Susan sports a little style
The Internet is all abuzz with news of Susan Boyle’s makeover. After the initial eyerolling and laughter when she first walked on the “Britain’s Got Talent” stage, Susan Boyle endeared herself to viewers the world over with her amazing voice.
Now, after weeks of articles that contain adjectives such as “dowdy,” “homely” and “frumpy,” she has gotten a minor makeover.
Yes, of course we saw it coming
Celebrities sink millions into their appearances on a regular basis. “American Idol” contestants and other characters catapulted to reality_TV fame get very expensive makeovers once they’re in the limelight.
The blogosphere is filled with people spouting “I knew it!” and “inevitable.” Turns out, Susan Boyle’s makeover wasn’t really much of a makeover. And it certainly didn’t cost as much as a “normal” celebrity makeover.
A small investment
Even though Boyle hasn’t made a big chunk of change off her instant fame yet, I don’t think she needed to take out personal loans to complete her new look. E! Online reports that Boyle went to the same salon she always goes to for her haircut and color, which cost a grand total of $51.
She’s been spotted sporting a shiny, black jacket. Turns out, she’s not wearing an expensive leather coat. It’s a $23 knockoff from a discount clothing chain. The Huffington Post reports that Boyle’s makeover includes wearing designer clothing, but I am skeptical of that claim — especially because the Huffington Post says her jacket is leather.
And she’s frugal, to boot!
Boyle seems to be setting a good example for how to to a makeover right. She found inexpensive but stylish clothing, got her hair spiffed up a bit, her eyebrows waxed and called it good. She didn’t waste a bunch of money on Jimmy Choos or liposuction just to fit in with her paparazzi-pandering partners in celebrity.
When the money starts rolling in
My prediction is that the next wave of Susan-Boyle-obsessed speculation will be about whether she will change when she actually starts making money. She stands to cash in big time on her fame — whether it lasts for 15 minutes or 15 years. She has already gotten an offer to do a movie and there have been rumors about a record deal.
I think any massive change will be more perception than reality. Right now, “Boyle-ites,” as MTV calls them, are gushing or groaning about “The Susan Boyle Makeover.” You can find reports about her “new look” saying she’s “freshly dyed and styled.” But really, she hardly looks different at all. She got her hair trimmed and put on a new jacket. I hardly call that, as one MTV blogger does, a “larvae-into-butterfly transformation.”
I don’t know whoever started the notion that one’s talent is hinged upon their looks. Her talent is considerable. When you think about it, a lot of musicians weren’t exactly the prettiest and became famous. Just look at the Rolling Stones – they hit every pothole on the Ugly Expressway. Then you have Freddie Mercury’s enormous teeth, and he was easily one of the greatest singers of the latter 20th century. Janis Joplin wasn’t a 10, and her voice was beyond compare. Pete Townshend and Barbara Streisand both have noses that would cover a football field, the list goes on. The 17th century violinist Niccolo Paganini was hideous to look on, gaunt, sunken eyes perpetually red, to the point that people thought he was possessed by the devil. If you think about it, the really attractive musicians are usually the ones that are the most average.
Props to Susan Boyle! I must say, the woman had a lot of guts to walk into the spotlight looking the way she did. I admire her courage though. Your right; she definitely sets a fine example for how to make a makeover right. You don’t need a pocket full of cash to obtain a decent look.
I think she’s great. She looks like mothers/grandmothers used to look before they started doing aerobics. I find a certain comfort in her. She’s an average person and that is why we cheer her on (besides her lovely voice). Nice Blog Peter. Well said. She is an artist too long overlooked.