Skip to main content

making faces :: the window dressing to the soul [chanel inimitable intense mascara]

this is the tale of a woman obsessed. a woman whose mother told her that the very first thing she noticed about her daughter when she was presented with her in the hospital was that said daughter had rather dramatically long, curly eyelashes. a woman who swore that she would honour that birthright every living day, no matter what the obstacles or the cost, that she would make sure the world would see her as her mother had first seen her- as a strange bundle with long, curly eyelashes.

that woman is me. and, yes, it is absolutely true that my mother told me that the first thing she noticed about me was that i had long, curly eyelashes when i was born. i also apparently had a surprising amount of red hair on my head, which fell out shortly after.

and it is true that i have a real preoccupation with my eyelashes. a friend of mine once pointed out that it was the one feature i could be counted on to accentuate, even when i couldn't be bothered with any other makeup. that's true. i can leave the house with no makeup, no problem, but i feel kind of naked without mascara.

to that end, i'm always searching for the ultimate mascara, something that will allow others to view me as my mother first did, all big blue eyes and dramatic lashes, but skipping the part where i barfed on her shoulder. and what a search it has been.

essentially, i like something that adds some volume and definition and that shows off length. i don't really need something that curls my lashes, because to this day, they curl pretty well on their own. while most curling mascaras are utter failures, those that do live up to the claim tend to make me look a little ridiculous, like i applied miniature rollers to my eyes.

after hearing so many wonderful things about it and being so enamoured of chanel in general, i decided to give their "inimitable intense" mascara a try. it promises the world: length, definition and curl. a tall order for anyone, let alone a demanding mascara-phile like myself.

the results? surprisingly good.

i don't think it delivers maximum impact in "a single stroke", as promised, but it does give great volume, emphasises length from root to tip and, yes, does give my lashes just a little bit more of an upward curve.

i did not find that it clumped my lashes together or deposited so much product that it smudged or smeared around the base of my lashes. this is a big thing for me, because i'm already a little clumsy and have to be careful not to get mascara on my actual eyelids. i don't need to fiddle around with a mascara wand that's prone to mischief.

i do have a tendency to go with a fairly deep, dramatic application, which may not suit all tastes. the photo on the right shows two coats fresh from a new tube. i'd be likely to wear it this way, but you'd get a more natural look with a single pass. also, if you want something softer, the mascara does come in brown as well.

below is a comparison of inimitable intense with benefit's "they're real", which i reviewed here. both are good for length and volume, but you can definitely see that chanel has the edge. in addition, chanel offers that little bit of curl, which is a nice finishing touch [and which can counteract the tendency of mascara to weigh your lashes down].

l :: chanel inimitable intense; r :: benefit they're real

at $30usd/ $36cad, "inimitable intense" is definitely a higher-end product. i don't mind splurging for something that has really excellent results, but i was disappointed that there seemed to be far less product- or that it dried out much quicker- than other mascaras in the same price range. most mascaras last me between three and four months. this one lasted less than two before requiring multiple coats to get anywhere near the original effect. if it had cost a lot less than other luxury brands, that wouldn't bother me, but i expect items in the same price range to be comparable and this one fell well short, either because it dried out quickly or because there simply wasn't as much product included.

it is a very nice formula, in that it delivers on its claims, doesn't become crusty on the lashes and lasts well during use. but among prestige brands, i can't say it would earn the highest marks, simply because the value isn't as good. [nothing has yet displaced yves st. laurent "faux cils" as my favourite.]

worth the coin? yes, probably. the best you can get? close, but no. 

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…