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.

High-waisted Jeans Fans Unite

After watching some old 1970s reruns of Charlie’s Angels, we realized the 1970s-born high-waisted jean really IS a flattering cut and would like to thank designers for FINALLY bringing it back this season. Really. Comfortable, flattering high-waisted jeans. We’ve been waiting. What was the point of low-waisted jeans anyway? Why are they even still in stores? For some reason the trend of the last few years became 1) buy low rise, low-waisted jeans 2) buy baggy unflattering tunic top to cover your waist in such jeans. What is that?


Ashley Greene, Anne Hathaway, and Katie Holmes with 2011 high-waisted cuts.

All Good Things Must Not Come To An End

I recently had the privilege of catching a Screen Actors Guild preview screening of Kirsten Dunst’s and Ryan Gosling’s upcoming film All Good Things. Set in the 1970s and early 1980s, the film is saturated with slick costumes representing the spectrum of upper class couture all the way down to blue collar class chic. Aside from the costumes, the good performances are enough to warrant catching this film, but if you’re a fan of watching how fashion morphs from class to class and decade to decade, this film is a must-see. The film is currently scheduled for an official release on December 3, 2010.

Buy Vintage, Stay...Wealthy?

A recent Yahoo headline article listed the top five reasons wealthy people stay wealthy. Reason number five? Wealthy people pay less than they have to for things they want. An obvious answer, but interestingly enough the article gave buying pre-owned vintage couture clothing as the example of how wealthy women save money—many women who have the money to pay retail prices for luxury designer fashion choose instead to save money by buying vintage and pre-owned pieces.

And when you think about it, does it really matter if the piece is pre-owned—worn once or twice if at all? To some it matters, but the reality is that with some of the big retailers you never really know if you’re buying a “new” piece from them anyway. These retailers take back anything for returns, re-tag the item if it looks like it’s still in halfway decent shape, and stick it back on the sales floor as though it had been there the entire time. Meanwhile, the piece had actually been worn out on the dance floor, at the restaurant, at the gala…because let’s face it, unfortunately we all know at least one of those women—women who unethically buy high-end clothes, wear them, then return them, only to complete the cycle all over again. And who wants to be paying retail prices for someone else’s returns???

Prince Charles Loves Vintage? Who Knew?

The Royal Prince of Wales recently revealed in the September issue of Vogue that if people “knew how much of what I wear is many years, even decades, old” they would not necessarily call him fashionable as they often do. His take that “vintage clothes and upcycling” (taking old clothes and refurbishing them) contribute to the growing worldwide effort to recycle and “tread lightly on the planet” was frankly a bit surprising coming from someone who could afford to buy the ultimate haute couture pieces.

The Royal Prince is also currently promoting the use of natural fibers in clothing such as wool in hopes that consumers will lean toward buying fibers that are natural and not synthetic fibers like those made from oil.

We may be contributing to the preservation of the planet in some small way by buying rare and unique vintage pieces, but doing so doesn't always come cheap. Surely Prince Charles must know that Princess Diana’s vintage black iconic dress recently sold at auction for over $296,000. But whoever bought it knows it’s worth every royal penny.