Kris Jenner's rumored facelift procedure is ‘risky' & ‘not done often' as surgery costs six figures, top doc claims

KRIS Jenner's rumored deep plane facelift will have been riskier but leave her looking youthful for years to come, a top New York surgeon has revealed.
Kris, 69, had fans in a frenzy when she stepped out with a new face this month, looking decades younger.
5
5
5
The reality star's rep confirmed to Page Six she underwent aesthetic enhancements from New York plastic surgeon Dr. Steven Levine ahead of her 70th birthday.
Although it has not been revealed exactly what she had done, many critics have suggested she underwent a deep plane facelift as opposed to a regular SMAS procedure.
In an exclusive chat with The U.S. Sun, Dr. Norman Rowe, who did not do Kris's work but specializes in deep plane facelifts, explained the difference between the two surgeries.
Dr. Rowe said he felt her previous work was "tasteful" and he could immediately tell she'd had a facelift when she stepped out recently - believed to be her second.
But he praised Kris for maintaining her looks doing everything from using sun protection to Botox and lasering.
He said, "Once you get one of those things done, it's not like you're one and done. It's a maintenance thing.
"So she kept her face, you know, up. And she did well. And I think she looks good for her age. I like the result."
Asked how much it would cost to have the procedure done, he said, "It depends on whether or not you're getting it in Cincinnati, Ohio, or Miami or New York or LA. I mean, it can range from, five figures to six figures.
RISKY PROCEDURE
"I do deep planes. I like a deep plane. I switched almost completely over to deep planes.
"I just like the results better. It's more reliable. And, in my opinion, I think it lasts a little longer."
Explaining the difference between a regular facelift and a deep plane facelift, he said, "Below our skin and below the fat, there's a muscle layer, and it's called the superficial musculoaponeurotic system, or SMAS, we call it for short.
"When you do a facelift, you cut out a little sliver of that SMAS and suture the two ends back together to tighten it up. And usually you cut out the sliver somewhere here along the jawline or in here, and you suture together and it pulls it tighter.
"So if you think, all right, so that's one way to do it, cut out a section of it.
"Another way to do it is make an incision. You get underneath the SMAS, you lift up the muscle and then you pull it.
"Imagine if you have a carpet in your house and it has a bubble in it, a wrinkle. There are two ways you could take care of it. You could go along and cut out that wrinkle and then take [that] thread and suture the opening back up. Or you could go to the end of the carpet at the edge of the room and pull the carpet taut.
"That's basically the difference between a SMAS and a deep plane.
"A SMAS takes out that extra piece by cutting it out directly and suturing together, whereas the deep plane goes to the edge of the muscle, which is right around here in the neck, in the ear.
The U.S. Sun asked Dr. Rowe about the advantages of choosing a deep plane procedure over a regular facelift.
"In my opinion, I think a deep plane lasts a little bit longer," he said.
NERVE DAMAGE
"You get a little bit more of a tightening of the muscles when you pull the whole carpet. The dissection is deeper, is further underneath the muscle."
He explained not as many people are trained to carry out deep plane facelifts and they can carry risks.
"I think, honestly, still, the majority of people out there doing facelifts are probably doing SMAS. It's still kind of like the go-to technique.
"It ultimately depends on the surgeon's comfort in doing that deep plane to that point. I'll be honest, it is a little bit more risky than, say, a SMAS.
"The nerves that give us our movement in our face to give us our smile, our grimace, and things like that, all of our muscles, the nerves are underneath the muscle.
"And so if you're lifting up that muscle to pull that muscle taut, then you can injure those nerves. So there's a little bit [of] risk of that. But again, if you know what you're doing.
"In most residency programs, people just aren't doing deep planes because it's a little bit riskier. And so they don't do them. And so residents learn SMAS and they go out and then they do [them] because they weren't trained in deep planes."
Dr. Rowe explains there are different varieties of the deep plane facelift from the subtle to the more aggressive, and it depends on the person.
"The only way to know [what Kris had done] is to look at her five or 10 years from now," he said. "If she still looks good, it's probably a deep plane … if she starts to show little signs of aging. Probably wasn't.
The Kardashian matriarch began her journey with plastic surgery when she got breast implants in the 1980s after giving birth to her first four children: Kourtney, Kim, Khloé, and Rob Kardashian.
She has continued her cosmetic upkeep and revealed that she's gotten Botox and fillers over the years.
Explaining the deep plane procedure, Dr. Rowe continued, "Most people do it under general anesthesia. It's a little bit too much to do under twilight, a facelift.
"And again, when we talk about a facelift, a facelift generally includes a neck lift. So we call it fan face and neck lift.
"The incision is placed in the hairline, and by the temple, it goes in front of the ear and then behind the ear. So it kind of looks like a J.
"The surgery takes somewhere around two and a half to three hours, generally for a face and a neck lift.
"Sometimes I'll put an additional incision in underneath their chin in order to tighten up the muscles of the neck."
"Recovery? It depends on if someone gets something else done.
"A lot of times people will couple that with eyelid surgery, a brow lift, sometimes we'll laser.
"I won't be super aggressive when I laser because you don't want to injure the skin any more than or traumatize the skin, any more than it's already been traumatized by surgery."
SURGERY AGE
Dr. Rowe explained Kris would have been able to start wearing makeup three or four days after the surgery but may still have had some bruising.
"You can walk around. I probably wouldn't plan on any social events for a couple of weeks after the surgery. I wouldn't get it done three weeks before a wedding."
He revealed there can be complications including nerve injury but it is "rare".
"There are three main complications. There's a nerve injury, the incision opening up, and then also immediate post-operative bleeding, which if there is bleeding, then within the first eight hours, then you go back and you stop it.
"That's not a permanently disfiguring complication, whereas a nerve injury, maybe. And an incision opening up behind the ear and a wide scar, maybe."
He said he would not do a facelift for anyone in their 20s, but he has seen women in their 30s in need of surgery if they have not maintained their looks.
"What's the perfect age? When you need it. I see 30 or I see 35 year olds who need a facelift, and I see 65 year olds who need a facelift," he said.
"I see 35 year olds who don't need it, and I see 65 who don't need it. So it depends on your body, your lifestyle, how much sun you got, what you've done to maintain your skin, what have you done in the past?
"It's like a car. If you take care of your car, your car will get 100,000 miles on. If you beat the heck out of it, you'll be done after 20,000 miles.
"So it's the same thing with your body and your face.
"If you take care of yourself, you might push off the need for a facelift. And then when you do need it, you're more likely to say, okay, fine, let's do it.
"Whereas if you don't take care of it, you're definitely going to need it. And whether you agree to it or not, you know, that's another thing."
He added, "What's the youngest I've done … 37. She never set foot into a plastic surgeon's office. She actually lost some weight. And so she needed a facelift.
"And we see that now with the Ozempic phase, people are losing weight, and they come in at a younger age who need facelifts and things like that."
5

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Sun

25 minutes ago

• The Sun

Friends and Spider-Man star dies in his sleep aged 96 after 60-year Hollywood career

LEGENDARY actor Jack Betts, known for his roles in Friends and Spider-Man, has died aged 96. The Hollywood star died in his sleep at his home in Los Osos, California, on Thursday. 2 2 Betts befriended Everybody Loves Raymond star Doris Roberts and shared a home with her. Born in Miami, Florida, in 1929, the legend first began his career on Broadway, in an adaptation of William Shakespeare's Richard III. He then went on to an incredibly successful career, playing various characters across TV shows and movies. Betts had a cameo in the Batman Forever movie in 1995 and Batman & Robin two years later. But after appearing as Hunt Powers across the Italian Spaghetti Western films, his career rocketed. The legend had bluffed his way into the 1966 Franco Giraldi's Sugar Coat starring role and he held it for 12 consecutive films - ending in 1972. Speaking to the Dev Show in 2021, he said: "In the hotel next to mine was Clint Eastwood. "He'd go up to his mountain and do his Western and I'd go up to my mountain and do my Western. "But while his films had distribution all over the world, my films were distributed [everywhere] except Canada and America." Betts then went back to Broadway and starred as Dracula between 1977 to 1980. .

BBC News

35 minutes ago

• BBC News

'In every theatre, people would leave': How 'gay cowboy movie' Brokeback Mountain challenged Hollywood

Twenty years ago, Ang Lee's drama about the love between two male sheep herders was finally released after a long struggle to get it made. It was a watershed moment for gay representation that balanced playing by Hollywood's rules and changing them. When it was released in 2005, Brokeback Mountain entered the collective consciousness in a way that is vanishingly rare for a film with queer subject matter. Even non-cinephiles would have been aware of the "gay cowboy movie", as it was often described in the press, and the subsequent controversy when it lost the Academy Award for best picture to Crash, a clumsy crime film that now regularly appears on lists of the worst Oscar winners ever. Brokeback Mountain did take home three Oscars, including a prestigious best director prize for Ang Lee, and remains a beloved gay touchstone. Actor Paul Mescal recently complained that it feels "lazy and frustrating' to compare his upcoming film The History of Sound, a period romance in which he and Josh O'Connor play travelling lovers in rural Maine, to Lee's tender neo-Western about romantically attracted sheep herders Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal). Whether you agree with Mescal or not, the persistent comparisons are a sign of Brokeback Mountain's enduring impact and popularity. Indeed, to mark its 20th anniversary, Lee's film is now being re-released in US cinemas this week for a limited engagement. Adapted by screenwriters Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana from a 1997 short story by Annie Proulx, Brokeback Mountain was a relatively novel proposition back in 2004. "The fact its two leads were handsome A-list male stars and [it showed] their characters in a romantic story together was groundbreaking," says Tim Teeman, author of In Bed With Gore Vidal: Hustlers, Hollywood, and the Private World of an American Master. This view is broadly echoed by queer film critic Manuel Betancourt, author of Hello Stranger: Musings on Modern Intimacies, who says the film's success with critics and audiences alike felt like the start of a "new era of gay representation [on screen]". At the time, Brokeback Mountain looked like a surprising pivot from director Ang Lee, who had recently made the 2003 superhero film Hulk, though his other directing credits ranged from an acclaimed Jane Austen adaptation (1995's Sense and Sensibility) to a hugely successful martial arts film (2000's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). The film's core cast was a quartet of hotly-tipped rising stars in their twenties: Ledger and Anne Hathaway would go on to win Oscars for subsequent roles, while Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams are rarely far from the awards season conversation. How it was pioneering "It's easy to take for granted the way that Brokeback Mountain, with its starry cast and A-list director, profoundly changed the shape of LGBTQ+ representation in the mainstream," argues Kyle Turner, author of The Queer Film Guide: 100 Films That Tell LGBTIA+ Stories. Turner notes that "the wave of mainstream queer moves in the 90s" tended to "toggle between Aids-related dramas like Philadelphia (1993) and And the Band Played On (1993), and lighter comedies like The Birdcage (1996) and In & Out (1997)". By contrast, he believes that Brokeback Mountain carved out a new niche as a "straightforward and serious" film that won "newfound respectability" for a romantic story involving same-sex lovers. That story begins in rural Wyoming in 1963, when drifters Ennis and Jack are hired by a local rancher to herd sheep through grazing ground on the titular Brokeback Mountain. One night, with their inhibitions loosened by moonshine, Jack makes a pass at Ennis and the two men have sex in a tent – a pretty audacious scene for a mainstream film in 2005. When Brokeback Mountain came out in December 2005, Ossana, who was also the film's producer, made a point of attending screenings in some of the US's more conservative states to gauge the audience's reaction. "The theatres were packed, and in every theatre it was the same – after the tent scene, five or six people would get up to leave," she tells the BBC. Brokeback Mountain grows sadder and more anguished after Ennis and Jack consummate their relationship. Their sheep-herding summer ends with the two men scrapping, presumably in frustration at the romantic feelings they dare not acknowledge. Ennis then marries his fianceé Alma (Williams), while Jack meets and marries rodeo rider Lureen (Hathaway). It's four years before the two men meet again, at which point Jack asks Ennis to leave Alma and build a life with him. Heartbreakingly, it's a giant leap that Ennis can't bring himself to make. "Everyone talks about the 1960s being a time of 'free love', but it was actually a very narrow-minded and restrictive time for many people in America – that's what the hippies were rebelling against," Ossana says. For Ennis, the prospect of living in a gay relationship with Jack is simply too much to countenance, so for the next 20 years, their passion is limited to sporadic fishing trips that are separate from their everyday lives. The men are affected by overt external homophobia: when Jack returns to Brokeback Mountain, he is told by a prejudiced rancher that there is no work there for men "who stem the rose", a deceptively elegant euphemism for gay sex. But ultimately, it is Ennis' deep-rooted internalised homophobia that thwarts their potential happiness. The challenges of getting it produced Thinly-veiled homophobia – this time in early-2000s Hollywood – made Brokeback Mountain an immense challenge for Ossana and her fellow producer James Schamus. After she read Proulx's short story in 1997, Ossana and screenwriting partner McMurtry persuaded the author to let them adapt it for the screen. "Annie said, 'I don't see a film there, but have at it,'" Ossana recalls. They completed the screenplay in three months, but it took nearly eight years to get the film into production. "The biggest problem was casting Ennis. Actors would commit and then back out, or they just were too afraid based upon what their representatives were telling them," she explains – because for an aspiring leading man at the time, playing a gay character was widely viewed as "career suicide". After Lee joined the project in 2001, the producers found an actor willing to play Ennis, but this star dropped out around five months later. "I already had a feeling he might back out," Ossana says, alluding to the widely held trepidation about playing a gay character. By this point, she was already convinced that Ledger was perfect for the role based on his haunting performance in the 2001 romantic drama Monster's Ball. Crucially, too, he had previously "played a gay teenager in a soap opera" in his native Australia, so Ossana hoped he might be more "open" than his American peers. Her hunch was correct, but Ossana says studio executives were initially reluctant to cast Ledger because they felt he wasn't "macho enough" to play a cowboy – or even a "wannabe cowboy", as she sees the character. "It was probably helpful, in terms of the film's infiltration into the mainstream, that [Ennis and Jack] are two men who inhabit a conventional kind of masculinity," Turner says. Betancourt believes Brokeback Mountain was able to provide a watershed moment in LGBTQ+ representation precisely because it was rooted in proven Hollywood tropes. "As a Western and a melodrama, it played within two well-worn genres and infused them both with new vibrancy – mainly due to the fact it's a love story between two men," he says. At the same time, Brokeback Mountain also adheres to another Hollywood trope: what Teeman describes as depicting "queer love as beautiful but doomed", a narrative that plays out in the likes of The Children's Hour (1961) and Philadelphia (1993). The two men's flickering romance is finally extinguished when Jack dies in ambiguous circumstances. Lureen tells Ennis over the phone that Jack was killed by an exploding tyre – though at the same time, we see images of Jack being viciously beaten by a group of men. Ennis is envisioning, all too believably, his lover being killed in a homophobic hate crime. Its debatable legacy Perhaps because it played by the rules while challenging them at the same time, Brokeback Mountain's place in film history is assured. In 2018, it was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry, which recognises works that are "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". It occupies an equally integral, though more complicated place, in the queer film pantheon. "As a piece of cinema, it remains as ravishing and disarming as ever," Betancourt argues, "but as a pivot point for queer representation, it remains as singular but limiting as it was then." It is, after all, the story of two closeted gay or possibly bisexual men who "pass" as straight in their everyday lives. More like this:• Why Requiem for a Dream still divides• The darkest children's film ever made?• The horror that traumatised millennials Though Brokeback Mountain remains important and influential, it's difficult to quantify its long-term impact on LGBTQ+ representation. Teeman notes that Hollywood gave a green light to several "mainstream queer-themed films" in its wake, notably Milk (2008) and The Kids Are All Right (2010); these were followed in turn by Carol (2014), Moonlight (2016) and Call Me by Your Name (2017). But he also believes "there's little consistency and regularity in the flow of queer-themed stories and lead characters to the screen". For Teeman, "TV and theatre are [still] more radical than film when it comes to queer representation." Brokeback Mountain also retains a unique relevance because of its place in the ongoing debate about whether straight actors should play gay roles. Both Gyllenhaal and Ledger, who died in 2008, are widely presumed to be heterosexual, though Ossana says it was "none of my business" as a producer to ask questions about their sexual orientation. "It's the old chestnut, and Brokeback Mountain is the ultimate exemplar," Teeman says. But even with these caveats, it remains a stunning and heartbreaking piece of cinema that strikes a particular chord with LGBTQ+ viewers. Brokeback Mountain offers a stark reminder that denying your true identity is a tragedy that can derail several lives at once. Brokeback Mountain is being re-released in US cinemas, beginning with special showings on June 22 and 25. -- If you liked this story sign up for The Essential List newsletter, a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week. For more Culture stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

The Guardian

an hour ago

• The Guardian

Trump's coalition is self-destructing over the Iran war question

You have to admit that there's something delicious about watching Ted Cruz get served his just deserts by former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. In a nearly two-hour long interview on Carlson's own channel and in Cruz's Washington office, Carlson repeatedly grilled, roasted, and fried the Texas senator, exposing a deepening rift within the Maga movement and showing us the hollowness of our so-called leaders along the way. You don't have to be a fan of Carlson to enjoy the spectacle of a Republican civil war. Carlson, who once hosted a show on CNN, established his reputation on Fox News and then became 'a racist demagogue and promoter of far-right disinformation and dangerous conspiracy theories', as a 2023 profile in Mother Jones described him. While at Fox, he was for a time the highest rated personality on cable TV and was deeply influential in setting the conservative agenda. On air at Fox – and in this essay for Politico – he praised Trump. Off-air, he was texting his colleagues a different opinion: 'We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,' Carlson wrote in a text sent on 4 January 2021. 'I truly can't wait,' he wrote, adding: 'I hate him passionately.' So there's something fishy about Carlson. We all know it. Even Fox knew it. He was abruptly fired from the network in 2023 and later launched his own streaming service, the Tucker Carlson Network, in December 2023. His 2024 interview of Vladimir Putin has raised questions about judgment. 'I am definitely more sympathetic to Putin than Zelenskyy,' he told NewsNation. Questionable, to say the least. Carlson is also a much under-appreciated actor. He will explode in giddy laughter in one second only to turn accusatory the next. He lures you in with a goofy gaze, but he is extremely quick on his feet. He somehow always looks like he just got back from summer vacation. People call him a pundit. I think of him more as a performance artist. While the interview with Cruz illustrates some of Carlson's abilities, it was also a masterclass in highlighting Cruz's main talent. Over the years, Cruz has honed the marvelous skill of brilliantly showcasing his own limitations (such as the time Cruz ran off to Cancún in the middle of a devastating power outage that occurred during a deep freeze in Texas). The Carlson-Cruz interview centered on a few topics: the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) on American politics, if Aipac should register as a foreign agent (Carlson: Yes. Cruz: No), and who blew up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, among others. The question of the United States going to war with Iran, however, was at the center of the interview, as it is also at the center of our national politics right now. 'How many people live in Iran, by the way?' Carlson asks Cruz. 'I don't know the population,' Cruz responds. 'You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?' Carlson asks, incredulously. Cruz shoots back. 'How many people live in Iran?' Carlson quickly responds, '92 million. How could you not know that?' 'I don't sit around memorizing population tables,' Cruz says defensively. 'Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government,' Carlson says. 'I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran!' 'You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of their government. You don't know anything about the country!' 'No. You don't know anything about the country!' And so it went. The whole fiasco was at times childish, other moments vindictive, but all over simply wonderful, as the Maga world implodes on its own fissures, ignorance, and contradictions. A case in point. Cruz repeatedly lashes out at the Iranian regime for basing its politics on religion, while he wishes to use his own theology to justify his politics. Carlson is having none of it. It began with Cruz telling Carlson that he was 'taught from the bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things.' 'Those who bless the government of Israel?' Carlson asks. Cruz responds that 'it doesn't say the government of Israel. It says the nation of Israel. That's in the Bible. As a Christian, I believe that.' Carlson presses Cruz. 'Where is that?' 'I can find it for you. I don't have the scripture off the tip of my, pull out the phone and use Google.' 'It's in Genesis,' Carlson quickly says. 'So you're quoting a Bible phrase that you don't have context for and you don't know where it is, and that's like your theology? I'm confused.' The Maga movement is doomed to self-destruct at some point, full as it of too many contradictory tendencies. We already saw it crack when Elon and Donald took a relationship pause recently. But there are other fractures. Trump ran on a platform that was supposed to end all wars immediately. That clearly hasn't happened. In fact, he may soon bring the United States into another endless war in the Middle East. The prospect is widely disliked, even by his base. Only 19% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 think 'the US military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran'. Maga diehard Marjorie Taylor Greene now calls Fox News 'propaganda', saying the American people have been 'brainwashed into believing that America has to engage in these foreign wars in order for us to survive, and it's absolutely not true.' Steve Bannon, a key influence on Trump, told reporters this week that 'We don't want any more forever wars.' He added: 'We can't do this again. We'll tear the country apart. We can't have another Iraq.' For his part, Trump offered his typically bold leadership by telling reporters 'Nobody knows what I'm going to do.' Presumably that nobody also includes him. The White House later said that Trump will 'make a decision on whether to attack Iran within two weeks'. Bannon further believes that, if Trump does drag the US into war, most of his base will ultimately follow. The Democratic party, unsurprisingly, can't decide what it wants, though only 10% of those who voted for Harris in 2024 favor going to war. In other words, the US entering Israel's war with Iran is massively disliked across the political spectrum. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. Our fractured and hollow politics may actually enable it. If it happens, the Maga movement may not survive, but do they really have to take the rest of us down with them along the way? Moustafa Bayoumi is a Guardian US columnist