Skip to main content

making faces :: purple please!

after i'd written my initial review of armani's new eyes to kill pressed powder eye shadows, i found out that some, but not all, of the shades supposed to be unavailable in north america have actually been made available in north america. most importantly, one of the futuristic purple shades that i so coveted, "moon jelly" [#21] was on the list. my initial experience with the formula was mixed, i really couldn't resist the idea of a proud purple made by armani, so needless to say, i succumbed to the urge to give this one a new home.

i'm happy that i did give the formula another chance, because "moon jelly" was a somewhat more positive experience for me than "├ęcailles". of course, it swatches beautifully, but it also applies really nicely and true to the colour you'd expect both from the pan and the swatches. it's less sparkly and more shimmery than "├ęcailles" and while there is some sheerness to the base, that seems to make it easier to blend with other colours. i've tried it with a few brushes and was always able to build the colour up to be opaque with very little effort.

the one area where the formula still slumps a little for me is with longevity. i found that the colour lost its distinctive sheen fairly quickly and faded a lot within the first three to four hours. after that, it "stabilized" and hung on for the rest of the day with no further change, which is pretty much what i experienced with "├ęcailles". what you're left with at the end of the day is a very stripped down version of what you started with. it's a definite drawback, especially with a shade like "moon jelly" that you're buying because it's vibrant and crazy and fun.



it's a bold, red-toned purple base with a blue-violet sheen, a combination which makes the colour both warm and cool at the same time. i think that it would work on just about any skin tone because of those elements [chances are that it will look a little different on everyone]. it's punchy and saturated, at least for a few hours and becomes more conservative [but still visibly purple] after that. it has a shifting, diaphanous quality to it, much like the cnidarian for which it is named.

moon jelly
it looks cooler in the pan, but comparing it to other neutral-cool purples reveals its red heart. mac "noir plum" [l.e. from the "peacocky" collection in 2011] is darker, dustier and cooler. mac "parfait amour" is cooler, more muted and a lot less pigmented.

l to r :: mac noir plum [l.e.], moon jelly, mac parfait amour
as you might expect from such a shade, it's undertones tend to make it look a little different depending on what is next to it. here are a couple of looks to illustrate what i mean.




in this case, i've used it with a lighter cool silver-purple, mac "crystal" and a cooler-toned liner, yves st. laurent "sea black". here, the bluer tones really predominate. i used mac "crystal avalanche" as a highlight, although i applied it lightly and buffed it into my skin a little to prevent everything from having that "frostilicus" shimmer up the yin-yang kind of look.

since the eye was both colourful and a bit heavy looking, i went with a softer cheek and lip; i used illamasqua "peaked", applied lightly and the lipstick is armani sheer #600 "bitten", one of my very favourite natural shades. [most "my lips but better" colours assume a warm beige/ pink lip, but since my natural colour is a cooler mauve, this kind of plum is a perfect match.]




this look was more about pops of colour against a more neutral background. i used "moon jelly" on the interior angles of my eyes and, interestingly, i found that the colour lasted better there, which leads me to believe that those who don't have oily eyelid problems [like i do] may find the wear time better on these shadows in general. i used neutrals everywhere else- inglot #351 along the brow bone, chantecaille basalt on the centre of the lid and burberry pale barley on the outer lid. the liner is my favourite, illamasqua precision gel.

on the cheeks, i used hourglass "ethereal glow", because i wanted something cool and pink but not intensely bright and the lipstick is yves st. laurent rouge pur couture #57 "pink rhapsody", a stunning, slightly shimmery, satin-finish shade that straddles pink and red, warm and cool with aplomb. it makes me feel giddy and tingly.

i also tried "moon jelly" as a crease colour yesterday, but the light was so lame that i couldn't get good shots of it. freshly applied, it looked amazing [with armani madre perla and scarab violetta], but as you might guess, that placement made the fading issues even more apparent.

most of the reviews that i've read of these shadows have been overwhelmingly positive, so i'm a little puzzled that i don't seem to have been as blown away. given the price [$39cad], i don't see myself rushing to get more, especially since the four-shadow palettes, at $68 and the eyes to kill loose shadows, at $42, seem to work so much better for me. and as far as prismatic, soft shadows go, rouge bunny rouge, $20-$25 each, beat them hands down [although they don't have the bold colour choices.] the shadows definitely have their great attributes, but they fail to live up to the quality either of the rest of the armani line or that one would expect for the price tag.

Comments

Sara BeauTime said…
Thanks for another lovely review. I didn't like Ecailles either since it was very sheer and glittery, but Moon Jelly is one of my all time favorite purples. I apply it over Nars Pro-prime and on me it lasted all day long. I have to mention though, I am rather on the dry side. I have had longevity issues with the teal color (I believe it is called Scarab) from this line. I applied it on the crease and it was like half of the intensity within 3-4 hours.
Kate MacDonald said…
Your informed opinion makes me feel better about my impressions of Ecailles. Moon Jelly is far superior, to be sure, and a much more original colour. I've just been using Mac Painterly as a base, but I'll have to try Nars, since that's made to be a primer to begin with. Might solve my fading issues.
I'm bummed we didn't get Star Sapphire over here (#20, I think), which was the other one that I had my eye on.

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

dreamspeak

ok, so i've been lax about posting here. i apologise. there are reasons. i don't know if they'ree good reasons, but they include:


i've had a lot of work to do, which is nice because i'm a freelancer and things tend to slow down in the summer, so the more work i get now, the less i have to worry about later [in theory].i started watching the handmaid's tale. i was a little hesitant because i didn't actually like the novel very much; i found it heavy-handed and predictable. the series relies on the novel for about 80% of its first season plot but i nevertheless find it spellbinding. where i felt that the novel beat readers with its politics, the series does a better job of connecting with the humanity in the midst of politics. i'm dithering on starting season two because i am a serial binger and once i know damn well that starting the second season will soon consign me to the horrors of having to wait a week between episodes. i don't know if i can han…

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…

mental health mondays :: separate and not equal

given the ubiquitousness of racial disparities in the united states, there's no reason why we should be surprised that they exist in mental health care. unlike a lot of other areas, the people in power have acknowledged the problem for decades. but the situation isn't getting any better. 
the united states surgeon general documented the differences between white and non-white mental health care back in 2001 so we can assume that it was already a known problem at that point. two years later, a presidential commission said the same damn thing and groups like the national association for mental health seized on this to develop guidelines on how to bridge the ethnic gap. from the turn of the century through 2007, the number of papers and publications talking about the mental health care gap spiked. the issue was viewed as being on par with obesity when it came to urgent problems.

starting in 2004, researchers undertook a massive project that involved the records of nearly a quart…