Posted on 04/18/2005 9:09:12 AM PDT by MisterRepublican
"Why can't they just photograph conservatives straight?!" blasted this week's TIME magazine covergirl Ann Coulter.
The bestselling author and controversialist slammed magazine editors for fronting a photo of her, she claims, which is so distorted "my own mother would not even recognize me!"
The photographer, Platon, appears to have used a wide "Fisheye" lense for the cover snap, stretching Coulter's legs and feet -- while shrinking the rest of her body.
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
I agree, it's a ridiculous photo.
Ann, Ann, Ann. You should know better than to ever trust liberals. I knew when I saw the cover that it was done on purpose to make her look bad.
At least her legs are tastefully crossed unlike Clinton's pose.
Don't let anyone with only one name photograph you for the public.
The pointy, "spleen-splitter" shoes (as I like to call them), definitely don't help.
It looks like the photog did his best to make her look like the Wicked Witch of the West. The distortion of the lens accentuates the pointy shoes, and the lighting makes her look deathly pale.
Sort of reminds of the Clinton photo of him sitting.
I think it looks kinda cool. Gives me the impression that she's got huge feet (the better to stomp libs with, my dear).
I understand her anger though, no woman wants to get all gussied up for a photo only to find out later it's anything less than flattering.
IMO, she still looks quite tempting.
LOL. Maybe not, but they're still cute shoes. :) The picture doesn't do her justice at all, though.
Anyone else find it ironic that there's a q&a with confirmed d**che-bag Sean Penn in the same issue?
She looks fine. She is a classy lady and shows it.
"It looks like the photog did his best to make her look like the Wicked Witch of the West"
No. Alice in Wonderland.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Over the weekend someone described her footwear as "a house fell on my sister shoes". I got a good laugh out of that post.
She looks like she's ready for a good fight and that's what every body (except libs) loves about her.
The imagery, including what she wore (which she should have picked something with color), all designed to make her look shrill, sharp, emotionless/unfriendly, mean, etc etc, the liberal image of a conservative woman.
She needed a PR person to set that shoot up in her favor.
I think the photo is fine. It's intimidating true but also gives her a feminine air also.
RELAX, Ann.
nick
http://www.mediabistro.com/articles/cache/a1169.asp
The photographer behind Esquire's famous Clinton "crotch shot" on shooting celebrities, the powerful, and fashion spreads filled with real people.
By Chris Gage – February 10, 2004
These days, when bolder, brasher headlines spill across magazine covers in a split-second strugglbe to capture our Schadenfreude-tinted fancy, it's rare that a picture catches the public's eye the way the low-angled "crotch shot" of Bill Clinton did back in December 2000, when it appeared on the cover of Esquire. The photographer behind that notorious shot—the British-born and mono-monikered Platon—was granted only a few minutes with the then-president, in which he covered his assignment bases and then boldly asked: "Mr. President, can you show me the love?" The photograph was immediately dissected and discussed by Larry King, Bob Woodward, and a host of other media pundits and scribes. The reaction the photo received, Platon says, "said more about the media than it did about me and Clinton. It was a contemporary portrait of a contemporary president. I wasn't going to photograph him as a stuffy old guy who doesn't relate to the young people."
(snip)
Fair and Balanced, Time Magazine is not...
My Soviet Union born wife just loves shoes like that.
I remember when Jesse Helms was on Time and they somehow made him look like a concentration camp guard.
Even though it is a bad pic of Ann, she still looks good.
As a photographer, I like the shot a lot.
As long as they spell her name right... :)
I agree, it is rediculous. She looks kinda like Tom Petty.
Note to self: Read article and THEN comment
that was my first thought thanks for finding that picture
Who really cares? You are on the cover of one of the biggest magazines in the world. This will make her sound like a big cry-baby, IMO.
The picture is just fine IMHO.
"Oh Wah...wah...wah...b****...b****...b****"
Really sweetheart, Don't sit for an interview and pose for a shot with some rag for self-promotion and then pull the same ol' aw shucks--
'Them clever liberals fooled me'
I mean really people, a little personal responsibility
I think its a cool photo, and makes Ann look dangerous and powerful.
if they were trying to make her look silly, they missed... i think she looks great... and her shoes are very pretty... stylish... but are those white hosiery or her bare legs? or is she wearing skin-colored hosiery? it's hard to tell... (i would say that white hosiery is somewhat of a no-no.) butr even so, she still looks great!
They distorted the photo plus the very first words they use are "Fair and balanced she isn`t" as if to suggest she is a radical.
Consider the source [TIME]. RichardHead publication is as RichardHead publication does.
Maybe they were trying to show us how [they imagine] she looks to wild eyed leftist wackos. Of course, if that were the case, they would have added dipping fangs........
Although the photo does not do her justice, still it is not a bad photo, far better than that of Clinton and that of Gore and those ridiculous one of John Kerry. She looks feisty.
Alice is what I thought of first, as well (although more the American McGee version). Personally, I think it's a pretty cool picture - I rarely look at Time, so whether or not I thought this was meant to be an insult would depend on whether or not the magazine typically uses unusual photography on the cover...
The hetero-pig part of me says, I like that she is on a cover of a magazine, but I wish it was a different magazine.
Something in bunny ears.
Bad, bad man. Get back in the 90's!
"Ann, Ann, Ann. You should know better than to ever trust liberals. I knew when I saw the cover that it was done on purpose to make her look bad."
Maybe she anticipated the same thing. and now her trap is sprung.
At least she got her pic on the cover of Time Magazine....pointy shoes and all!
Has anyone read the article about her in the magazine? I assume it's one of their nastier hit pieces. If they go to that much trouble to make her cover photo so unflattering, I can only imagine what the article says about her.
The infamous Clinton "S*ck It!" cover.
Ann, you look FINE! Relax, doll!
We always referred to them as “kill the roach in the corner” shoes. I know they’re all the rage nowadays, but are the ugliest shoes ever created, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.