As I wasreading about Lana Del Rey’s debut and her physical transformation, from shyand casually dressed Lizzy Grant to provocative and sophisticated Femme fataleLana, I was thinking how much looks and presentation is the key for success. Look at her in this 2009 video, she is pretty but there is nothingreally remarkable about her,… Lizzy even recorded an album but who remembers?
But then entersthis exotic animal, with an old-Hollywood-movies visual, a mystical name, alook to kill for, a sort of collagen-pumped-up-lips Jessica Rabbit who wearsroses in her hair, and suddenly she has the whole world at her feet and becomes acult priestess. Talent is talent, if she has any, all this visual and artificedoes not change anything, Lizzy, Lana, whatever, she has the same voice andsings the same way. So why is she famous now?
Of course, sheis not the first one to do this, tons of artists have underwent physicaltransformations, just consider the ever changing appearances ofMadonna, Lady Gaga, or David Bowie to name a few.
Women inparticular, are constantly retouched, re-looked, so many performers have losttons of weight, from Carnie Wilson to Jennifer Hudson, as there is always thepressure of being conform to what sex-appeal is in our society. There is even arumor that Adele’s recent weight loss is not totally due to her surgery, butthat ‘she’s finally caved to weight pressure’, as ‘she wanted to sex up herimage a bit’. If she did it to feel better in her own skin, that’s totallyfine, but why would she have to sex up her image? She is already hugelysuccessful the way she is, and was reflecting a sort of authenticity clearlyabsent from the scene.
Still, all thesepeople always kept a legitimacy that seems quite vague with Lana Del Rey, she is not someone who has changed her appearance on her own, but ratherlooks like a total manufactured product and her real story seems to be theopposite of that struggling artist working hard to be recognized, a Norma Jean,to whom she was even been compared, in her ascension to success.
Lana Del Reywas actually a name chosen by her management, and, as Iman wrote about itbefore, she is the daughter of a millionaire who has backed her career,… notreally the image sold to us, and bit disappointing.
Mary and Helenwere not the only ones to bash her infamous performance on SNL, a series ofcritics and celebrities expressed their harsh opinion, like Rolling Stone’sDavid Wilde: ‘In Spanish, #LanaDelRey means 'Ashley Simpson' In English too’,or Art Brut’s lead singer Eddie Argos: ‘Thats the Lana Del Rey you all like? Ithought it was Kirsten Wiig doing one of her 'wacky' characters. You are allidiots’, or Juliette Lewis: ‘Watching this 'singer' on SNL is likewatching a 12-year-old in their bedroom when they're pretending to sing andperform’, or NBC anchorman Brian Williams’s declaration she was ‘one of theworst outings in SNL history’.
But at the end,does it matter whether she is a natural phenomenon, or a product planned by theindustry? She cannot feign amateurism anymore whenher new videos have all these grandiose decors with real tigers and specialeffects, but was even her first video as DIY as she pretended it to be?` Someeven say she has been signed for months, and doesn’t even write her songs. Whoknows?
Yeah her hairis too perfect, her dresses too classy, she cannot be the ‘real’ thing, thereis nothing authentic in her transformation. But even if she is this 100%-over-hyped-studioproduct, does her authenticity matter at the end if enough people find hersongs interesting and she sells million of records? People know they are fooledand they don’t care.
And if Lana Del Reysurvives the hype and is here to stay, she will have proved that we really don’tcare about authenticity anymore.