Tarte Micellar Magic Makeup Remover is a product designed to effectively remove makeup without harsh chemicals or alcohol. It is a gentle yet powerful formula that is suitable for all skin types, including sensitive skin. This micellar water makeup remover features micellar technology, which means it contains tiny oil molecules called micelles that attract and lift away dirt, oil, and makeup from the skin's surface. It effortlessly removes even waterproof makeup, leaving the skin clean and refreshed. The Tarte Micellar Magic Makeup Remover is also infused with ingredients that benefit the skin. It contains cucumber and aloe extracts, which have soothing and hydrating properties.
An intelligent and ambitious woman who was also an avid moviegoer could conceivably have picked up the basics on the cinema screen. Further, movie fan magazines regularly featured articles on the technical aspects of film and advertisements for correspondence and in-person filmmaking courses, which included photography. (I collect filmmaking correspondence courses from the silent era and I can confirm that they extremely technical information.) Self-education may go far in explaining Wong’s confidence as there would have been no Hollywood types telling her that her dreams were impossible.
There s a rumor that Wong hired a cameraman from Charlie Chaplin s crew but I can find no supporting evidence and it does seem odd that this person is never named. Further, movie fan magazines regularly featured articles on the technical aspects of film and advertisements for correspondence and in-person filmmaking courses, which included photography.
It contains cucumber and aloe extracts, which have soothing and hydrating properties. This helps to calm and moisturize the skin while removing makeup. One of the standout features of this makeup remover is its ease of use.
Century Film Project
Once upon a time, an enterprising Chinese-American businesswoman named Marion E. Wong set out to make a feature film, using friends and family members for her cast. After two advance screenings, the movie languished in her basement for fifty years before she gave it to a relative, and then it was another 39 years before it was restored and digitized in 2007. Now it is available, and serves as a document of a culture that was rarely captured on film at the time and even more rarely in charge of its own narrative when it was.
I cannot give a detailed summary of the movie, because some of it is lost, importantly including the Intertitles that would explain much of the relationships and action on the screen. The basic story is timeless enough, however, that we can follow it in broad outline: a young Chinese American girl (Violet Wong, real-life sister-in-law of the director) with Western ideas marries into a very traditional family and is driven out by her scornful in-laws. The movie opens as the groom gives a statue of a household god to his mother, who seems to lecture him about the old ways. We see a good deal of the build-up to the marriage, in which the girl and her betrothed have tea together in what will be her bedroom, and she pokes good-natured fun at some of the traditional accoutrements of the ceremony, including a pair of oddly-balanced slippers for the bride, and a dangly headpiece for the groom. We also see her efforts to get along with her future mother-in-law, who seems quite formal, but not unfriendly at this stage. There is a scene I couldn’t follow in which she speaks to her husband in an outdoor setting, and suddenly breaks down crying (I’m guessing that he’s telling her he must go away for a while, based on what happens next). Then we see what seems to be the tail end of the wedding ceremony, demonstrating that she has learned to walk in the awkward slippers.
In the next sequence, the husband is missing, but there is a new element: Now Marion Wong appears as the “villain,” evidently a sister-in-law or other relative living in the same house. She takes Violet’s baby away and the mother-in-;aw gestures for her to leave after a confrontation, offering her a knife to commit suicide. I think Violet is being accused of neglecting her baby, since what seems to be a doctor comes to look at the child in a later scene. Violet goes out into the rain and seems to be ready to slash her wrists, but suddenly throws down the knife and wanders out into the wilderness. There is an odd scene in which she cuddles a lamb, appearing no worse for the wear after sleeping outside in the rain. Then we return to the house, where the husband returns and learns what has happened. He cries for his loss and confronts Marion with her cruelty. Then Violet turns up at the door again, and her takes her in and comforts her. Marion, realizing that her plot has failed, plunges the dagger into her own heart. At the end, Violet produces the household god and pays homage to it, suggesting that all the turmoil was due to her disrespect at the beginning, and that the tragic events since then have helped her to accept traditional ways.
What’s that on your shoulder, son?
I wasn’t sure what to expect from an non-studio film from this period but I was pretty impressed, especially by the filming and editing techniques. Most beginning filmmakers, especially at this early time, don’t give themselves enough “coverage” to show a scene from multiple angles, get close-ups and establishing shots, etc., but Marion and her crew did quite well. It was, in fact, less “stagey” and static than a lot of professionally-made films at the time, and demonstrates a good grasp of so-called “film grammar” with a liberal amount of different angles and shots. Scenes sometimes end with an iris-in, especially for strong emotional moments. One particularly good shot shows Violet at her mirror, with her face perfectly framed by the mirror as she works on her complicated braids. That’s not to say there are no mistakes – one scene had a distracting reflection that kept hitting the leading man’s shoulder, and a couple of edits have a sort of “hiccup” effect where we see the last few frames before the cut were repeated. And, of course, some of the footage is less than perfectly intact, so it’s hard to know how good it was meant to be.
It’s a pity that audiences of 1916 missed out on this movie. I suspect that Ms. Wong discovered that distribution was more difficult and expensive an investment than she’d anticipated, and gave up when she realized she probably wouldn’t make her money back trying to do it independently. It remains however as a document of a truly under-represented segment of American culture from a time period that tends to look disturbingly white when only the most popular images are seen.
Alternate Title: The Curse of Quon Gwon: When the Far East Mingles with the West
Director: Marion E. Wong
Camera: Unknown
Starring: Marion E. Wong, Violet Wong, Harvey Soohoo.
Run Time: 35 Min (surviving print)
You can watch it for free: here (no music).
I wasn’t sure what to expect from an non-studio film from this period but I was pretty impressed, especially by the filming and editing techniques. Most beginning filmmakers, especially at this early time, don’t give themselves enough “coverage” to show a scene from multiple angles, get close-ups and establishing shots, etc., but Marion and her crew did quite well. It was, in fact, less “stagey” and static than a lot of professionally-made films at the time, and demonstrates a good grasp of so-called “film grammar” with a liberal amount of different angles and shots. Scenes sometimes end with an iris-in, especially for strong emotional moments. One particularly good shot shows Violet at her mirror, with her face perfectly framed by the mirror as she works on her complicated braids. That’s not to say there are no mistakes – one scene had a distracting reflection that kept hitting the leading man’s shoulder, and a couple of edits have a sort of “hiccup” effect where we see the last few frames before the cut were repeated. And, of course, some of the footage is less than perfectly intact, so it’s hard to know how good it was meant to be.
It does not require rinsing, making it perfect for on-the-go use or when you're in a hurry. Simply saturate a cotton pad with the micellar water and gently wipe it across your face until all traces of makeup are removed. This makeup remover is also dermatologist-tested, vegan, and cruelty-free, making it a great choice for those who prefer ethical beauty products. It is free from harsh ingredients such as parabens, sulfates, and phthalates, ensuring that it is gentle on the skin. Overall, Tarte Micellar Magic Makeup Remover is an effective and gentle product that effectively removes makeup without stripping or irritating the skin. Its travel-friendly size and easy-to-use formula make it a convenient addition to any skincare routine..
Reviews for "Tarte Micellar Magic Makeup Remover: The Perfect Addition to your Nighttime Skincare Routine"
1. Sarah - 2 stars - I was really disappointed with the Tarte micellar magic makeup remover. Despite its claims of being able to effortlessly remove all traces of makeup, I found that it struggled to remove even the lightest makeup. I had to scrub my face multiple times, which left my skin feeling irritated and sore. Additionally, I noticed that it left a weird residue on my skin, making it feel greasy and uncomfortable. Overall, I definitely won't be repurchasing this product.
2. Emily - 1 star - This micellar makeup remover from Tarte completely underwhelmed me. For a product that claims to be magic at removing makeup, it fell incredibly short. I found that I had to use a lot of the product to even begin removing my makeup, and even then, it didn't do the job effectively. It left a lot of residue on my skin, which made it feel sticky and heavy. It also caused some breakouts on my sensitive skin. I wouldn't recommend this product to anyone looking for an effective makeup remover.
3. Jessica - 2 stars - I had high hopes for the Tarte micellar magic makeup remover, but unfortunately, it didn't meet my expectations. I found that it struggled to remove my waterproof mascara and long-lasting foundation. I had to apply multiple layers of the makeup remover and still had to use a separate oil-based remover for the stubborn makeup. Additionally, it left my skin feeling dry and stripped of moisture. Overall, I was disappointed with this product and wouldn't purchase it again.