Thursday, October 18, 2012

Mary-Louise Parker, What Have You Done To Your Face?

This is just sad. We all know that show biz isn't kind to us women as we age. There's little acceptance and respect, and the general consensus is that  we have a sell-by date. It's also no secret that actresses who want to maintain their career and earning potential must have assorted plastic surgeons and dermatologists on speed dial. I get it, it's their livelihood.

I'm pro-whatever it takes to make one feel good about herself and at some point I'm pretty sure I'll do something about that frown line between my eyebrows. I like being able to move my face, but I also like not looking evil and scary. However, looking at recent photos of Mary-Louise Parker make me reconsider. Because I'd rather look permanently cranky but not mummified, embalmed or whatever it is that someone did to poor Mary-Louise. I'm sorry, but it's not pretty, not youthful and most of all: unhappy. I'm looking at photos of Mary-Louise Parker from the last year, prior to last week's American Ballet gala, and she looks like a normal animated human. Whatever she did just before the event was a bad choice.

What say you?

All photos via Zimbio.


  1. Oh dear. She looks chopped up and hastily sewn back together. She had a cute one-sided smirk that now just looks asymmetrical. I hate the plastic surgery look!

  2. Oh,dear. She had such a sweet, expressive face; in the recent photo she doesn't even look like herself.

  3. So sad. She's such a beautiful woman. Regardless of Hollywood's attitude toward ageing, this just shouldn't happen.

  4. I've always thought MLP was very pretty but it's not just surgery that's odd, her overall skintone is off, I wonder if the makeup artist who did her face used a finishing powder that was pinkish in undertone?

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. I can't say it's as grotesque as Kenny Rogers, or as sad as Jennifer Grey, but something went way wrong there. I loved her on "Weeds," and she doesn't look like Nancy Botwin anymore, but the south side of a horse walking northbound.

    I am so hoping--could it in the tiniest possible way be bad Botoxing?


  7. I'm not so sure that she had surgery and I'm not seeing why so many people have jumped to that conclusion. It looks like she has had Botox and filler. A bad filler job would exaggerate rather than correct her lop-sided smile and too much Botox in her crows feet would prevent her smile from reaching her eyes. As we all know, that's what makes a smile look false. She might also have had Botox in her lip area. That's supposed to prevent vertical lines, but if incorrectly done, it can cause the mouth to look asymmetrical.

  8. Wow, that is the face of filler abuse!

  9. It looks like surgery--hair is cascading over temples and preauricular areas to cover scars. Note the linear upward pull on her right eye, right upper eyelid, and right lower eyelid, the outer corner goes up unnaturally. Same on the left side but less marked. She doesn't have crows' feet anymore. There's also excessive Botox or Dysport in her forehead, giving her eyes that creeped out, "help me" look. The cheekbones were repositioned. This is surgery folks, and done on iconic gorgeous face, it's gone bad. Humans cannot improve what nature hath wrought. (I'm a dermatologist).
    Why the surprise that she did this? Everyone in Hollywood is a kook, and she's no exception. Please America stop looking at them as your heroes. They're drug addled, insane narcissists.

    1. Hi Hoodyguru,

      You are very harsh in your unsubstantiated judgement and so I feel compelled to respond. If you look at the current picture and the ones from last year, you'll see that she wears her hair basically the same in all of them. She usually does have a bit of hair pulled around the temples, so unless you performed the surgery, you have no way of knowing whether or not she is hiding scars. Many women with high foreheads like to wear bangs or pull a bit of hair down around the hairline as a way of softening their look. It doesn't mean they've had surgery. As for her "unnaturally" upward tilted eye, that entire side of her face tilts upward which is what gives her mouth and eyes a wonky asymmetrical look. It's nothing new. She has always looked that way. Also, note that she does not have a pulled or raised eyebrow which is one of the hallmarks of an eye lift. Her brows are exactly where they've always been. You also state her cheekbones were "repositioned" but, once again, there is nothing to support your statement. Look at all the pictures. They're right where they've always been. As for your contention that "Humans cannot improve what nature hath wrought.", poppycock! We do it all the time. Have you never removed an unsightly mole, or a cancerous lesion, or eradicated an abundance of broken capillaries, or helped a patient control acne or rosacea or some other unsightly ailment? Have you never been called upon to do something that ultimately improves your patient's look even though "nature hath wrought" otherwise? Where it goes wrong is when both doctor and patient strive to achieve unrealistic results.

      Bottom line: She probably has had some filler and Botox which was poorly done. She doesn't look good and her pale makeup contributes to a lifeless look, but she certainly hasn't had all the major reconstructive surgery that you accuse her of having.

    2. Eileen, please don't be so literal, it's boring. I referred to the fact that aesthetic facial plastic surgery--performed on a dynamic beautiful woman who has nothing deformed on the face, merely the normal process of aging--is always going to look artificial. I certainly don't extrapolate that to skin cancer, treating rosacea, or any warranted medical treatment! Nuance, my friend! Nor for cleft palate repairs, or liver transplants--I hope you get the picture. Stretch your eyes and look carefully. Not at the eyebrows, the eyelids. It is possible that she had extensive Botox but I wouldn't expect you to see what I see. IMO she had a scalpel on her face. MANY of the actresses who swear up and down that they only have Botox--don't be gullible. They've had surgery at shockingly early ages.

      I also have memory of MLP declaring onstage at an awards show, something crass and along the lines of, "I like my boobs now because of breastfeeding". WHile this is a great sentiment to express, it isn't one to say when you're honored with an award, on stage. Hence my comment that she's a kook. There is no appropriateness or grace on her part.

      I lived California for many years and the Hollywood mindset on the face and the camera is one of the most poisonous attitudes on the planet. I wish our actresses aged gracefully and with spice, like the French actresses do, for example.

  10. I'm sorry, Hoodyguru, but your gratuitous insults and supercilious attitude still do not substantiate the claims you have made. Even your claim that she no longer has crows feet is in error as an examination of the picture clearly shows. Besides, as you should well know, Botox does an excellent job of relaxing the tension at the corners of the eyes so that crows feet appear diminished. As for your rationalization to me that it was a breast feeding comment that caused you to label her a kook, that might be but you never alluded to it in your original comment. And, even if you had, it wouldn't justify the grandiose statement that, "Everyone in Hollywood is a kook and she's no exception." and that they are ". . .drug addled, insane narcissists".

    Supposedly, your expertise stems from the fact that you lived in California for many years so you consider yourself an expert on the Hollywood mindset. I'm 68, a woman, and a So Cal native whose grandparent worked in the Industry so I probably am more cognizant of the impact Hollywood has had on a woman's self-confidence than you are. I agree whole-heartedly that women should be able to embrace aging as just another phase in life and that the secret to looking good is feeling good about one's self, both physically and emotionally. I also believe that a person in your position does nothing to further this goal by spewing vitriol.

    We might have to agree to disagree, Hoodyguru. Although we fundamentally agree that some work was done--and very poorly at that--we disagree on the extent. It's obvious you don't like being challenged and I'm not willing to accept unsubstantiated accusations, so it looks like we've reached an impasse. I can see no need for further discussion.

Related Posts Widget