Honestly, I can hardly even concentrate on her tits
How scary is Lindsay Lohan's face in Bert Stern's re-creation of Marilyn Monroe's last sitting? [mirror] LiLo has been pushing her "new MaMo" brand for some time now, but if anyone was buying it, they sure aren't today. Marilyn looked sexier and more what's the word? not dead at age 36 and six weeks away from a fatal OD than Lindsay does at 21. (Enlarge for full effect.)
Comments
So many damned freckles.
Posted by: TMo | February 18, 2008 4:16 PM
I don't mind freckles per se. In fact, I quite like freckles per se. But LiLo's skin doesn't look entirely healthy in these shots.
Posted by: radosh | February 18, 2008 4:21 PM
she's just so full of herself. the comparison between her and MM just makes her look bad in every sense. MM wasn't the most beautiful woman in the world, but had an inherent sexuality. LL is just vapid. Pathetic.
Posted by: jake | February 18, 2008 4:46 PM
Hmm. On the left, we have Marilyn Monroe. On the right, we have an amateur drag act.
Posted by: alex | February 18, 2008 7:00 PM
The shitty lighting is the photog's fault, this doesnt come near recreating the MM shots because of that. Also cause LL cant pose and the hair is frightening.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 18, 2008 7:59 PM
Wait, I don't remember ever being told that Marilyn had a venta dentata.
Posted by: Vance | February 19, 2008 12:18 AM
If I'm reading you correctly, Daniel, you are predicting that Lohan will be dead in a matter of weeks.
Posted by: Martin | February 19, 2008 3:07 AM
I got a serious question:
I the long apparent scar or whatever on MM stomach starting at her navel just a photographic artifact? Is it the remains of some surgery or simply a skin fold?
Posted by: Abe | February 19, 2008 8:56 AM
@anonymous: That's true, and I wonder what the story is. Stern is, or at least was, a great photographer. Perhaps he's lost it in old age ... or he intentionally made LiLo look bad as an ironic commentary on trashy modern celebs who try to appropriate MM's image.
@Martin: Not at all. I'm saying she's been dead for a matter of weeks.
@Abe: photographic artifact. Here's another shot from the same session with no line.
Posted by: radosh | February 19, 2008 9:17 AM
but here's another shot *with* the line...?
http://glamournet.com/legends/Marilyn/monthly/9812.html
Posted by: Jon | February 19, 2008 11:13 AM
God, her skin is SOOOOO sun damaged. I've been saying that for years just looking at her face, but now you can see that the skin on her whole body is fucked up. Blech! Gross!
Posted by: Gina Duclayan | February 19, 2008 3:37 PM
Dan, the link doesn't work and I am not convinced.
It is known that she had cosmetic surgery and also I think she had lost a lot of weight -- she had certainly looked heavier in other pics.
Posted by: Abe | February 19, 2008 5:24 PM
I assume she lost a lot of weight because she was on speed. Here's the index . Check shots 7&8.
Posted by: radosh | February 19, 2008 5:28 PM
Dan, look again. If you note where that 3-inch horizontal indentation is on her torso, and look for it behind the scarf, you can pretty clearly see it in both of those pics.
Posted by: Vance | February 19, 2008 11:22 PM
uh, guys, that's a staple on the negative...
Posted by: jake | February 19, 2008 11:29 PM
Jake:
A pro photographer of a very hot subject puts a staple there?
Posted by: Abe | February 20, 2008 6:58 AM
Abe: That image, like many in the series, was never supposed to be used. Stern famously filed them away until he rediscovered them a few years ago and put out a book with many of the images marked up in some way.
I'm pretty sure there are other images out there with no scarf, if anybody wants to try to confirm or rebut Vance.
Posted by: radosh | February 20, 2008 8:19 AM
Thanks for the photo! I doubt I will want sex for a week now. I wake up in a gasping cold sweat seeing LiLo's face. Why couldn't she have put those towels or pompoms over her face?!?
Posted by: Johnny V | February 20, 2008 12:50 PM
Dan, Jake:
Twas a gallbladder removal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/arts/design/05monr.html?ex=1315108800&en=21b80e2b04437d20&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Posted by: Abe | February 20, 2008 2:05 PM
i stand corrected
Posted by: jake | February 20, 2008 9:27 PM
(I assume Radosh is gonna hold out till the Washington Post backs up the Times story...)
Posted by: Vance | February 20, 2008 11:15 PM