We can hardly judge a person's happiness by one article, but April's Esquire interview with Amanda Seyfried makes fame sound like the view from the top is not so big and bright.
It's clear the interviewer likes Amanda. References of adorableness are scattered throughout, and silences are explained as pensive pauses. "Her eyes demand an adjective, beg for a simile," he writes, "Her eyes are winsome, like two parachutes." Yet, Esquire's depiction is more of a weary, young woman than a rising starlet flush with success. Some examples:
- On food: I'm on a raw-food diet. It's intense. And sort of awful. Yesterday for lunch? Spinach. Just spinach. Spinach and some seeds.
- On pets: Most of the time I just want to go home and throw the dog a stick. Can anything be more obvious than throwing a stick? I need to be needed.
- On photo shoots: I learned a long time ago that photographs are not theater. This is not acting. It's pretending. I pretend I'm looking at a man who is looking right at me, a man who sees me as exceptionally clever and adventurous.
Is this a good reminder that famous isn't always fabulous, or just a bad interview?