The internet is currently having a nervous breakdown over two extremely hot women in their late 50s and early 60s: Practical Magic 2 stars Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock. And much of the commentary isn’t actually about the movie. It’s about their faces.
Mainstream press. Instagram comments. Blogger world. Is it even called the blogger world anymore? Whatever we’re calling it, there are basically two opposing narratives happening right now: Holy shit, Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman look incredible. And, at the exact same time: Holy shit, Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman look too incredible and it’s destroying the movie.
It’s the latter argument that is making my head explode.
The Daily Beast argues that Bullock’s appearance interferes with her performance. The article is boldly titled, “How Sandra Bullock’s Face Makes Her New Hit Movie Unwatchable.”
The Guardian asks readers a hypothetical, and in my opinion incredibly silly, question of whether Hollywood would have made the sequel if Bullock and Kidman had visibly aged like “mere mortals.” Obviously not. Let’s discuss that later.
The Australian argues that their faces have been scrubbed of “lived experience,” making them so distracting that it becomes difficult to focus on the film.
It appears we have reached an extraordinary new stage in the discourse around women and aging: they look too good for their age. So good that viewers can no longer concentrate on the plot.
Allure published a great piece pushing back on the controversy, asking, “At what age does wanting to look good stop being self-care and become a crime against feminism?”
I would genuinely love to know the answer to this question.
One critic writes that Bullock, 62, appears to have “botoxed, lifted, or otherwise plasticized her gorgeous face into a mask of her former self,” comparing her to a Madame Tussauds wax figure.
I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Because I think she looks amazing. If I look that good at 62, call me a wax figure all day long. I’ll be over here not moving my forehead and taking it as a compliment.
Meanwhile, the movie itself has had a more lukewarm reception. Variety called it “not a total disaster for Warner Bros.” while noting that it “wasn’t powerful enough to lure audiences to theaters.” Presumably the core audience includes a lot of older women who were around for the original cult hit.
But while the movie may not be a blockbuster, the Practical Magic 2 press tour is off the charts. Clips are bombarding my Instagram feed, and every interview I watch, I come away thinking the same thing: I want to be friends with these two women.
They’re funny. They’re smart. They’re hot. They seem genuinely cool and like actual girls’ girls, if you know what I mean. They are 59 and 62 and still leading giant Hollywood movies and TV shows. Nicole is freaking awesome in Lioness.
Teaming up two powerhouse women obviously doesn’t guarantee a blockbuster. But what fascinates me is how much of the conversation around this particular movie has focused not on whether the movie itself is actually good, but on their faces. These two leading ladies have obviously used cosmetic intervention and it makes people upset.
I have so many thoughts about this whole controversy. Let me organize them for you.
60-Year-Olds Can Play 40-Year-Olds Now
I would like to personally thank Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock for informing me that in my 60s I can still be sexy, desirable, and hot AF. The hot-girl era can extend well into your 60s. GREAT NEWS.
Demi Moore has also been doing a fantastic job of communicating this message, although she and I have some disagreements about how exactly she got there. Also, I am not a fan of how far she has taken the peptide induced weight loss lately.
As far as I can tell, neither Nicole nor Sandra has confirmed or denied any cosmetic work. But it’s clearly there. And I think whatever they're doing, it's working. Nicole Kidman is 59. Sandra Bullock is 62. And both are still being cast as women decades younger than themselves. And so are other women in Hollywood.
We have women in their 60s playing women in their 40s and carrying major films and television shows. Nicole’s character, Kaitlyn Meade, in Lioness is likely supposed to be 50? Yet Nicole is 59 in real life. And somehow the conversation isn’t “Wow, that’s incredible.”
Michelle Pfeiffer is 68 years old in real life, yet plays a woman in her late 40s in Margo’s Got Money Troubles. She also has an extraordinarily smooth forehead. Yet somehow I managed to follow the plot just fine. Her lineless face did not ruin the experience for me.
The major criticism floating around is that whatever cosmetic intervention Nicole and Sandra may or may not be using has become so obvious, and their faces have become so limited in movement, that it interferes with their ability to act.
Okay. I get it. I am willing to entertain this discussion point. Expression matters. And yes, if you Botox the living shit out of your face, I can understand how that might affect a performance.
But I also think we are getting a little ridiculous. Movies require a suspension of disbelief. That is the entire concept.
We accept that Tom Cruise can scale the Burj Khalifa with suction-cup gloves, hang off the side of an airplane during takeoff, and jump a motorcycle off a cliff. We accept that women wake up with perfect hair and makeup on. We accept that people live in enormous Manhattan apartments that have jobs that pay $74,000 a year.
We accept witches.
But Sandra Bullock looking unusually good at 62?
Sorry. Too unrealistic. Completely took me out of the movie. Her forehead didn’t move enough. It was just too distracting.
Really? This was a comedy about two women who make spells against men. If a woman in Hollywood chooses to age completely naturally, great. Let her play the brilliant, complicated, age-appropriate character roles. But I’m not sure why we’re demanding documentary-level realism from two glamorous witches in Practical Magic.
Coming back to Danielle Pergament’s question in the recent Allure article: “At what age does wanting to look good stop being self-care and become a crime against feminism?”
Is it the second you inject something or use a scalpel? What would Kate Winslet and the Anti Surgery Cosmetic League rule on this question? And I wonder, is there leniency towards younger women only using baby botox? Because Jennifer Lawrence recently admitted to “baby Botox,” and apparently that’s okay.
I’m genuinely having trouble keeping track of the rules. It’s really confusing isn’t it?
With all the cosmetic tools available now, especially to famous actresses, I’m not sure there’s an answer anymore to what a 60 year old woman should look like. And I think that’s great.
If her forehead is suspiciously lineless or an eyebrow is operating at 70 percent capacity, who cares? We’re watching a movie about witches and spells. And if you want to talk real reality, if these characters existed in real life, they’d probably have Botox too.
Let’s stop pretending looking younger doesn’t help their careers
Youth is perceived as sexier. Especially for women. Why does Kaia Gerber look better walking down a runway than her mother did at the Gucci show at age 60? Because she’s younger. Youth comes with tighter skin, more facial volume, more collagen, thicker hair and all the other biological goodies our eyes tend to associate with youth and fertility.
This isn’t some elaborate conspiracy invented by Hollywood. Some of it is biology. Some of it is culture. And yes, some of it is absolutely ageism.
But whatever combination got us here, youth and beauty have value.
So if a woman chooses to extend the portion of her life in which she is perceived as younger, sexier and more desirable, and potentially extends her working career in the process, I’m glad modern cosmetic surgery gives her that option.
And yes, money helps. You can buy a beautiful house. You can buy a ridiculous handbag. You can buy a trainer, veneers, hair extensions, lasers, Botox and, increasingly, a younger-looking face. Albeit maybe it is a bit frozen. I’ll take it.
Don’t hate the player. Hate the game.
The Guardian made a particularly good point: Tom Cruise returned to Top Gun at 59 and was still the action hero and romantic lead, Kelly McGillis, wasn’t invited back to the role.
Below is a photo of Kelly McGillis at age 62. Take a long, hard look at it and then compare it with Sandra Bullock right now, also at age 62.
McGillis herself said, “I’m old and I’m fat and I look age-appropriate for what my age is.” She then added, “And that is not what that whole scene is about.”
The paradox here is almost comical: we’re angry when women age naturally and stop getting the roles, but we’re also angry when they use cosmetic intervention to look younger and keep getting them.
The Unattainable Standard Argument
I get this one too. I really do. And I feel very strongly about it. I do think women in the public eye should admit to the cosmetic work they do. When this extraordinary level of maintenance is sold back to ordinary women as what “natural aging” should look like, it does real damage.
I am talking to you Demi.
I also don’t think these women should not be allowed to sell beauty products. Or they should have to disclose their surgeries if they do so. They are as bad as the fake AI women scamming us on supplements.
Again, I have not seen Nicole or Sandra confirm nor deny cosmetic work.
Now, Let’s Talk About Men
By the way, Brad Pitt is currently everywhere promoting his new movie, Heart of the Beast, and looking remarkably youthful. My armchair plastic-surgery-expert eye has some theories about how he got there. I feel very strongly he has had a facelift. So does the internet. Although interestingly, his forehead still appears to move.
When I watched F1, I spent an unreasonable amount of time staring at his face and thinking, '“man that was a good facelift.” But I didn’t find it distracting from the movie. Quite the opposite. I was thinking, whatever is happening here, excellent work. Brad appears to have successfully extended his hot-guy years before the inevitable transition into old-man-grandpa roles.
Because men have a threshold too. It just tends to come later. A silver ceiling, if you will.
Look at Harrison Ford, once one of Hollywood’s great heartthrobs. Somewhere around his 60s, he began transitioning from romantic leading man into handsome grandpa roles. Maybe if he had visited Brad’s hypothetical plastic surgeon, he could have extended his heartthrob casting years a little longer. Who knows?
But I wouldn’t have been mad at it.
Maybe this is where we could all use a little suspension of disbelief. They’re movie stars. They’re not supposed to look like the person standing behind you at Trader Joe’s. We accept the lighting, the hair, the makeup, the enormous apartments, the impossible stunts and, in this case, actual witches with frozen foreheads.
I’m willing to accept all of it. Let these women do what they want and let the Hollywood wheel keep on spinning. We are there to get out the popcorn and be entertained.
If analyzing the economic value of Sandra Bullock’s forehead sounds like your kind of journalism, welcome. You’ve found your people.
I get deep into the psychology and economics of beauty, aging, facelifts, products and all the other things women spend ridiculous amounts of time and money thinking about. I interview experts and over-research everything.
Deeply researched, occasionally unhinged. Subscribe and join us. Better yet. Upgrade to paid for the real good stuff. By the way, check out my Girlfriend Guide to ultimate facelift consult.
wait - could I BE THE 60 YEAR OLD actress who has not erased her face but just did a little clean up on aisle 9?!!!
If I could afford Sandra Bullock’s docs I would not hesitate for a second to have what she’s having. She looks fantastic.