— Glamour (@glamourmag) July 6, 2016
Kunis, as per usual, looks absolutely stunning on Glamour‘s cover and in the shots inside the magazine. This isn’t anything surprising — Kunis could wear the latest in garbage bag couture and still look flawless — but it’s pretty dishonest for Glamour to tout this as “without makeup” when the interview actually points out that there is some makeup involved here.
For starters, Kunis does have makeup on for the front cover of the magazine, and the “bare-faced” shot appears on the back cover. But either way, the interviewer says to Kunis, “The photo of you that’s on the back cover of this magazine is very clean-faced,” to which Kunis responds, “We had, like, no makeup.” She’s then asked how it feels to be photographed this way.
“Like, no makeup” and “without makeup” are two different things. “Clean-faced” and “bare-faced” are also two different things. Of course, this wouldn’t be considered a big deal at all if Glamour‘s own editor-in-chief, Cindi Leive, didn’t write up an additional story titled “Mila Kunis Goes Makeup-Free on Our August Cover” praising Kunis and fellow “brave” bare-faced people who take selfies and go forth into the world without a drop of concealer or a spot of lip gloss.
More: 14 stars who got caught Photoshopping their Instagram pics
Leive writes, “The lines around your eye, your beauty marks — these are not flaws; this is your face! This isn’t just a semantic point, either: Seeing your spots, dots and wobbly bits as flaws implies that there is, out there, some perfect ideal you’re not measuring up to, and that the best you can do in this world is to accept that sad truth and move on. I’m not down with that! You’re you, I’m me and neither one of us is flawed.
“And in the wise words of our cover girl, Mila: ‘Wear makeup, don’t wear makeup,’ she shrugs. ‘Do what makes you feel good.'”
That’s nice and all, but we’re not seeing Kunis’ “spots, dots and wobbly bits” in this cover. Though it is definitely refreshing to see the backlash against Kardashian-level contouring and feeling like women need to wear a full face of makeup to run errands, this simply isn’t painting an honest picture.
Kunis is then asked how she feels about “image manipulation,” and she responds, “I hate it. There was a company that I did a photo shoot for once that manipulated the photo so much, I was like, ‘That’s not even me.’ Like, what’s the point? You wanted my name, and then you wanted the version of me that I’m not. I absolutely hate it. Now, do I sometimes want them to depuff my eyes? Help me out with a little bit of lighting. But do I want them to stretch my legs, thin out my waist, curve my hips, elongate my neck, blah, blah, blah? No.”
That is refreshing and wonderful for women to hear, but here’s the other thing: There’s at least some level of “image manipulation” on this cover as well. Kunis definitely has pierced ears; she’s shown not only wearing earrings on Glamour‘s other cover, but she’s a spokesperson for Gemfields jewelry, and she’s worn ruby diamond earrings for their ads. Yet, on this cover, she mysteriously has no holes in her ears to speak of.
Still, despite the dishonest portrayal of Kunis as “makeup-free,” she should definitely be applauded for her attitude toward Photoshopping and wearing makeup. If this helps set into motion a trend toward women feeling confident without makeup on, then I’m all for it. She’s a complete stunner either way: makeup, no makeup or “like, no makeup.”