfectly beautiful natural blonde 46-year-old she was last week.”
Whether Nicole Kidman looks 26 or 16 in the bizarre new shots is a matter varying opinion. But the consensus that she appears decades younger than her nothing-to-be-ashamed-of 46 years appears indisputable.
As for what Kidman herself says about the ads, she called them “rebellious” and “fun,” adding, “We listened to a lot of great rock music to get in the mood for the shoot.”
Nicole Kidman hit her Hollywood prime in the 1990s, starring in such acclaimed and generally successful films as Moulin Rouge, To Die For and the final film by legendary director Stanley Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut.
Those hits made her the top-earning actress in the industry by the mid 2000s, even though that period saw her featured in a series of commercially and creatively questionable projects such as The Stepford Wives remake, an update of the 1960s TV series Bewitched and the much-derided historical epic Australia.
But at that time, Nicole Kidman also established herself as pitch-woman for tony fashion products, once earning $12 million for a single commercial endorsing Chanel No. 5 perfume, all contributing a personal net worth now estimated at $130 million.