Pretty sure it’s for our benefit. If she looked directly at the camera we’d all turn to stone.
You’d think that after spending nearly five grand on makeup (Michele Bachmann’s $4,700 Hair and Makeup Bill – Mother Jones), she wouldn’t look so nutty.
Or maybe not.
To be ruthlessly fair, that isn’t at all surprising for a candidate who expects to be in front of cameras and critical eyes, and the bill is for a TV professional and for several weeks. And don’t ever, ever make me do this again.
In the defense of Newsweek, they had to use that pic. It’s the only one that survived when her heat-vision destroyed the camera.
The best way to avoid photos that make you look batshit crazy is not to look batshit crazy in the first place.
It’d certainly be interesting to see some of the photos from that shoot that they * didn’t * pick for the cover. I’ve taken some portraiture classes, but I’m not good enough with lighting to know if there’s a way of taking that photograph that flatters Bachmann and still keeps within the realm of editorial photography.
For a woman of Bachmann’s age, you’d typically soften the focus and use a softbox to diffuse the flash. And it looks like they did some of those things (the softbox is probably why the highlights in the eyes appear square), so Bachmann may just not photograph well. But they did position the main flash almost directly in front of her, so you get that mad glint in the eyes and a really unforgiving illumination on the rest of the face.
Another part of the problem, of course, is that you can’t Photoshop a politician the same way that a fashion mag would Photoshop a model.
My impression, though, is that neither the photographer nor the editor liked Bachmann much.
I don’t think that’s the flash. I think it’s a signal to back away slowly without making eye contact or turning one’s back to the creature. And no sudden moves under any circumstances, lest it pounce.
She has the eyes of someone whose used to seeing what’s not really there, for example…
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/terrorist-scum/jared-lee-loughner-mugshol.jpg
Doesn’t so much look crazy as looks like some lady who, someday, will have too many cats.
At least enough so that when she eats a few off-camera no one will notice…
Good news is, if she get elected President we will have two first ladies.
She already has a lot of foster kids. Maybe they will help with the cats.
Why is it every time I see this thread topic, I think it’s referring to
She used to have foster kids, but not all 23 at the same time.
Courtesy (yes, even in the Pit) prevents me from answering that question…
To be fair, those are pretty crazy eyes Pelosi’s got in that picture.
If only James Buchanan could have lived to have seen the day.
I beg to disagree. Those are not crazy eyes. Those are clearly the eyes of someone who has been quite informally introduced to a large dog with a very cold and wet nose.
On the day she went out without her panties, goshdarnit.
She’s currently touting the market collapse as proof that we should have listened to her and not raised the debt ceiling at all. I think the camera got it right.