Contemplaydoh

What is it about Katie Couric that makes CBS believe she’s the right person to step into Walter Cronkite’s old time slot thereby leading the Chiffon Revolution?  (I went with Chiffon because I’m told it’s light and gauzy…and Velvet was taken anyway.)  Most would point to her famous perkiness.  In fact, if you google ‘Katie Couric perky’, you get 114,000 hits, so it must be a big part of who she is.  I’ve been formulating a theory, though, that could explain even more of her popular appeal.  It has to do with Katie’s facial features which, I posit, give her a higher likeability quotient.  The bulk of that comes from her cheeks. 

Ceteris paribus, we seem to favor roundedness.  I also submit that the converse holds true.  Hollow cheeks are not viewed as charitably.  My natural tendency would be to construct numerical measures of cheekiness over a range of individuals to see how they correlate with survey results of how well the subjects are perceived.  However, since these values would be difficult to come by, I’ll hope to convince you using a long list of examples instead.

Before I start, I’ll confess to a certain self-centered interest in the topic.  While I’ve been called cheeky before, it’s not because I have cheeks.  I have skin on both sides of my mouth, but there’s nothing that puffs out.  When I was a kid, Aunt Evelyn was frustrated to find nothing on my face to pinch.  Clio and The Girl, on the other hand, are blessed with ample cheeks – evidence that the theorized view is, in some cases, correct.

Are there well-known archetypes who motivate this perception?  Sure.  I’ll lead off with an obvious example.  On the likeable end of the spectrum, you can hardly imagine a more popular figure than jolly old St. Nick – always quick with the “ho ho hos”, never too harsh judging naughty or nice.  At the opposite end sits one of the most odious, murderous villains of our day:  Osama Bin Laden.  He’s all the more galling with that self-righteous tone.  Note that both men have beards, so we can’t claim that as a differentiating factor.

Before you start spouting off about the evidence being anecdotal (based on small samples) consider a collection of other full-faced individuals and contrast them with cheek-deprived counterparts.  Ask yourself which set has more of a reputation for charm, amity, and kindness? 

Oprah was poor and abused as a child and now she gives away cars.  What’s not to like there?  Shirley Temple was the talented child star who apparently managed to stay nice even in older age.  Up until the point where Sally Field said to the Oscar audience, “You like me, you really like me!” we probably really did like her.  Flying nuns typically don’t carry much in the way of negatives, after all.  Al Roker is a weather man, on in the mornings.  Networks don’t exactly go for surly meteorologists in that role.  Melissa McCarthy (Sookie) may be a little ditzy, but is an engaging character nonetheless.  Finally, Captain Kangaroo, a.k.a. Bob Keeshan, was a pleasant old guy I grew up with in the pre-Sesame Street era.  Don’t nobody be trashin’ the Captain. 

The thin-cheeked line-up is not exactly a rogues’ gallery, but they’ve been cast in unflattering light at times.  Donald Sutherland is a fabulous actor, and when he plays a bad guy, it’s with relative ease.  The Wicked Witch of the West had always had a bad reputation until the recent hit musical gave her some much needed positive PR.  Clint has played many roles, but his Dirty Harry character is arguably the most iconic -- he's a good guy in a bad-ass kind of way.  Speaking of bad, Keith Richards would likely be voted the baddest Rolling Stone (the bad boys of rock and roll).  His blood transfusions alone are legendary.  Kate Moss may have more lines to do before she’s in Keith’s league, but she has made more than a few headlines for her illicit habits.  Running the anchor leg is Howard Stern.  Now that he’s allowed to bleep around to his bleeping heart’s content, this bleeper can bleeping bleep with the audience until he’s bleeping blue in the face.

Side-by-side comparisons are also useful.  In the sporting realm, Martina and Chrissy were long-time rivals.  Maybe in the Czech Republic more people favored Martina, but I remember much greater fan support in general for the one with the puffier countenance. 

Fictional characters are interesting because their creators have infinite leeway in how to make them look.  I can’t bring myself to search for any of those little cherubs in the “Love is…” strip, but they were meant to epitomize the point.  Tweety is one I can bear presenting because the sappiness factor there is at least finite.  Serving as contrast, you have any number of cartoon villains.  Montgomery Burns is one case in point. 

Famous works of art are useful in the same way.  Which is more likely to elicit a positive response?  My money is on the kindly doctor in the Norman Rockwell painting.

Even if it’s just fur that proxies for cheeks, the theory holds.  We can’t say that the cute, quizzical tilt to the head is the difference either, can we.

A side-by-side comparison of the same individual can drive the point home even further.  Michael Jackson was such a nice looking kid before he became a freak. 

On the topic of adolescence, when you think more generally about puppies vs. dogs, kittens vs. cats, or young kids with their baby fat vs. older, wizened adults, the pattern is clear.  Maybe prominent cheeks remind us of the innocence and playfulness of youth.  Mary Kate Olsen is an interesting example because there weren’t as many years separating these pictures. 

Of course, anorexia is a serious matter, and it’s very sad when self-images become so distorted.  The topic of this photo essay, though, is how these face-types are perceived.  Which one of the two extremes looks to be having more fun?

Cheeks are not always a by-product of greater weight.  Gabrielle Union, Ming-Na Wen, and Parminder Nagra are all svelte, and they seem nice in that open-faced kind of way.  I admit, though, that I don’t know their on-screen personas very well.  That could alter our impressions.  (I do recall liking Parminder’s character in Bend It Like Beckham for what it’s worth.) 

On the whole, it seems rare to have round cheeks along with an emaciated body.  That might be another clue to understanding how our perceptions are formed.  The lean, mean fighting machine who is cranky because he’s hungry doesn’t exactly bring cuddles to mind.  Junkyard dogs know all about this.  On the other hand, the cliche on the heavier side of the scale is “fat and happy.”  I don’t think fat necessarily goes with happy, but in the back of some heads it may.

What seems less ambiguous is that ghouls, with their skin stretched tight against their skulls, have negative reputations.  The scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the Nazi suffers through his gruesome transmogrification is pretty unappealing.  Whatever cheeks the guy started with were certainly lost in the process, and it’s a grim association.

Sometimes even names are indicative.  Joey Cheek was the speed skater in the Olympics who became famous for donating the bonus money that the US Olympic Committee gave him for his gold and silver medals ($40,000 in all) to a charity formed by the great past champion from Norway, Johann Olav Koss.  Others followed suit.  John of Gaunt is the flip side of the coin.  From what I’ve read, he doesn’t seem like too bad a guy.  His father was King of England, as was his son, but he was just a Duke, albeit a rich and influential one.  Maybe the most damning thing I can say about his reputation, aside from a somewhat narrow visage, is that he’s the one that Shakespeare had deliver the England speech that school kids may have been forced to study:  “This happy breed of men, this little world, this precious stone set in the silver sea, which serves it in the office of a wall, or as a moat defensive to a house, against the envy of less happier lands, this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.”

When I tried to think of examples in political circles, the analysis fell apart.  Might it be that in a domain where forward is backward, progressive is stagnant, and moral is antagonizing, that cheeks can be bad?  In a contest among world leaders, past and present, most everyone I know would choose Honest Abe over Jerk-face Jong-il (North Korea’s leader and foremost saber rattler).

I’ve performed a rigorous analysis, and it doesn’t look good for us gaunt-faced guys.  The bright side is that I now have an excuse when people don’t like me. 

Before hitting the “Publish” button (and praying that these pictures go through), I’m compelled to ask one final question:  Can a tongue in the cheek make it look bigger?