Guilt trip...

It's been a few months now since Gucci first announced the launch of their newest feminine fragrance, Guilty. My reaction to the news was ambivalence. Gucci has been churning out fragrances a lot more quickly than they used to, and while that doesn't automatically mean the products aren't good it does make you question whether or not enough time and care has been given to the new scent. It hasn't helped that the promotion for these new fragrances has seemed like too much, especially once you get to smell them. To be frank there isn't one of their newer releases that I really love all that much, although if you forced me to pick a favorite I'd probably go with Gucci by Gucci Eau de Parfum, and that's only because as a scent it's closest to the kind of stuff I gravitate towards. The appeal certainly doesn't have anything to do with the kitschtastic bottle it comes in, with it's engraved striped ribbon and chintzy horsebit charm. The other fragrances which have been directed by Frida Gianinni, Gucci by Gucci Pour Homme, Flora, and Gucci by Gucci Pour Homme Sport, strike me as utterly generic, to put it kindly. Not to beat a dead horse, but as with the rest of the brand Gucci's fragrances aren't what they used to be.

But enough back story. Despite my ambivalence towards yet another new release, the name of this new fragrance caught my attention. It definitely fits in nicely with Gucci's two most well known perfumes, Envy and Rush. All of them have names that connote a sense of danger and sin, and really what could be more old-school Gucci than that? I'm undecided as to whether or not I would have called this new one Guilt instead of Guilty, and I definitely would have called it Guilty by Gucci instead of Gucci Guilty, but sadly no one over at double-G headquarters asked for my input. Still, I think the name itself is good. Also good is the print campaign. The first shot that debuted with the announcement of the launch was, to quote Marisa Tomei, dead-on balls-accurate. In it actress Evan Rachel Wood, who I think is an unusual but interesting choice of spokesperson, kind of looked like iconic Gucci girl Georgina Grenville...at least to me. Who knows, maybe I'm just projecting. Maybe the familiar sight of a couple in a naked, sweaty, mid-coital embrace against a shadowy background looked enough like something out of Tom Ford's old play book that I was just visualizing Georgina's face on Evan Rachel's neck. Needless to say it's my favorite out of all the Giannini-directed Gucci fragrance campaigns for reasons that should be obvious.

(Tell me I'm imagining the similarities... )

However my love for the campaign ends with the photos. The TV commercial directed by Sin City creator Frank Miller might as well be another campaign entirely, because from where I'm sitting the look and feel of it is completely different from the still photographs. I don't think that Miller's neo-noir aesthetic suits Gucci very well. His aesthetic looks great in comics and in action films, but let's be honest, his work is designed to appeal mainly to heterosexual men, and this commercial is no exception. On top of that I find the blatant depiction of sex both trashy and banal (and again, something that would mostly appeal to men). While Gucci has always been about sex, it was never used so tactlessly. I find the print ad sexier simply because something is left to the imagination. That single photo is doing a better job at telling you what Guilty is supposed to evoke than the minute-long commercial is.



As for the fragrance itself, it's billed as a floral oriental with notes of mandarin, pink pepper, lilac, geranium, peach, amber and patchouli. Although I was determined to give it a sniff when it hit store shelves it sounds a little light weight for a perfume described as any breed of oriental. But when I saw that gleaming gold bottle (which has grown on me a bit since I first saw a picture of it) perched on it's display pedestal at Bloomingdales' fragrance counter I hightailed it over, made sure the SA was busy with someone else and liberally sprayed a blotter. At first I found it pretty, though as the notes implied, kind of light. I didn't remember there being anything heady or exotic about it whatsoever. So I forgot about it and left it to sit in my car. A day later when I accidentally found the blotter I had forgotten all about sitting in my cup holder I took a sniff and liked it a hell of a lot better than I had when it was fresh. Instead of the flowers and mandarin from the top what was left was a combo of patchouli, amber and something else that may or may not have been the remainder of the peach. I have a recently sprayed blotter in my hands as we speak and smelling it now over two week later it's more potent than I remembered it being, the florals are more pronounced and a bit powdery, though I still don't get much, if any, spice. Maybe I've just huffed my mother's vintage Opium one too many times and my nose has become jaded. Personally I could have gone for some incense or heavier spice or even a bit of musk somewhere in there. Frankly the drydown, which is nice, is the only thing that makes Guilty worth wearing, though I will say, considering the multitude of sugar bombs currently residing on the shelves at Sephora Guilty should provide a nice antidote for those who don't want to smell like a candy store. As for whether or not the name fits the scent, I'm not convinced that it does. To me the name suggests a hint of something corrupt or dirty, even if it's only fleeting. After all, guilt is the result of doing something that you know you shouldn't have done, or doing something that you've been told is wrong to do. Even if you repent the fact remains that you still did it. I wish Guilty had that implied hint of badness; it could have been really good if it did.

images from nstperfume.com, wwd.com, and mes-parfums.com

The Big BANG...

I was excited when I read about Marc Jacobs' new masculine fragrance release earlier this summer. To be completely blunt I detest his original men's scent and regretted wearing it each time that I used my sample. Something in there, and I'm still not sure what, just did not agree with me. But even with the knowledge that the one MJ fragrance I've ever worn made me want to jump into the closest shower, I was looking forward to trying out his sophomore effort named BANG. Of course with the news of the new fragrance and a preview of it's fantastically ridiculous bottle that looks like some pretentious piece of abstract sculpture you're supposed to stare at very meaningfully while secretly not getting it, there was the very first glimpse of the ad campaign. Shot by Jacobs' go-to lensman Juergen Teller and starring Marc himself the ad is quite possibly the gayest thing I've seen all year, and trust me, that that's saying something. It's been floating around the net for a few months now, but for anyone who's not yet seen it, it's high time you did.

It's got all the essential ingredients for an Out editorial; abs, body oil, shiny stuff, random mismatched tattoos, stubble, a come hither expression (which is, ironically, not at all lust inducing) and a complete lack of clothing and shame. Now I know the ad is probably supposed to be at least partially tongue in cheek, but to me it just reeks of desperation and, oddly, insecurity. Once upon a time Marc was this nebbishy little downtown dude who just happened to be the coolest of the cool kids and didn't seem to care about fitting in. Over the last few years he's made himself over, and while I'm still a great fan of Marc the designer I honestly can't stand Marc the Chelsea scene-queen/pop culture icon. Something about his new image seems wrong to me, and this ad is just a glaring example of that. When I first saw the ad I remember saying something to the effect of "the old Marc would have found this ridiculous".

As for the scent itself I was intrigued by the list of notes that accompanied the announcement of it's impending launch. With an opening act of black, pink and white pepper and a combination of woods, benzoin, vetiver, moss and patchouli in the heart and base, it sounded like something I might be into. I managed to snag a sample while visiting the fragrance counter in late July when Bloomingdales was previewing it and I have to say, I'm not feeling it. The top notes are exactly what the name of the fragrance suggests, a big bang of dry, scratchy, spicy pepper. It's a bit like sticking your nose directly into a container of the stuff and taking a deep breath. That's how realistic it is. While it does have an appealing zing to it, and as unusual as an all pepper top is for a fragrance it gets to be really overbearing after the first minute or two. Thankfully it does chill out (eventually) and moves into a mellow spiced woods groove. With the traces of pepper it has an almost pine-y kind of vibe to it. Then again, since some of the notes are just listed as "woods" it could very well be pine. Or it could be that the mix of notes is playing a trick on my nose and creating the illusion of it. Whatever the case I'm not really a fan. For whatever reason pine is a smell, be it natural or synthesized, that I have never liked, so it's for damn sure I don't want it wafting from me all day long. Turns out though that I don't have to worry about it invading my nostrils all day because from start to finish the fragrance has only lasted 2-3 hours on me both times I've worn it, and while it does last it seems relatively tame as far as sillage goes. I guess this one just doesn't work with me. If I had liked what the scent was doing on my skin that would be a bad thing, but since the peppercorns outstay their welcome and the woods/resins don't combine to an effect that I find appealing the fact that it doesn't last isn't such a negative after all. I will give BANG this much, it's pretty unusual as far as mainstream designer men's fragrances go. There really isn't anything sweet or fresh or clean about it, and that opening is a little on the strange side. You'd be hard pressed to come up with something that smells similar if you were shopping the men's side at Sephora or any mid-to-high-end department store. I think it's worth trying for that pepper medley top alone, but I'd recommend spraying with caution.

image from mimifroufrou.com/scentedsalamander

Hate is a strong word...

But sometimes it's the only word that seems appropriate. When the first image from the new Gucci Fall Winter 2010 campaign hit the Fashion Spot, I was excited to see what it would look like. The collection itself left a good impression on me, so naturally I was hoping the campaign would do the same. Let's just say that my initial impression of it wasn't so good. But I was willing to hold off announcing my verdict until I saw more. Unfortunately seeing more didn't change my feelings at all, and I pretty much hate what I've seen of the campaign. Now frankly, I don't think that Mert & Marcus' style suits Gucci. Their work is always recognizable for it's hyper-fection (I know that's not a word, but give it time), and I think that their super exaggerated look has it's place in fashion, Gucci just isn't it. But these photos go beyond exaggeration; they're downright cartoony looking. Seriously, I look at them and I see a digital illustration, not a photograph. I'm assuming that's the point, but I honestly cannot stand the way it looks. The plastic Barbie and Ken doll quality is just extremely unappealing. It's also kind of odd considering that most of Gucci's appeal is based on the suggestion of sex. As far as I'm aware there isn't anything sexy about a Barbie doll. The poses are unappealing as well, and despite what seems like a lot of effort on Raquel's part, I don't see anything "fierce" about them. To me they just look ridiculous and far too modely. Back in the day you never would have seen a Gucci girl hamming it up like some contestant on America's Next Top Model, trying to out-pose the competition. She was far too cool for that. Apparently that's not the case anymore, and that also goes back to Mert & Marcus. Love 'em or hate 'em those poses are very much a part of Mert & Marcus' ouvre. Something about the color palette is bothering me too. Rather than enhancing the warm tones of the clothes, the goldness of the sand is just sort of washing everything out. It's just one big blur of different shades of beige paired with a shade of blue that's better suited to the ocean thanthe sky. Color wise I think the shots with black clothing are marginally better, although that's not saying much. But I think I might be able to look past the aesthetics if these ads had anything at all to do with the look and the message that both the men's and women's collection delivered. Both collections were slick, sharp and very polished looking, they wouldn't be out of place on the streets of any metropolis or in a dimly lit nook at the chicest of nightspots. However, the clothes do look completely out of place in a desert. I mean, I don't demand utter realism from my fashion ads, but the sight of a fur coat or velvet hiphuggers in a desert with the blazing sun glaring off of every surface is a little too ridiculous.

Oddly enough this isn't the first time a Gucci campaign has taken place in a desert. It's happened at least twice before that I can recall, and one of those campaigns, Fall Winter 2000 by Alexei Hay, seems to have inspired this one. There was even a shot of a model in a fur coat reclining on a desert rock (for the record I believe all of the backgrounds used in that campaign were fake/digital). I actually happen to like that old campaign quite a bit. I've been trying to figure out why I like that one and dislike this one, and I suppose it boils down to two things; while the backgrounds in that F/W 2000 campaign look intentionally fake the models themselves don't, and the incongruity of the backgrounds (there were also shots that took place in front of a freeway overpass and on a stormy beach) seemed intentionally weird, whereas this background in the Moroccan desert probably wasn't meant to be as incongruous as it is. Those ads didn't make sense, and I get the feeling they weren't supposed to. They were just supposed to be beautiful, unusual images, and that's exactly what they are. I don't think this new campaign has either of those qualities going for it. More than anything I'm just disappointed that this collection, easily Giannini's best and probably just a fluke, wasn't better represented in print. It deserved to be.

images from oystermag.com, stylelist.com and twitter/rushes via ThiagoMello at tFS

Paris, Je ne t'aime...

Jean Paul Gaultier

You know it's like clockwork, twice a year at six month intervals I'm reminded of just how much I used to love Gaultier. I wish I still did but I just don't anymore. In fact there are times, like last season, where I don't even like Gaultier's haute couture. I've wondered if maybe I've changed, that I've seen more of fashion than I had when I first became aware of Gaultier's work, or that my taste has simply evolved, or maybe even that I just idealize his past collections. But then I've looked at those older collections, the ones that left an impression, the ones I loved then and still love now, and it's plain to me that it isn't me that's changed, it's Gaultier.

As for what has changed about his work, that's not as easy to pinpoint as it is with, say, Galliano's work at Dior. The general impression I'm left with is that these days there isn't much subtlety in Gaultier's work any more. It's a given that he's always liked to play with wit, subversion and kitsch, but these days it seems like those elements are the dominant ones, whereas in the past his couture collections were a wonderful mix of wit, intentional bad taste, faultless French chic and old school glamour with whatever his seasonal inspiration happened to be. Comparing his older work to his newer work is like comparing wry humor to slapstick. The former uses intelligence to make you laugh, the latter uses silliness. To me this season's collection highlights that difference between Gaultier's past and present extremely well. The collection was inspired by Paris via Yves Saint Laurent's infamous 40s collection of 1971. That collection, if not the most famous collection of Saint Laurent's 40 year career, is certainly one of the most famous. It's been extensively referenced by many, many contemporary designers over the years. The look of that collection is instantly recognizable; turban, red lips, a fox fur chubbie or stole, ruched jersey dress, stockings and heels. Once you know the formula you can see exactly where Gaultier found his inspiration this season, from the exaggerated knotted turbans (or hair styled to look like turbans), to the exaggerated rounded shoulders on coats and jackets, and the fishnet stockings with exaggerated Cuban heels that were actually a photo print of the Eiffel Tower. Notice I'm using the word exaggerated to describe everything. That was the overall effect; too much. Considering that the original Saint Laurent look is pretty exaggerated to begin with, Gaultier's riffs seemed more like caricatures than anything else. Paris isn't a new inspiration for Gaultier, in fact it's where he always seems to wind up even when his inspiration comes from somewhere else. That innate Frenchness is why so many people regard him as this generation's Saint Laurent. So it was disappointing to see him channeling that inspiration in such a cartoony, almost childish way this time around.

That lack of subtlety is really what bothers me about Gaultier these days. He just sort of whacks you over the head with how "witty", "ironic" or "chic" each look is, instead of letting you decide on your own whether they are or not. Even the shout outs to Saint Laurent, which have always been present in Gaultier's couture collections, are done in such a loud, obnoxious, tactless kind of way. I think it's safe to say that most people who are attending a Gaultier Haute Couture collection, whether as a client, critic, or editor would be able to recognize even the most subtle or subversive nod to YSL, so I really don't understand why Gaultier needed to scream them through a loudspeaker as if he were speaking to the hearing impared. And to me it's not just the styling or the presentations that have changed. I just don't think the clothes have the same magic that they used to, not for me anyway. Of course they're beautifully made, and of course his clients will buy them, but it's been a while since he sent something down a runway that took my breath away or made me do a double take. Even his extravagant show pieces don't do anything for me anymore, because they're usually so far over the top that they could make some of Galliano's mile-wide ballgowns seem almost subtle by comparison. I don't know, maybe this is the real Gaultier and all of those collections where he created sophisticated, sexy, chic, subversive clothes that were presented in an equally sophisticated, sexy, chic, subversive way were just the result of Gaultier holding back. If that's the case then I personally wouldn't mind seeing him shackle his more outlandish impulses.

Take a look at some of his older collections and see if you feel the same way.

Spring Summer 2001
Spring Summer 2002
Fall Winter 2002
Fall Winter 2003
Spring Summer 2004

all images from Style.com

Memento mori...

Givenchy

I must admit that when it was announced a couple of weeks ago that Riccardo Tisci made the decision to scale back his Haute Couture collections for Givenchy, nixing a runway presentation and cutting the total amount of looks shown to the press down to 10, I wasn't thrilled. I could see the logic in his choice, because taking a still photograph of a garment up close is the next best thing to seeing it in person (which is what press and clients would be able to do). But I tend to prefer some kind of runway like setting, whether it's a traditional up-and-down runway or something more complex in the vein of old school Galliano. It's not even that I find a static salon presentation boring, it's that it's really hard to give context to a collection when you're simply photographing it in front of a wall. With music, lighting and set design you can create some kind of ambiance that complements the clothes. It also allows a designer to bring the audience into a world of their creation, to give the audience a more multi-dimensional look at what was going through their heads when they designed the collection. I also wasn't thrilled about the fact that last season's clunky, and honestly borderline ugly collection would be the last impression of a Givenchy couture show, until further notice at least. But I'm enough of a Tisci fan to have faith that he would deliver something special now that the focus would be entirely on an extremely limited number of clothes. On that count I don't think I was wrong.

Anyone who has been following Tisci's career at Givenchy can view the 10 looks he presented and see things that are similar to work he's already done. For the first time though I don't see that as a negative thing. My rule for designers is that if they're going to revisit something they've already done or rework a piece from their past they had better improve upon the original. In my opinion it's rare that that actually happens. I can't speak for everyone, much as I might like to, but I think that this time around Tisci actually did manage to take those old ideas and make them better. Each one of his ten looks had something familiar about them, from religious motifs to heavy beadwork, geometric cuts to intricate embroideries and appliques. But even at their most baroque, as in a narrow column dress completely encrusted in gold sequins and beads, the clothes didn't seem as labored as they sometimes have in the past. They were detailed to nth degree, no doubt about it, but I really don't think any of the clothes felt overwrought. Tisci's use of his inspiration felt completely under control as well. Even something like lace applique in the form of the human skeleton doesn't seem as gimmicky as it could have been. In fact, I think there's something really beautiful in that blend of purity and darkness, beauty and physical decay. You could also make the connection between the reminders of mortality as seen in the porcelain skulls that apparently adorn some of the white jackets and the seemingly imminent death of Haute Couture.

So yeah, I'm not entirely in love with this scaling back thing. At the very least I would have like to see a larger collection. But then I stop and think to myself that if scaling back was what it took for Tisci to make clothes that are this beautiful and this focused, then I really shouldn't have anything to be upset about, should I? If it wasn't for how small the collection was, I might go so far as to call this Tisci's best couture collection yet.

Unfortunately there's some copyright issue going on with the images Conde Nast is using at the moment, so you'll have to go to Style.com yourself to check out better quality images and rear views of each look. I'd recommend viewing them in full screen mode.

all images from WWD.com

In the golden afternoon...

Christian Dior

I was absolutely not planning on having anything to say about the Dior F/W 2010 Haute Couture collection. That's pretty much why I stopped reviewing Dior shows, because I've had nothing to say about them except the same-old same-old; boring, stodgy, out of touch, beneath Galliano's capability. It gets tiring complaining about the same thing. But as it turns out I have something to say this season.

I don't hate it, not at all. In fact, there are things about it I quite like. For starters I like that Galliano took what is an extremely cheesy inspiration (flowers) that could easily have resulted in an equally cheesy collection of fusty Dior rehashes, and threw a bit of a curve ball. The clothes are flowery all right, but any flowers that inspired these clothes were probably seen on one of those neon black light posters with black flocked background, not in a garden. I honestly think that the black light poster comparison is kind of apt, because there is something delightfully tacky and kind of vulgar about this collection. Whereas a lot of Galliano's recent collections, both couture and ready to wear, have seemed like earnest attempts at doing tasteful, elegant clothing, this doesn't seem to be going for that effect at all. It seems like it was meant to be over the top and a little ridiculous. Why else would the model's heads be wrapped in colored cellophane like a floral bouquet? That little styling trick, coupled with the technicolor makeup and cartoony pompadours, was a nice touch that helped keep the collection from feeling stodgy. Same goes for the raffia craft ribbon tied around the waists of jackets and dresses. Overall there was something a little haphazard about things. This collection doesn't seem like it was the result of John and his team studiously poring over the Dior archives and painstakingly trying to recreate their beauty. Instead it looks like it came from the inside. It also looks like it was somewhat fun to create. The clothes may be tacky, or silly, or completely ridiculous, and they may not have that madcap spirit of old, but you can't deny that they have a certain liveliness to them that has been all but missing from the house recently. For me, that's the most exciting aspect of this collection. There's more passion in these 30 dresses than there has been in all the collections of the last two years combined. It also doesn't hurt that all I can think about while looking at this collection are those bitchy singing flowers from Alice in Wonderland.

Don't get me wrong though, this is still a far cry from what Galliano is capable of creating. As pretty as the colors and details may be, the fact is that these clothes are still not particularly contemporary. And I can't help but feel like it's kind of easy to look at flowers as a source of inspiration and just end up creating dresses that are meant to look like flowers. It doesn't take the strongest imagination to put hand painted petals cascading down the side of a dress. But on the plus side the clothes don't look like something Dior himself would ever have designed, so that's a bit of progress right there. Another positive is that for once the bright, borderline garish color palette makes utter sense given the theme of the collection, not to mention that some of the clashes are really quite beautiful and very well done. Even though this collection doesn't exactly erase the memory of the last few years it doesn't leave me wishing I hadn't bothered to look at it, either. That may not sound like much, but believe me, at this point that's high praise for a Dior collection.

all images from Style.com

Color me shocked...

If I said that I've hated the ad campaigns Mario Testino has shot for Versace since 2005 it wouldn't be entirely true. Hatred is a feeling, and unless you want to count apathy I haven't felt a thing about any of them. My first experiences with Testino's work were his Gucci campaigns, and whether or not you liked those they were neither bland or predictable. When he took over from Meisel as Donatella's lensman of choice, I suddenly realized that I probably liked Testino only when Tom Ford and Carine Roitfeld were calling the shots. His American Vogue covers and editorials, ranging from pretty but banal to just plain banal, did nothing to convince me that I was judging too harshly. Now I don't want to make it sound like I always loved Meisel's work for Versace, because that's not the case. But even at their least interesting I can't remember any of his campaigns being mind-numbingly bland. Hell, even if they were the fact that I don't remember them that way should mean something, right?

But for some reason Testino's campaigns have always had this aura of lifelessness about them, and while that would be undesirable for most labels, it's downright sacrilegious for a label like Versace. Suck all the fun, sexiness and glamour out of Versace and there really isn't much left, is there? Needless to say Versace isn't one of the campaigns I look forward to seeing anymore. But still, curiosity got the better of me and I took a look at the campaign on the Fashion Spot and my jaw promptly hit the keyboard. It looks absolutely nothing like the work Testino has done for the house in the past five years.

I may just love it, though it's still too soon to tell. By Testino standards this campaign is almost edgy, and edge is something that Versace has been struggling to regain lately. There's something slightly gritty about the photos that compliments the mens and womens collections perfectly, and even though I wouldn't normally consider Versace gritty, the photographs are doing a pretty good job of making me reconsider. Quite frankly I wouldn't have thought Testino would be the photographer to make me reconsider that. Even at his best his work isn't exactly known for it's grit. This not only feels fresh for Versace, but very much of the moment. Lord knows I've bitched and moaned more than once when a designer or photographer falls into predictability, so to say that I'm thrilled about Testino doing something completely out of the box is kind of an understatement. And Kudos to Donatella and her team for knowing when to shake things up. I'm not at all surprised by the mixed response the campaign is getting so far; people don't like change, and neither Kate Moss or Gisele are in this campaign. But in fashion change isn't just inevitable, it's essential. So if this is a hint of the direction Donatella is going with the brand, I say bring it on.

all images from versace.com via tarsha at theFashionSpot

Simply Irresistible?...

Each season the Lanvin campaign is highly anticipated, mostly because there's no telling what it will look like. Most of the time that anticipation pays off, with Alber Elbaz and Steven Meisel delivering unusual, striking campaigns that perfectly suit the collection they're selling. While I can't go so far as to say that the Fall Winter 2010 ads have completely failed at their mission, I have no reservations in admitting that I don't think they're the best they could have been, not even close. The weird thing is that, despite how below par I feel they are, they're still pretty dynamic looking. Mostly though I just don't think the spirit of the collection, with it's almost animalic rawness and an unmistakable aggression, was translated into the photographs at all.

First off, I don't like the coloring or the lighting that Meisel and Elbaz settled on. With all of the rich shades of brown, hints of warm, deep jewel tones and tarnished metallics that made up much of the collection I was hoping for and expecting the campaign to have the same kind of warmth and sensuality. Instead the lighting is cold and harsh, which works in some situations, but I don't love it here. I don't particularly love the styling either. I have a soft spot for Patrick Nagel's work, but it's been over two years since designers, photographers and makeup artists began revisiting the 80s and started channeling his white skin/black eyes/red lips look. As dramatic a look as it is, if I have to see one more model made up like one of his portraits or one of the girls in a Robert Palmer video I might crack. But the thing that's bothering me most is that there's something about this campaign that doesn't feel very "Lanvin". dior_couture1245 at the Fashion Spot brought that up, and as I looked at the images more I really did start to agree with him. Part of Lanvin's image is the slight imperfection in the clothes, or styling, whatever, and when you remember that, these super-slick, super-produced images seem very distant from the actual product. For an idea of what I might have liked this campaign to feel like, look no further than Dolce & Gabbana's S/S 2005 ads. I'm not suggesting that's how this campaign should have looked necessarily, although some similarities wouldn't have hurt in the least, but that's most definitely the vibe I pictured for Lanvin this season.

all images from WWD.com via Flashbang at tFS

Quoth the raven...

I never thought I'd see a day when Tom Ford would be channeling Edgar Allen Poe for inspiration, and despite his new role in the directors chair I never really pictured him having an Alfred Hitchcock moment either. But if his newest ad campaign is any indication, Tom has a side to him that we've never seen before. Sure, he's tapped into the darker side of things with his fashion, but his brand of darkness has never been of the melancholy, terror filled variety, so seeing these new photos featuring that foreboding symbol of death, the raven, is kind of surprising.

There are many things we have already seen and might expect to see in any ad campaign that Tom Ford touches; ravens just don't happen to be one of those things. Bare nipples, however, are. But as predictable as a bare breast might be for a Tom Ford ad, a bird feeding on the blood seeping from a puncture in said breast is a completely bizarre and unusual sight. Overall I think the campaign is a nice mix of the twisted and the comical. I have to say, I had my reservations when I first read that Freja Beha Erichsen was cast as Tom's female model this season. While I'm not silly or immature enough to call Freja a "man" because she's on the androgynous side, I don't think she's the most sensual model in the world. That's fine of course, her look works for many other things, but for a designer who's M.O. is tapping into the most carnal of human desires you'd hope that the model chosen would match that. While my opinion hasn't changed in that respect, I do think that Freja looks good here. Nicholas Hoult on the other hand I have no complaints about. With those eyebrows of his he can pull of sinister pretty damn well. I find myself wishing it was a larger campaign, because even though the ravens look as fake as they probably are, the photos are pretty cool looking.

all images from tomford.com

American woman, listen what I say...

Well kids, it's that time of year again. That's right, it's Costume Gala time. What is it about the combination of fabulous fashion folk and starved to perfection A-list celebs that proves so exciting every year? Wait...I may just have answered my own question. That's exactly what's so exciting about it, because unlike at awards shows and premiers when celebrities are expected to dress according to some rigid fashion standard that will appease people who don't actually care about fashion, the Met Gala is an invitation to go a little over the top, to wear something more daring than normal. Well, that's the theory, anyway. Despite near unlimited access to clothing by all of the designers in attendance there are still many celebrities who go safe and unthreatening. Now I'm not one to criticize a starlet for choosing something simple, in fact in these days when the red carpet standard is a rigid mile-wide bulldozer of a gown with all manner of beads, sequins, feathers and ruffles by Marchesa, something simple but stunning is a welcome relief for me. Safe on the other hand....well, it doesn't really get my pulse racing. Unfortunately safe is largely what we got this year. Someone on the Fashion Spot, and I can't remember who, pointed out that in the past the best red carpet arrivals for the Met gala have been when the exhibit has a very specific theme, and naturally people dress to reflect it. Whoever it was that said it was absolutely right. I've watched the event since 2003's "Goddess" exhibit, and since then there have been a few years when the red carpet action has been off-the-charts. The goddess exhibit, the Anglomania exhibit in 2006, Poiret in 2007 and the Superhero themed 2008 gala all had people upping their fashion game, and the results were far more interesting than you're likely to find at your standard black tie affair. Needless to say for the second year running the Costume Institute team has gone with a pretty basic, pretty general theme and the attendees' fashions reflect that. This year, sadly, there wasn't one "wow" moment for me. Even Lady Gaga who skipped the red carpet entirely went safe in a Prada tux. So while there were some beautiful looks, and while there were some really bad looks, most of the night's attendees filled up the huge gray area between gorgeous and God-awful.

Anyway, enough of my b.s. On with the dresses.

The Good

Kate Bosworth in Valentino Haute Couture

It doesn't hurt that Kate is stunning regardless, but the fact that she picked one of my favorite pieces out of the mixed bag that was the Valentino HC collection for Spring scores points from me. I knew it was only a matter of time before some stylist snatched that dress, and frankly I'm surprised it took 5 months for someone to wear it. She looks gorgeous, and even though it's hardly a challenging or unusual look, it's styled (and worn) beautifully.

Donna Karan in Donna Karan

Love it. Yeah it's a predictable Donna Karan dress, but it's gorgeous. Donna is proof that her clothes work just as well on a woman with an average body as they do on someone who fits into the sample size.

Sarah Jessica Parker in Halston

So I was definitely in the minority of people who liked SJP's Chanel Oscar gown. The hair should have been more polished, but overall I liked the whole 60s vibe she went for, and I loved the dress itself. But she took a lot of flack for that dress, and while I get that it didn't appeal to most the fact is that she was one of the few attendees who did something unusual. Now I dare anyone to question her fashion cred. I don't even know what it is about her look that I love, I mean it's such a simple dress, almost boring except for it's metallic sheen. It's by no means the most interesting or fashionable thing she's ever worn. I guess it's just a case of the right dress, right hair/makeup and right accessories coming together to bring life to a look. Honestly I think this was my favorite look of the night.

Charlotte Gainsbourg in Balenciaga

I'll freely admit that I am one of, like, 10 people who don't swoon over Ms. Jane Birken jr. style-wise. I really only see her at events, and at events she is always in Balenciaga straight off of the runway. I don't think that wearing a runway look makes you stylish. It says more for your taste level than it does for you style or individuality. Needless to say the only reason I like her look is because I liked that dress. Not sure why it was cropped to cooch level though.

Diane Kruger in Calvin Klein

When I saw the first picture of Diane last night I nearly died because my first thought was "OMG is she wearing one of the white Gucci gowns from 1996?". Then I saw another picture and realized no, she is not. But still, her stark fitted white column looked fantastic. This is what I was thinking of when I said there's a difference between simple and safe. It's such a plain dress, a plain look in fact, but it just isn't the kind of dress that shows up on the red carpet these days. Were I Francisco Costa I might have cut out the back just to add a little something (although that might just be my obsession with the aforementioned Gucci gowns talking). My only complaint is the hair and makeup. It's not bad, I just would have gone with lighter eyes and a side part instead of center. Other than that she looks gorgeous.

Gisele in Alexander Wang

I do like the dress, and it DEFINITELY stands out, but even though I like the dress and even though Gisele looks great in it I don't think that's the kind of dress you wear to an event like this. It's not that it's too short or whatever, but that the look of it just isn't formal at all. I can handle a little bit of trash, after all I still count Courtney Love in John Galliano's destroyed Dior trashbag gown at the 2000 Golden Globes among my favorite red carpet moments. However this particular look is a little too trashy and clubby for the setting. But I'll lump it in with the good because ultimately I think Mrs. Brady looks good.

The Bad

January Jones in Yves Saint Laurent

Besides starring on one of my favorite shows January has quickly become a part of the list of women that I look forward to seeing on the red carpet at events. She's nailed it more than once, and she's taken some chances along the way. But this look is unforgivable. January, I urge you, repent now. Fire whoever styled you and start fresh, preferably with a new designer ally. And as for Stefano Pilati, I haven't liked his work in years because for years he's been neglecting his job of making women look beautiful. This is just the hot pink straw that broke the gay camel's back. He's dead to me.

Kristen Stewart in Chanel Haute Couture

I'll give her this, she's clearly trying to up her style ante, and in theory this dress is perfect for her. It's edgy, with that slight punk vibe from the mesh fabric, but whoever hemmed it completely botched it. It's too short, and that isn't helped by the platform shoes which I don't like with the dress. The top looks kind of fucked up too. Overall whoever was altering this butchered what could have been (and was, in it's runway incarnation) a striking dress. I also don't like what her peeps did with the hair.

Elizabeth Banks in Gucci

Poor girl. It's a shame that she and/or her styling team chose that dress out of all of the dresses Gucci showed for fall. I hated this one on the runway because there's way too much going on, and all of the surface decoration gives the wearer's body an indecipherable shape. From the front she looks bigger than she actually is because of all that extra fluff. From the side it's no better because those feathers just looks like a giant landing strip. You tell me, which sounds worse?

Janet Jackson in Lanvin

In case you don't recognize the dress, here it is on the runway. Now I realize that what I'm about to say will probably offend someone, but she doesn't have the body for that dress. It does nothing for her and she does nothing for it. I'm not a size Nazi, and I definitely don't think that only skinny women look good in high fashion, but if your body distorts the garment you're wearing to the point that it takes away from it's design, or conversely if a garment distorts your body to the point that it no longer makes you look good, that garment isn't for you. Besides that the styling is bad regardless....not that the Jackson's are known for their subtlety or taste.

Carey Mulligan in Miu Miu

Mulligan caught my attention during awards season when she was making the rounds of events and ceremonies while parading a variety of dresses and gowns for all to see. While I didn't always love what she opted to wear, her quirky choices piqued my interest because she usually managed to stand out. I personally loved her tool embellished black Prada gown and newly blond pixie cut at the Oscars in March, so I was looking forward to seeing what she'd wear to an even more fashion-conscious event. Turns out it was a dud. The lilac colored granny lace Miu Miu babydoll she chose couldn't have been more anticlimactic. I still haven't warmed to the collection it came from, and I just don't think it was dressy enough. On top of that I honestly think it's kind of ugly, like some relic in the Brady Bunch costume department.

Honestly, those are the only looks that I even had a strong reaction to, and at the end of the day none of them are particularly extreme; the good ones aren't mindblowing and the bad ones aren't horrifying. Pretty much all of the other looks were predictable red carpet fare. If you've ever watched an awards show you know what most of the people will turn up in; draped one shoulder goddess chiffon, Barbie-worthy mermaid dresses and big, beaded ballgowns. I certainly hope that this is just a slump and not a sign of things to come. If the last event on Earth where fashion trumps mass appeal goes down the same individuality-free, pre-packaged crapper that the Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys, et al have gone down I honestly don't know what I'm going to write about when there isn't a fashion show happening each Spring.

all photos from zimbio.com

Cherchez la femme...

Louis Vuitton

I really don't use the word "charming" to describe very much, least of all fashion. But it's probably the only word suitable to describe the Vuitton collection for fall. From the neat, perky little pony-tails bouncing behind the models' heads to the full, mid-calf circle skirts swishing as they walked the entire presentation was such a throw back, so retro and pretty that I'm finding it impossible to hate even though I know that I probably should. Both of Marc Jacobs' collections this season revisited the past, but where his namesake collection was a personal exploration of his own past, his Vuitton collection was a nostalgic trip back in time to the era that gave us one of the most enduring images of idealized femininity. With their breasts pushed up and out, waists belted and skirts flaring from the hip, the girls were the epitome of traditional womanhood. It's not at all the type of femininity I'm normally drawn to or inspired by, and yet like I said I'm finding it hard to resist. It's certainly not Marc's best collection, and truth be told his Spring 2001 Louis Vuitton collection was a much more interesting, contemporary take on the same era and look, but there's still a freshness to this despite how literal and familiar it is. Even though this is missing the hint of subversion that would be needed to make these clothes something other than revisited vintage, the look is something that hasn't been seen in a while. The message within this collection is far stronger than the ideas used to create it.

The shift away from hard, boyishly androgynous, extremely youthful, pseudo-edgy femininity has really been the driving force behind this season, so it seems appropriate that the most forceful effort was saved for last (well, last-ish anyway). On her blog Cathy Horyn pointed out how Vuitton in Paris and Prada in Milan served as bookends for the European shows, and as usual she's dead on. Let's be realistic, if the two designers who are, arguably, fashion's most accurate barometers for what's next have zeroed in on the very same idea, chances are it could signal some kind of overall shift. Had it been just one of them out on this limb by themselves, you might be able to brush it off as just another one of their seasonal fixations. But the combined powers of Marc and Miuccia aren't something to be ignored. We may just be in for some change come spring.

all images from style.com

In Bloom...

Haider Ackermann

Haider Ackermann is one of those rare designers who actually measure up to the sudden new attention they're getting. As opposed to other designers who seem to let the hype go to their head and seem to think they don't have to work as hard as they used to once they have it, Ackermann's work has steadily improved, and considering that he was good before the attention that's saying something. This season, compared to the languid glamour and subtle exoticism of Spring, Ackermann went more structured. Two of the features that he's added to his signature leather/suede/wool jackets were undulating folds with concentric rows of top stitching or layered peplums that could be unzipped at the waist to fold towards the rear. The overall effect of the fluid folds in front and the more jagged, almost obi-like folds in back was of a giant, poisonous flower in bloom on a forest floor. The collection was beautiful in the textures that were mixed as well, most impressively in the intricately laser cut leather that was so delicate it looked liable to fall apart, like beautifully decomposed lace. Perched atop a narrow bottom half that included Ackermann's signature wraith-like skirts and leather leggings, the tops were like sculptures displayed on pedestals.

Technically I think this is probably his most impressive collection yet. The folding, curling shapes that are the focal point of the collection are really a marvel to behold. And the overall look is, as always, calmly beautiful and sensual in that way that's become his signature. But calmness and tranquility aside, I think these are some of the most extreme clothes Ackermann has ever shown, at least of the collections that I've seen. Somehow though the shapes aren't completely overwhelming. They don't look like architectural experiments grafted onto a body. the effect is more organic than that. While I wish there was a bit of color in here, like the touches of saffron, indigo, sky blue and blood red that have highlighted his most recent collections, I'm willing to overlook that the palette doesn't stray from Haider's signature neutrals. The clothes on their own are simply that good.

all photos from style.com

Hot Voodoo...

Lanvin

The words "Lanvin" and "tough" aren't usually found in the same sentence. Commanding, assertive, bold; all of them could be used to describe what Alber Elbaz sends out on his runway, but tough? Not exactly. That could be why I find the Lanvin Fall Winter 2010 collection exciting. There's a hardness and severity to it that I've never really seen in Alber's work before and I'm really liking it. It's as if he took all of his signatures--the loose draping, the rounded shoulders, the soft tailoring--and sharpened them up. Those flattering sheaths are more angular, darts and seams are reversed to contour the body, coats are shaped like an inverted triangle with exaggerated shoulders and pegged hems, and those goddess drapes are pressed flat into place to form pleats. Combined with the blunt cut jet black wigs each model wore and the aggressive looking accessories, Elbaz showed off a different side of the Lanvin woman, one that's more than a little bit dark. Even the flamboyant feather embellishments look more sinister than Swan Lake, with patches of ostrich or coque feather sprouting randomly out of the torso and trimming edges. Overall the impression was of a woman caught somewhere between civility and savagery, human and beast. With the predominantly dark color palette of black, browns and beige with hints of plum, burgundy, blood red and burnished gold or bronze, there was a subtle hint of tribalism to it. As the collection progressed it became louder and more aggressive until metal, feathers and sparkle were combined for an effect that was almost bombastic. It always impresses me that Elbaz never quite loses control of the elements he's working with. When it comes to embellishment, beads and feathers can easily go overboard and turn ugly quick, but somehow he manages to make it work, no matter how random or extreme they might seem. That's definitely easier said than done.

I'm sure a lot of people would gravitate to the more ornate evening stuff towards the end, and with good reason I suppose. There's just so much visual interest, from the sharply pleated lame to the tufts of ostrich feathers, they're the kind of clothes that beg to be touched. But for me the most exciting pieces come earlier in the collection. All of those plain dresses with their sharp, angular cuts and the coats with their domineering shoulder line were what really drew my attention. It's probably because, while the over the top embellished stuff at the end is fun to look at and probably fun to wear as well, the simple, graphic pieces feel fresher. That's the overall impression I'm left with from this, it's fresh, a little jolt of something different to keep people's attention after a few years of softness, volume and draping. I have a feeling that combined with the showroom collection this season's offerings will probably resonate with more customers than Alber's spiraling togas and filmy satin do. Women can't be goddesses every day, can they?

all images from Style.com

Domestic miss...

Balenciaga

If Ikea were to make clothes, what would they look like? That question could definitely have been what led Nicolas Ghesquiere to create the collection he showed for Fall Winter 2010. If you've ever shopped at Ikea, you'll have no trouble conjuring at least a vague image in your mind; bright, pop-y colors, lots of plastic and other synthetic textures, and a huge dose of mid-century modern decor. Throw all of that into a blender and that's sort of what you're looking at with the clothes. At first the whole thing comes off as another one of Ghesquiere's explorations of technology and futurism, but once you know that he was, in fact, looking a items in a home like formica cabinets, kitchen supplies, and even sleeping bags, that ends up being exactly what you see. The opening cocoon coats in patchworks of techno fabric and shaggy fur brought to mind the inside of a microwave. The colorblocked knitted dresses or peplum tops looked straight out of a late 60s kitchen. A trio of sweaters worn with geometric jacquard mini skirts almost looked like machine-mad afghans, while two top/skirt combos looked like high-tech crocheted doilies. Several looks fused a top with either narrow quilted pants or a mini skirt, the top unzipping like a sleeping bag to reveal prints that were a like a collage of magazine clippings and road maps or, with the skirts, a puffy down coat . They were probably the most interesting looks in the collection because they simply defy description or categorization. I can't even tell if they're a single piece or separates, let alone how they're built and how they work. And finally there were three dresses in fabric that looks like packaging peanuts, printed with those same magazine/map collages. That's the best I can do as far as describing the bubbling, grid-like fabric.

At this point I still don't know whether or not I really like this collection. For sure it's one of the most unusual and technologically advanced collections that has been, or will be for that matter, shown this season. But whereas last season Ghesquiere used the incredible techniques that have become his trademark to create easy to comprehend clothing, this season the result is much more challenging. What struck me about this was the combination of very familiar silhouettes with cutting edge technique. The shapes aren't anything unusual, they're mainly straight, kind of boxy, and very Balenciaga, but the textures, fabrics and the way they're combined renders these clothes completely new. The almost chemically bright pastels and primary colors that are used only add to the boldness of the clothes. As with any of Ghesquiere's collections there is so much to look at here, and when it comes to pictures the higher the resolution the better, but honestly it leaves me a little cold. It interests me, that's sort of a given, and I always appreciate the vision that Ghesquiere puts forth. But there really isn't any emotional tug for me, no feeling of true excitement, no jolt of electricity. Since the two collections have quite a bit in common, I can't help but compare this and spring and for whatever reason I prefer that collection to this one. I think it might have achieved the mix of the familiar with the advanced better, and ultimately it was filled with familiar clothes that were amped up to become something more. By comparison this feels almost stuck in concept mode.

all images from style.com