To Rome with Love - The Fashion of American Women?

Judy Davis as Phyllis

Feminine wares of To Rome with Love?

So I ventured off to see To Rome with Love and it was more of a like.  I'm not sure what Director Woody Allen and Costume Designer Sonia Grande are trying to communicate about American women throughout this film.  Both Ellen Page's character Monica and her best friend Sally (Greta Gerwig) for the most part are clad in low rise jeans with button down shirts and masculine-reading likely-Italian-leather belts.  Both give off the vibe of 21-year-old boys dressed to go into a local bar rather than dressing as the sexy love interests that the film purports them to be.  Even Allen's character Jerry has a wife Phyllis (Judy Davis) who is draped in dull outfits (if you can call them that) and T-shirts.  All three American women look breast-less and androgynous.  Upon first glance a feminist may say this is a good thing--women don't need to wear skin-revealing outfits a la Scarlett Johansson to appear feminine.  I agree.  But in this case it comes off as making women look like they are trying to look more like men.

Perhaps Allen is attempting to highlight Penelope Cruz by shoving the other female characters in baggy attire.  Cruz's tight red dress can only make her stand out from the other women, but unfortunately the costume enforces the cliched Italian prostitute who doesn't have much to say but has much to do with her clients.  Cruz looks amazing, but I would rather have seen her clothed in something more surprising and quirky.  I will say, however, that the red dress is so ridiculous that it has a humorous life of its own.  So while Cruz and the other Italian female characters give off their feminine charms in dresses the American female characters linger in their western wear.

Regardless of the costumes, Allen delivers with his usual characters filled with neurotic tendencies, insecurities, and palatable narcissism.  Such consistency in Allen's films is what makes his films work.  In an age when most people only post flattering pictures and personality traits on their Facebook profiles, it's nice to go to a fiction film to get a slice of reality where people are just people, wrought with problems.

Like us on Facebook

Midnight in Paris: Nostalgia is Denial?

I don't agree with what Paul says in Midnight in Paris.  Granted, he is arguably the most annoying character in the film with his overwhelming expert-on-everything personality (which happens to be one of my most loathed character flaws).  Luckily the irritation leads to my laughter as I watch him stumble about with his bloviating and his nonsensical expertise.  But is there any credence to what he says?

Paul:  "Nostalgia is denial - denial of the painful present... the name for this denial is golden age thinking - the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one ones living in - it's a flaw in the romantic imagination of those people who find it difficult to cope with the present."

Nostalgia isn't acknowledgement of a painful present.  Nostalgia is the incorporation of the beauty of the past with the beauty of the present.  That's all.

Take my recent acquisition of a circa 1960's permanent press duster dress from Monnig's Fort Worth department store.  The once-favored department store is now a parking lot.  A parking lot certainly can't reflect the beauty of what was once three buildings crudely constructed with a brick facade to house thousands of American-made merchandise.  Avocado green, yellow gold, blue and pink fabric with the original Monnig's tags?  A 50-plus-year-old piece of merchandise that has made it this far without rips, tears, or stains deserves a little bit of applause. 

Even from Paul.  Who would hate it.  And would likely say it was some sort of fabric-based-material psychotherapy.

3 Things to Do When Shopping at Antique Malls and Thrift Stores

1.  Look down.  Sounds obvious, but a lot of people don't do this.  Most people look forward at eye level when they shop.  Some of the best deals I've scored have been items that were shoved in the bottom of a shelf.  Last week I found two reasonably priced items in really good condition tucked away--vintage Audrey Hepburn-esque Givenchy shoes and a circa 1890s Victorian fairy lamp. 

2.  Buy what you like.  Another one that sounds obvious.  Don't worry if you think your friends or your mother will hate it.  Trust your instincts.  Surround yourself with what you like.  I'm always amazed out how some people won't buy what they like because they're afraid of what others will think of it.  Also be sure to buy it when you see it.  I found a couture vintage Neiman Marcus wedding dress and I figured I'd go back and get it later thinking that no one else could possibly want it, but sure enough it was long gone when I returned.

3.  See things out of context.  Sometimes the gems are surrounded by some really ugly stuff, so your eye might lump the gems into the ugly category.  A couple of weeks ago there was a pair of vintage Henredon chairs surrounded by some really ugly furniture, and had I not been paying attention my eye might have skipped right over them without even realizing it.  Try to see beyond the musty and dusty so that you don't miss the really great stuff.  One of the beautiful things about vintage pieces is that most of them are not made in China so you're buying quality items instead of those that are mass-produced and mediocre. 

Young Adult

Young Adult should be called Jung Adult.  The reason why David C. Robinson's costumes are so appealing is that he makes clear delineations between Mavis' Jung-like psychological stages--who Mavis wants to be and who Mavis thinks she should be.  Mavis' outer appearance can't help her assume her desired persona which makes watching her slip into her alcoholism and depression all the more uncomfortable to witness.  Too bad good old Carl isn't around to step into the film and help her have a much-needed spiritual experience to drive away that craving for whiskey.

Mavis' transitions from sweats to leather to tweed do nothing to help her make a transition to a better life.  Somehow watching Mavis in a mustard cardigan and a tweed-trimmed dress is more distressing than watching her shuffle around in her juvenile Hello Kitty shirt and sweats.  [On a side note, why do grown women still like Hello Kitty?  Women won't be caught carrying around a Barbie pencil case, for instance, but I reluctantly admit I have seen a woman or two pull out Hello Kitty pencil cases in my graduate school classes.  Help.  Someone explain.] 

The one constant is the gold heart necklace Mavis wears, yes the heart-of-gold-inference, that perfectly symbolizes what is really going on inside.  The close-up shots of her wearing her heart necklace are intense when you look closely and you can see the pendant move up and down with the beat of her heart.

Film critics claim that Mavis is a narcissist but I disagree.  To a point she is self absorbed but why shouldn't she be when all she desperately wants is for someone to simply care about her enough to understand her without judgement and to fulfill her emotional needs?  I think it best to call in Jung for an assessment.

When Harry Met Sally...When Actresses Wore Clothes

After watching When Harry Met Sally for the umpteenth time the other night, I realized it seemed a bit dated.  Why?  Not the clothes of the 70s, 80s, or 90s.  It was that the lead female character actually had clothes on.  Sweaters, blazers, jackets, belts, gloves, hats, boots.  Even menswear shoes.  Refreshing. 

It's not that showing off the female form is bad, and it's not that every movie nowadays jumps on the let's-make-a-deal-and-get-the-actress-naked train, but sometimes don't you want to watch a film for the sake of the story as opposed to being distracted, perhaps subconsciously, by the fact that the lead actress is half naked here, half naked there?  (Men don't answer this).  There seems to be current costuming formulas in Hollywood at the moment.  They're not new formulas, but the results are getting tiring and drab, trite and cliche.  Some well-known formulas may include:

tight tank top at some point + short shorts or skirt = Jennifer Aniston
overblown cleavage + beaucoup de lipstick = Scarlett Johansonn
tight pants + exposed midriff at some point in film = any Transformers actress
socks + underwear + open mens shirt = Cameron Diaz

To give these actresses the doubt, let us acknowledge that they have fabulous bodies to show off and can hopefully laugh all the way to the bank when their agents negotiate more money for them as they show off their beauty, even when much of the time body double skin is being used anyway.  So in that sense, I can't blame them. 

Beyond actresses, I even caught Ann Curry wearing oversexualized high heels (you know, the at-least-six-inch) during her interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  The interview, re-posted on the Internet, seems to now have been scrubbed to only feature medium close ups so we don't see the shoes.  Really Ann?  Were you trying to get arrested?  "Hooker heels" -- as Rachel Zoe affectionately calls them.  As much as I love Rachel Zoe, since when have "hooker heels," designed to make women look like oversexualized caricatures, become a good thing?

Even though Sally and Harry had intimate moments, at least the lead female was for once under a cotton sheet instead of the standard Hollywood sheet of skin.  No really, they say, the nudity is required.  For realism.  For the story.

Julia Roberts: How a Feminine Shirtdress Strengthens Her Character

Costume Designer Albert Wolsky has costumed a ton of films and has no doubt earned his rank as one of the top designers in the business.  Yet I can't quite wrap my head around why he chose an unending collection of shirtdresses for Julia Roberts in Larry Crowne.  I'm assuming that for one thing he was trying to show that she was in a rut--existing, rather than living, life.  Same dress, different color, day in and day out, no need to think in the morning about mixing or matching separates, just put on your "robe" and heels and go?  Aside from the rut, was Wolsky's shirtdress statement that Americans naturally view female professors and teachers as stereotypical, regimented, dress-wearing women which Roberts' character embodied throughout the film until her revelation of desired and necessary freedom surfaces toward the end of the film?  Side note:  I would have to say I don't recall ever seeing a teacher or professor wear a shirtdress to work, and I have been a teacher for many years.  I myself own...one.

Interestingly, where did this shirtdress stereotype evolve from? The 1950s, a time of heightened popularity for the little 'ol shirtdress, a time of devoted feminine housewives in heels and cinched waists (Jerry:  "not that there's anything wrong with that").  My theory, though, is that ultimately Wolsky decided to costume Roberts in her ultra feminine dresses to demonstrate that her husband was even more undeserving of her than we indeed initially thought-- here her husband has a beautiful wife, who on top of being feminine and gorgeous works hard every day to pay their bills, and yet such beauty is still not enough for him.  He therefore chooses to drown himself in hyper-feminine caricatured online images filled with surrealism that have become all too common on the web.  This is a man who responds to fantasy more than to reality, which is one of the most destructive character flaws a human being can have, especially when pretending to take on the role of a devoted spouse.  The audience therefore develops additional empathy for Roberts' character.  Without Roberts' such outward femininity, the audience perhaps might not feel so sorry for Roberts' character, and without audience empathy, her relationship with Larry Crowne could come across as self-indulgent rather than the result of an honest escape from unfortunately an unchangeable and immoral husband.

By Jove, Princess Kate Buys An Off The Rack Dress For Only $6,000!

Princess Kate in a dress that cost only $6,000? (image left) Ingenious, according to the press, which recently lauded Princess Kate for wearing such a dress. Six thousand dollars. Only. Even more impressive, according to the headlines, the dress was bought off the rack. Mon Dieu! Not to begrudge those with wealth—let us be sure to preface this by saying that wealth is not bad or evil—you have it, it’s yours, and “carry on” as the Brits would say, although one must dare wonder just a teeny-weeny bit how much of that dress is technically taxpayer subsidized. But, it’s all relative anyway—six thousand dollars to her is akin to six dollars for many of us.

But the more things change, the more they stay the same. Circle all the way back to the August 1989 issue of Royalty magazine where it’s noted that Princess of Wales Diana wore the same dress three times, with fans likely noticing. Three times. By Jove, the tragedy of it! In 1983 the dress appeared at the Wales’ Australian tour. In 1985 it appeared at the James Bond film premiere of “A View to A Kill,” and appeared yet again at the 1989 premiere of the James Bond film “Licence to Kill.” (image right)

So when you’re queasy about saving some money and wearing the same expensive dress two or three times—queasy because pictures of you at different events in the same dress might end up on Facebook (oh my!), just drop that commoner mindset of yours and think of the money-saving strategies of Kate and Diana of buying off the rack, then implementing the strategy of wash, rinse, and repeat. That expensive bridesmaid dress you had to buy? You will DEFINITELY wear it again, right? Of COURSE you will! We wonder if Pippa will wear hers again. Most assuredly she will.