Thursday, December 10, 2009

Women's Weekly Sauce (and not the cranberry kind)

Have you seen the Christmas edition of the Australian Women's Weekly? It's hard to miss. There's a saucy picture of everyone's favourite reality tv loser; Julie Goodwin, from channel 10's Masterchef, adorning the cover in all her red-satin splendour. I was so taken aback by the image, spotted whilst standing in line at my supermarket, that I thought I might do a semiotic analysis.

Here's the cover;


First of all, It's a little bit contradictory to the "homely" image of Jules that is used in every other promo shot for every other kitchen/home product being flogged by every other company. Didn't she win over the Australian public by being the podgy housewife type with a warm cuddle and a suspended halo? It seems AWW decided to shake that image and turn her into a demonic vixen. Too much? Stay with me on this one.

Let's start with the colour red. The colour red in many cultures is synonymous with sexuality and/or danger. It's the colour of blood, linked to menstruation, linked to a girl becoming fertile, linked to a girl becoming a woman, blah blah blah, you get the idea. So link sexuality with danger and you've got one dangerously sexy lady, am I right?

So - the red satin dress. Even without the plunging neck-line (or should that be rib-line?) red satin oozes vamp. That dress is hot - and the ample bosom spilling forth from it is even hotter. One wonders if her nipples have been airbrushed out of the picture on the grounds of common decency! If you need further evidence of the red-dress hotness appeal just flick to pages 37 and 39 of the mag to see the steaming shots of everyone's favourite man-eater Penelope Cruz. Red. Satin. Sex.

Let's move on to her stance. It's a very "come hither" pose really. The open chest area, though on a slight angle, suggests attentiveness to the viewer and the downward angle of the camera makes the viewer dominant. Basically, Julie is interested in you. You might as well be holding a glistening roast turkey, oozing cranberry sauce, pierced with thyme sprigs, surrounded by baked ... alright, alright - obviously I flicked through the food section.

Now let's get to my favourite part of the picture. The balls. So, so many balls. Julie is coveting the balls. She holds the balls, is the master of the balls ... have I said "balls" enough times already? No? There's a whole lot of balls in this picture, yes? One more time; balls. Alright, I think I got that out of me.

Obviously her face has been airbrushed. It seems thinner and sharper than the pictures inside the mag. The cocked eyebrow = sexy. The smoky eye makeup = sexy. The dominance of the long nose by the slight downward angle on the shot = sexy. But why does Julie not have red lipstick on? It's thoroughly dissapointing. And her cheeks could be a bit more flushed for my liking which would suit the 'windswept' look of her hair - like she's just been romping around amongst the decorative baubles with the copy-boy before being snapped by the camera.

Let's see, what else is there? Well, she's dripping in diamonds - and who do you think of when you think diamonds? That's right, in a similar cut dress Marilyn Monroe vamped her way to immortality in the 1953 film Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. She sang the song Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend - which has since been copied by other sexually-charged artists such as Madonna, Eartha Kitt, Beyonce, Kylie Minogue and Anna Nicole Smith (though I'm not sure that last one can technically be categorised as an 'artist' as such). What the hell was my point? Oh yeah, Jules dripping in diamonds = sexy.

You think I'd be about done, right? Well there's a few little things, like the fact that she has "joy" written across her breast. If you look inside the mag you can even get a taste of Julie's "sweet treats" (alright, that one was a bit wrong - even worse if you imagine Homer Simpson saying it with his head reclined and drool dripping from his mouth). Add to all this that, as Andrew Bolt advised us yesterday; large-breasted women are going to steal your husband, this is one sexually charged, hot-tamale of a picture.

Clearly it has had a profound effect on me - causing me to question all that I thought was true and good in this world. Have the bright-lights of stardom and cling-wrap promotion turned our once wholesome Julie into the man-eating hussy we see before us? Or has the Australian Women's Weekly gone a tad overboard on the "glam" factor for this years x-mas special? I'll let you decide - but don't be surprised if you find a well-worn copy of this edition of AWW stuffed in your partners gym bag.

Oh yeah, and BALLS.

2 comments:

  1. You've got your AWW readership all wrong. Never forget that Bogans love a 'glamour shot'. All that the old duck has done, is gone out and got herself gussied up for a glamour photo. A bit of boob, a bit of a naughty colour, a lot of vaseline on the lens and some heavy duty photoshop...and BOOM...every Bogan's wet dream. Trust me...I know...my Mum put her glamour photo up in the loungeroom above the footy trophies (I wish I was joking).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Indeed that was precisely my point - poor Jules is being repackaged. She, herself, would have had no say whatsoever as to the style or theme of the shoot - she's being marketed - by the marketing team.

    I merely wished to give a (hopefully) humerous analysis of the pic. I am in no doubt as to the readership of AWW, believe me!

    ReplyDelete