Can the McCanns be thinking straight?

by kary 04.05.10 7:26

By Terence Backer in the Independent (Second part of the article/commentary called "Depressing clichés sadly perpetuated")

[quote]Three years have passed since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and her parents are determined that the search for her should not slip out of the world's headlines. To keep the story alive, they have just released a moody video, complete with a musical soundtrack, which includes a photograph of the three-year-old wearing make-up and gazing into the camera. It is that image which, predictably, has featured in the media,

It seems a bizarre and unsettling development. Clearly, Kate and Gerry McCann have been living through a nightmare of unimaginable horror and perhaps, even after three years, they are not thinking straight. If so, someone should surely have pointed out to them that, in a case over which paedophilia casts an obvious shadow, it looks downright weird when a photograph which has the effect of sexualising the missing child becomes part of the campaign to find her.

Obviously, the make-up game and the photograph were innocent at the time but, when the private picture is released into the public domain in these circumstances, something altogether nastier kicks in.

What was the point of this exercise, apart from getting more news coverage? At a time when there is justified concern over Primark selling Little Miss Naughty padded bras for eight-year-olds and allegations that Playboy brands are being aimed at the primary school market, the circulation of this can only feed prurience of the very worst kind.

Maybe it was a misjudgement, but it confirms a niggling sense that the McCanns' publicity–at-all-costs campaign has seriously lost its way.

Can the McCanns be thinking straight? Mccannnotebook_365429t

Can the McCanns be thinking straight? Mccannnotebook_365429t

The decision to release images of Madeleine McCann wearing make-up seems misguided
[quote]
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/terence-blacker/terence-blacker-depressing-clichs-sadly-perpetuated-1961380.html

by **Jill Havern** 04.05.10 8:58

I think that proves that it's not just we 'perverted anti's' who think the photo is inappropriate. He has made comments similar to those that Tony raised in his letters to Clarence Mitchell and Jim Gamble.

by Ruby 04.05.10 11:36

100% validates our instinctive misgivings rock

thank goodness this guy, like Tony, has had the guts to stand up and say it.

Wonder if he'll be subjected to the usual charming allegations for daring to speak the truth, too?

by justagrannynow 1 04.05.10 15:42

Probably Ruby but there you go. It takes all sorts. never mind

by Pascal 04.05.10 18:52

As an aside. There is an argument that this is the picture of a little girl who raided mums make up and is playing dress up.

'cept, I've never seen Kate McCann wear garish bright blue eyeshadow.. thinking

by vaguely1 04.05.10 18:57

[quote="Pascal"]As an aside. There is an argument that this is the picture of a little girl who raided mums make up and is playing dress up.

'cept, I've never seen Kate McCann wear garish bright blue eyeshadow.. thinking

[quote]

-----
Not in press photos taken since her daughter went missing.

Toy shops sell make up in princess kits for kids. That tends to be bright blue.

by kary 04.05.10 19:01

No, looks like she wears a grapey sort of eyeshadow (just IMHO)

Can the McCanns be thinking straight? NOTW-14-09-08Kate_McCann

post disappearance, that is

by vaguely1 04.05.10 19:19

Can the McCanns be thinking straight? 41GxqDU7dzL._SL500_AA300_

more like this sort of tat that people buy for kids.

by Pascal 04.05.10 19:47

[quote="vaguely1"] Can the McCanns be thinking straight? 41GxqDU7dzL._SL500_AA300_

more like this sort of tat that people buy for kids.[quote]
-----

Oh good lord.

by vaguely1 04.05.10 19:50

yup. vile aren't they.

god bless Disney, not only did he make popular the anthropomorphizing of animals, he created generations of little girls who want to be princesses.

That's Disney magic for you.

by Pascal 04.05.10 21:33

Well there must be a market for it -and little girls don't buy it themselves. nails

by kary 05.05.10 7:33

[quote="kary"]No, looks like she wears a grapey sort of eyeshadow (just IMHO)

Can the McCanns be thinking straight? NOTW-14-09-08Kate_McCann

post disappearance, that is[quote]

But then again

Can the McCanns be thinking straight? Vid_sh10

by vaguely1 05.05.10 7:54

[quote="Pascal"]Well there must be a market for it -and little girls don't buy it themselves. nails

[quote]
-----

Of course there's a market for it.

And I'd argue that little girls do buy it themselves, but mostly friends mothers for classmate party presents etc.

by Pascal 05.05.10 19:13

What little girl aged 3 buys make up?

and mothers do have the authority to say whether they can wear it or not.

Jesus, we've gone through decades of fighting for equality only to turn little girls into young woman before they reach puberty. What went wrong? wow

by vaguely1 05.05.10 20:00

[quote="Pascal"]What little girl aged 3 buys make up?

and mothers do have the authority to say whether they can wear it or not.

Jesus, we've gone through decades of fighting for equality only to turn little girls into young woman before they reach puberty. What went wrong? wow

[quote]
-----

I don't have girls, so I can't comment from parental experience, but from what I remember of my childhood I would raid my mum's make up box, not because I wanted to be an adult, but because my mum put her face on when she went out somewhere special, and therefore I knew that make up was a special and magical thing that people put on their faces when they were happy and they looked sparkly with it on. I also used to nag her to death to paint my toenails on a Sunday night. I remember that as a very special time. I just liked having pretty pink toenails.

I also used to raid her perfume, without ever understanding how she knew I'd done it.

In the same way as my boys like playing with plastic drills and hammers when they watch their dad doing DIY (rare occurrence I admit). Children, whether we consider it non-PC do seem to enjoy playing gender stereotypical role play.

I don't think generations of bra burning is likely to be set back by a three year old kid putting eye shadow on.

My boys steal my make up because it's pretty paint, they also steal my perfume. I guess some kids just like doing that stuff.

by kangdang 05.05.10 20:44

i can remember my elder brother greasing his hair with Nivea, dressing up in my younger sisters leotard and mothers tights so he would look like batman...46 years on and he still to this day says the Nivea made he go bald

by vaguely1 05.05.10 20:53

:ambersuz:

by Pascal 05.05.10 21:07

Nothing to do with bra burning - I meant that such kits as the Disney one posted is available and women actually buy them for their kids/other peoples kids. it's like the Primark padded bra thing..

I've got neither boys or girls - just very many nieces and nephews ranging from 3 weeks to 33. (huge family)

Do you think Madeleine put that make up on herself? I would say not although it has been suggested that an older child - cousin perhaps did it. It's too slick for a three year old.

i think it's in poor taste to release that pic/video and I feel a bit uncomfortable in that there may be an ulterior motive for doing so.

by vaguely1 05.05.10 23:50

It looks a mess, so someone who was a bit rubbish at putting make up on put make up on her. She looks like she's been dressing up to me. Not like the pageant kids.

The Disney sets are hideous, but they wouldn't make then unless there was a market for it I don't suppose Sad

I don't see what the ulterior motive would be - unless I'm missing an obvious point. It may just have been a day where she had enormous fun and that particular photograph holds happy memories for the family who witnessed the whole day, rather than the 0.5 seconds of shutter time that we witness.

had she of been an older child made up I'd feel uncomfortable about it, but as she's 36 months old or thereabouts in the picture I just see a kid who wanted to play with pretty colours.

by Ruby 05.05.10 23:57

I think the look on her face is as, if not more, worrying than the make-up.
No way does she look like a child playing or having fun.

by kangdang 06.05.10 0:00

[quoteIt may just have been a day where she had enormous fun and that particular photograph holds happy memories for the family who witnessed the whole day, rather than the 0.5 seconds of shutter time that we witness.

had she of been an older child made up I'd feel uncomfortable about it, but as she's 36 months old or thereabouts in the picture I just see a kid who wanted to play with pretty colours.quote]

Vaguely1, I said pretty much the same thing to another only the other day. Lots of parents, myself included, have images such as these tucked away in a shoebox somewhere. I have one of my youngest dressed up as goth at aged 4, this was done by her elder sister who was 14 at the time...nothing sinister about it all, they had bloody good fun. The photo brings back very happy memories.

Thus, every photo has a story behind it, and the stories are not always sinister or twisted.

by kangdang 06.05.10 0:07

[quote="Ruby"I think the look on her face is as, if not more, more worrying than the make-up.
No way does she look like a child playing or having fun.quote]

I can imagine the conversation, 'look at you don't you look pretty', parent grabs the camera and says 'look at the camera Maddie, show us your eyes'. Maddie tips head back slightly and lowers her eyelids, quite difficult to smile and do this at the same time...try it. Nothing sinister at all. What is sinister is that they deemed the photo suitable for the annual video.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.05.10 0:44

[quote="Ruby"I think the look on her face is as, if not more, more worrying than the make-up.
No way does she look like a child playing or having fun.[quote]
Exactly right.

But what of the choice of all three pictures together:

1. Make up photo
2. Lollipop photo
3. Photo of Madeleine on the floor looking back and up to camera.

Why did not Jon Corner, the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell select for that short video the following photos:

1. Madeleine opening a Christmas present
2. Madeleine riding her bicycle with stabilisers
3. Madeleine astride a pony
4. Madeleine playing in a park...etc.

I don't buy the cousin putting on all the make-up etc. either. I maintain that it was an adult who put the necklace on, put the pink bow on and probably the blue eyeshadow as well. It was without doubt an adult, not a cousin, who took the photo, as well, and no doubt decided on the exact camera angle.

If Madeleine had looked happy on that photo, for me it wouldn't have had nearly the same adverse impression on me. It is the slightly haunted look accompanying all the rest that for me dominates this photo.

by vaguely1 06.05.10 0:54

Then why not protest strongly about it being shown on this forum? I don't understand why anybody unrelated to Madeleine should have any say in which photographs of her are used in the video. If you make your own video you can choose the photographs.

by Ruby 06.05.10 3:00

'I don't understand why anybody unrelated to Madeleine should have any say in which photographs of her are used in the video.'

- This is a forum, for people to have their say.

'If you make your own video you can choose the photographs'

- yes, but if you can't choose appropriate and tasteful photos, knowing they will be seen by millions of people worldwide, then you have left yourself open to public criticism.

I'm afraid I see the usual 'normalizing' going on here Vaguely...