An Englishwoman in New York. She wears black velvet on the cover of Harper’s Bazaar UK August 2009, Rachel Weisz must be the alien Summer cover of the season!
Even if she raises her voice against the American “blow dry and immaculate groomin’ thing” she seems to have developed quite a mimetic blow-dry quality while living in New York. Still, Rachel Weizs prefers the English girls style and Botox-free actors (and she’s doing Harper’s because she has a movie coming up, of course). I wonder if that emerald look has been photoshopped (because her skin surely received serious enhancement to end up looking like that vintage Gucci China)! (via 1, 2)
9 comments
Love the cover and love Rachel, she’s stunning beauty and a amazing actress.
I can’t help it. I have SUCH a girl-crush on Rachel.
It’s weird seeing this cover on summer newsstand but she looks totally sexy as the title says and she is beautiful, as always. If this cover is out around October or November would be great!
Rachel Weisz is lovely and a very talented actor. I like this cover and as you know August is just the start of the fashion push for autumn/winter so I see nothing unusual about this cover. It is actually seasonal for the fashion world.
Agrees! Loves Rachel too.
I really admire Rachel’s talents as an entertainer, however, I find it strange that she agrees with the obvious air brushing and photoshopping of her images in various publications and yet she will condem other acters for their dabbles in botox.
Rachel states in Harpers that a frown is a frown (assuming that an actor shouldn’t alter their image). While that’s true enough, isn’t a muffin top a muffin top? We all know that Rachel isn’t as svelt as she’s photoshopped to appear. Where is the line and why is it okay for Rachel to cross it when and where she deems fit?
Ellington, you have a couture point there. But I’m one of those old fashioned, classic, ordinary seasons spectators/participants and you already know I dislike overwriting the nature’s ways with fashion’s ways. But indeed, I’ll have to adjust my sunbathed eyes to receive fall’s velvet embrace ;)
Shannon, this is not uncommon for actors/celebs. They tend to disagree with altering/enhancing their photos but from editors and managers points of view, they’re just products after all. Would you buy a tomato with visible spots on or a squeaky spotless one? even if you know the spot-on one is 1000% natural and the spotless is genetically modified!
Where is the line? within us. Why is it okay for Rachel (or any other) to cross it? because it sells and we wouldn’t buy actors/celebs unless we could look up to them? Would you look up to someone (take inspiration from) if you were better than him/her (physically speaking)? It’s just money. If we buy the magazines/pay for the movie, theater ticket, the seller must attend to our special demands. If those demands required no airbrushing, measures would have been taken…
This is my favourite shoot of her EVER. She looks incredible. You know it’s funny – back in the 90s when I used to watch her film Stealing Beauty starring the gorgeous young Liv Tyler, I didn’t think much of Rachel’s looks or think she was particularly beautiful but now, it’s Liv Tyler who looks frumpy and Rachel who looks like a full-blown screen goddess. So strange! Could be just the phenomenon of some people looking their best when they were young and others looking better as they mature.
Apologies for this really, really superficial comment!!!!
I agree – she looks freakin AMAZING in this picture. Like a tigress or something
Leave a Comment