Skip to main content

making faces :: madame refuses to wait

something tasty's here...
so despite the fact that i had a three day weekend in which i really didn't accomplish a whole heck of a
lot else, i was remiss in getting swatches of some of the new things that i've added to my collection. and one of them just didn't want to wait for me to have time this weekend or take chances that the light might be less than perfect for her.

honestly, though, i don't think "madame batifole" would need to worry. one of three new and limited rouge g's from guerlain's fall collection, i believe she'd be stunning in any light.

first of all, madame has pigment. all rouge g's are pigmented, of course, but not all have quite this much. the only other i've met that is her match is "gigolo", from guerlain's 2011 fall collection. the two shades do remind me of one another in a way i can't quite put into words [which won't stop you from trying -ed.]. both are berry shades with a lot of red in them. "gigolo" is deeper and purpler. "madame batifole" is brighter and pinker. both have a hint of pinky-red shimmer that doesn't read as frost but does somehow affect how the colour is perceived. perhaps they're day and night versions of each other? or light and dark? "madame batifole" translates roughly as "the lady frolics", whereas gigolo... well, you see where there might be a thematic link.

direct light
indirect light
of course, the two shades don't look especially similar for the reasons i've outlined above. nor does the lady really resemble mac "rebel" [seen here], although both fall into the same category of shade- bright berry tones. the madame is more pink/ red, noticeably warmer. my recently acquired urban decay "jilted"has a somewhat similar base, but they part ways from there. "jilted" has an icy sheen that pulls the colour decidedly cool, whereas la madame runs warm.



because of her impeccable balance of warm and cool and the multiplicity of shades she carries within her, "madame batifole" is a perfect guest for any party, or any face. the question is not whether she will be a match for you, the question is whether or not you will be able to match her. after all, she is bold and strong and powerful. she wants to be noticed and will make this happen. if you're up to that challenge, then she will be the best partner you could wish for- and one who will stay with you in all her glory for as long as you want her. [note:: she means "long-wearing". i never know what to do when she goes all rapturous like this. -ed.]

ahem. i've already said virtually everything i can say about the rouge g formula. like gigolo, this is an exceptional variation on an already exceptional product. at their best, there is almost nothing that can compete with them. [the "almost" is in recognition of the fact that there is a constant tug-of-war in my heart between rouge g's and rouge d'armanis.]

i love shades like "madame batifole" because they are so simple to wear and require so little in the way of adornment. here's what i mean.




the base ::
gosh velvet touch primer
armani luminous silk foundation "3"
nars radiant creamy concealer "vanilla"
mac paint pot "painterly"

the eyes ::
guerlain e/s palette "les bois roses" [shimmery pink-white, pink granite, warm grey, dark mahogany brown]
rouge bunny rouge e/s "gracious arasari" [deep satin beige]
urban decay 24/7 e/l "desperation" [dark coffee brown]
ysl baby doll mascara

the cheeks ::
nars blush "nico" [satin cream beige]
hourglass ambient lighting powder "dim light" [warm shimmery beige]

lips ::
guerlain rouge g l/s "madame batifole" [intense red magenta]

the verdict? this lady could not be more beautiful if she tried. i'd recommend her wholeheartedly. if you've been colour-analysed as a "bright" season [which i suspect i am], either winter or spring, this is absolutely a must-have. [i'm caught between those seasons when categorizing the look above.] my guess is that anyone across the winter spectrum, a true spring, a true summer or even a dark autumn would also carry this beautifully.

available now wherever guerlain is sold. for canadians, that includes shoppers drug mart, who have apparently reversed their decision only to carry permanent items from the brand.

the lovely photo at the top of this post was snatched from this page, a forum where you can find many exciting photos and discussions of reptiles.

Comments

Bellyhead said…
This looks incredible on you! Bright, clear and so flattering. Madame Batifole does right by your face. :)
Lucinda Veen said…
This reminds me of one of my favorite drugstore lipsticks (and one of my favorite lipsticks in general), Maybelline Vivid Rose. It doesn't have any shimmer, but it's that amazing red-toned fuchsia color.
Kate MacDonald said…
Why thank you! She does make me happy, as do most bright shades.
Kate MacDonald said…
Lucinda- I can see what you mean. There is something about fuchsia shades when they have red in them that's quite exceptional. You expect them to be very cool-toned, but they aren't... Just magical, I think.

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

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…

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 …