Barbie Girls...

It is my belief that the only thing worse than falling into a rut yourself is having to bear witness to somebody else's. Unfortunately a rut is exactly what we're witnessing with Gucci's advertising these days. Now realistically it's only been a year since Gucci first tapped Mert & Marcus to photograph their campaigns but because Gucci releases campaigns for more than just the main S/S and F/W collections it seems like it's been a hell of a lot longer. Also worth taking into account is that when the dynamic duo revert to their comfort zone, as they have with the Gucci campaigns they've shot so far, the result is instantly recognizable and, by this point in time, predictable. Sure every photographer has a signature style that they carry with them throughout their career, but I think Mert & Marcus's has the tendency to come off as repetitive because it's so specific. It's also a bit of an acquired taste. I myself have seen more than enough of their turquoise skies, bronzed skin, reflective crimson lips and highlight-laden tresses to last me a lifetime. I guess it's no wonder that none of their Gucci campaigns have impressed me. Here's the thing though; I don't blame Mert & Marcus for how tedious the campaigns are. As specific as their signature style is and as boring as it can become it's not the only thing that they're capable of doing, and in fact I tend to like what they do when they branch out a bit. Clearly the only reason that their Gucci campaigns have become completely indistinguishable from one season to the next is because that's what Gucci wants. Why Gucci wants to repeat themselves and have all of their seasonal advertising blur into one never-ending campaign of plasticized beauty I can't say for sure, but the only logical explanation is that it sells.

I can respect that this may work from a business standpoint, but I'm not looking at it from that angle. Aesthetically I'm just plain sick of this look. I mean I could learn to live with and even enjoy seeing this kind of hyper-glamorous unnatural beauty if the composition of the photographs changed a bit, which was the case when Mert & Marcus were the photographers behind Vuitton's ad campaigns. But there really isn't any change in any of the Gucci campaigns they've done. I mean how many times can you look at a photo of a beautiful young woman who's been airbrushed into oblivion shot from a low angle while striking ridiculously overdone poses in some sun-drenched exotic location while the solid mass of her so-shiny-it's-practically-sparkling hair is billowing down her shoulder like some caramel waterfall before the whole package gets boring? Clearly I have a low tolerance for it to begin with, which probably has a lot to do with the fact that I've seen it countless times before, but I know I can't be the only one who saw this campaign and promptly rolled their eyes at it's sameness. On top of the predictability this season's campaign in particular seems even more artificial than usual. I mean the satin clothes are practically glowing for chrissake. But bitching aside there are a couple of things I do like about it. For one the pops of bright color are extremely eye catching and very refreshing after two seasons filled with neutral clothes from the runway. They make a nice contrast to the ubiquitous turquoise sky and golden terrain. I also really like the models that were cast. Joan Smalls and Karmen Pedaru make a wonderful change from Natasha Poly and her cheekbones or everybody's go-to model Raquel Zimmermann. It's just a shame that two of the more beautiful models working today both look like they're the product of CGI in this campaign. It's also a shame that as long as Mert & Marcus are employed by Gucci this is all we're likely to see.

images from facebook.com/GUCCI

Do. Not. Want...

With the number of fragrances I've smelled so far easily in the few-hundred region I'm surprised to say that I've only just come across a scent that, to me, smelled exactly like something else. Oh sure I've smelled things that remind me of another fragrance, I mean half of the products on the average men's fragrance counter smell indistinguishable to me, but I've never smelled something that immediately made me think of another scent. This is just my roundabout way of saying that my first taste of Giorgio Armani's Prive fragrance line was not quite as exciting as I had expected.

The Prive line was launched sometime in '04 or '05 with a small selection of scents that were supposed to be more luxurious and more exclusive than Armani's popular mainstream fragrances, and between the packaging and the price he definitely achieved that much. With spray bottles that come housed in kotibe wood (that's the PR talking, not me) boxes and caps that look like polished semi-precious stones the packaging certainly fits the Armani image; elegance and restraint. And at $185 US for 1.7 oz of juice in it's elegant and restrained container the line does maintain a bit of exclusivity, but when I read on various websites that the plain refill bottles which go into the refined, elegant kotibe boxes had popped up at TJMaxx and Marshall's stores nationwide for around $30 it became my mission to try and score at least one. The two that I was hunting for in particular, Bois d'Encens and Cuir Amethyste, appealed to me for different reasons. Bois d'Encens, a spice, incense and wood affair, sounded like the kind of thing I'm always drawn to, and Cuir Amethyste sounded just unusual enough to be potentially awesome. I never did find any for cheap, and I honestly just put the Prive line in the "low priority" section of my list of things to try. As it happened I was on one of my semi-routine trips to Saks with my intent being to continue my exploration of the Bond No. 9 line and I happened to pass by the Armani Cosmetics counter. Standing there on a perfectly minimal and orderly shelf was the Prive lineup in all it's wood-and-stone packaged glory. I hightailed it over, found Bois d'Encens and went right for my forearm, which I normally don't do but since there were no blotters and no sales associates to find some for me I figured what the hell. Before moving on I decided I needed to smell Cuir Amethyste too, so I grabbed a tissue from the makeup display and doused it. It's tacky, I know that, but I didn't really care.

Bois d'Encens

I had a feeling I would like BdE, which is why I decided to wear it, but I was completely unprepared to encounter something very, very familiar to me once the top notes faded away. Yes folks, for all it's elegant, exclusive packaging and the insane markup that comes with it Bois d'Encens smelled exactly like something that I'd not only smelled before but have been wearing for years. That fragrance, in case you're wondering, is Gucci Pour Homme. I've owned GPH since about 2004 and have worn it pretty steadily since, so I was shocked and frankly pretty amused to find that the $185 Eau de Parfum that was currently on my arm smelled exactly like something that I already own. For those of you who aren't familiar with Gucci Pour Homme it's a woody incense fragrance that was released in late 2003. I've read comparisons between GPH and cedar/pencil shavings, but there isn't any cedar in GPH. That's apparently the heavy duty frankincense, which I'm convinced is the same type of incense used in BdE. Maybe not surprisingly the two scents were created by the same perfumer, Michel Almairac. To satisfy my curiosity I paid another visit to the Armani counter and took a test strip sprayed with the stuff home to see if it smelled differently than it did on me. Apparently my skin amplifies the frankincense because on paper the scent isn't exactly like the Gucci after all, although they do have a very similar vibe. I'm not really sure what to make of Bois d'Encens now, although the fact that on my skin it smells just like something I have a bottle of is enough to convince me that I'll never need to own it. Even if it wasn't so similar it certainly didn't wow me, and for $180 it better knock my goddamn socks off.

Cuir Amethyste

Cuir Amethyste on the other hand was a bit more interesting, although I really ended up hating it....a lot. On paper it sounds like a rich, lush mix of notes like violet, labdanum, benzoin, birch, rose, vanilla and patchouli. On my skin it was rich all right, rich in a tooth-achingly sweet, headache inducing kind of way. For a while there it was pretty hardcore powdery as well before the basenotes settled in. Oh, and it lasted a long, long time. I didn't really sense anything leathery about Cuir Amethyste, although there was a vaguely sourish something that seemed to fade in and out every now and then. I will say this much for Cuir Amethyste, it kept me coming back. I couldn't stop smelling my arm, trying to decipher what it was I was smelling. And it had a very noticeable progression from the top on down. On the tissue I first shamelessly sampled it on it was kind of nice and pretty unusual, a creamy, sweet/tart, rich concoction that actually did smell "purple" in a way. Apparently my skin just hates it, ruining anything that may be good about it by projecting the sugar coated violets through a megaphone and drowning out pretty much everything else. I also have to say that despite it's unisex marketing it skews a bit feminine to my nose, more feminine than I would personally feel comfortable wearing, and bear in mind that I'm not one to strictly adhere to gender classifications in fragrances. On the plus side I'm pretty sure that I won't ever be including Cuir Amethyste on my "to buy" list.

images from armanicosmetics.com

Crash and Burn...

Gucci

I knew it couldn't last. The restraint she showed, the optimism I felt. They were temporary, erased by the new. Logically I knew that I'd probably be feeling let down, but I still hoped I wouldn't. This is my way of saying that the Spring Summer 2011 collection that Frida Giannini presented was such a drastic departure from the positively good collection she put out last fall and which won me over, despite my distaste for the woman's prior work. With this new collection she reverted back to her former tactics faster than you can say "stiletto", and it's killing me. Watching the show, which seemed to unintentionally be broken up into three separate collections, was upsetting because after last season I've seen what Frida is capable of. She's still no Tom Ford, and she never will be, but she can do luxurious, sexy, grown up clothes that positively reek of Gucci's essence. Why she decided to shoot herself in the foot instead of going 2 for 2 is beyond my comprehension.

The collection started out with jewel tone silk separates, tapered trousers, blazers, blouses, and tulip skirts and in their clashing shades of orange, jade, purple and cerulean accented with gold accessories and red lips it would be nearly impossible not to think of Yves Saint Laurent. He was the master of these kinds of lurid mixes of color. I wish I could say that Giannini's homage did the originator justice, but instead of looking artistic, beautiful and unusual Giannini's mix of colors just looked cheap. There was zero sophistication which, mean as it sounds, is a testament to her eye for color. She may like using it but in this case anyway it wasn't used well. Ignoring the color the pieces are no great shakes with their slight 70s vibe. Compared to Marc Jacobs collection, which went there and back, it's no wonder I find these looks completely forgettable. I do like the black blouse on Natasha though. Apparently the back was cut out.

The next section, which was significantly larger, was done in shades of beige, tan and black and had a vague "safari" flavor. You know what that means, harem pants, neat jackets in exotic skins detailed with lots of junk like tassels, fringe, and braiding, and a bit of ethnic beading to finish things off. Again this section recalled Yves Saint Laurent, though an entirely different side of his work. If the opening looks harked back to his vibrant disco days then this section was pure, unadulterated, mid-60s Saharienne with just a hint of Marrakesh thrown in to cover all the bases. It's a look that's been done countless times, and honestly Frida isn't adding anything remotely new to the theme. Save for the overload of details this was textbook fashion, the kind of ready-made go-to inspiration that designers latch on to like flies to a zebra carcass. While this was the largest section of the collection it was also the most uneven. There were some beautiful pieces, but between the over-styling and the over-embellishing that went on they got a little lost in the shuffle.

The third and final section was, unsurprisingly, eveningwear and for evening Frida referenced yet another moment in Saint Laurent's career, his African collection of 67/68, in all it's tribal beaded, feathered and fringed glory. After sending out three black jumpsuits with gold detailing that, were it not for the extremely dropped crotches would have been kind of pretty, Giannini sent out what were no doubt meant to be her "drama" pieces, the ones that end a show with a bang. It's unfortunate that, for me at least, the obvious work that went into making them is overshadowed by the fact that they are both overdone and unflattering. Watching the live stream, with the size 0 and 2 models walking down the runway in their fringed, beaded, and feathered dresses, hands thrust into side pockets, I couldn't help but think of how insane it is to make a dress that is already wide around the hips appear even wider by adding pockets. Frida's a woman, and if a woman is making dresses that look kind of bulky on a too-thin model (forget about a woman who actually has a waist and hips) there is seriously something wrong.

Besides feeling like a completely unfocused collection it also feels like a giant step backwards for Giannini. I've always felt that she has relied way too heavily on special effects and not enough on the basics of designing clothes such as cut, shape and fit. There are times when it feels as though she's thinking of the embellishments first and simply applying them to whatever garment will accommodate them, and there are others when it seems like she thinks she needs to work a piece to the nth degree for it to be luxurious or special. I don't understand why she'd revert back to this comfort zone after showing that she can in fact restrain herself and produce results that are better looking than when she goes for the glue gun. I also can't help but criticize the lack of continuity in this collection. Style.com namechecked Guy Bourdin and Chris von Wangenheim as two sources of inspiration, and while I could maybe grant that the bold colors that opened the show have a vaguely Bourdin kind of feel (and I do mean vaguely) I don't see much of Wangenheim's twisted sexuality here. I also don't see how photographers who helped define the look of the mid-to-late 70s relate to Marrakesh, safari or tribalism via YSL. Fact is those references come from an entirely different decade than Bourdin and Wangenheim. There's no real connection between them and Frida didn't succeed at creating one, which is why this one collection of 44 looks is broken up so jaggedly. There's no flow from those colored disco silks to the beige harem pants and leather jackets that came next, just like there's no flow from the desert tinged safari section to the glitzed up sub-Saharan tribalism that closed the show. Weird thing is I don't all out hate this collection. It's certainly not the worst that Giannini has done and some of the pieces, like those black jumpsuits which are really the only pieces that successfully merge all of the references, are kind of nice. But I can't say that I think the collection is very good. It's not. Like I said, I knew that last season would turn out to be a fluke, I really did, but I still hoped that it might be the start of a new chapter at Gucci. It was nice while it lasted I guess.

all images from style.com

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

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

Everyone and their mother...

That's who's been wearing the debut items from Gucci's new made-to-measure line, Gucci Première. Seriously, Cannes is only into it's fourth day and so far no less than five different women (not including Frida Giannini herself) have walked the red carpet wearing pieces from Gucci's couture line, some more than once. Now when I first read about this line about two months ago on WWD I nearly choked on my own tongue. All I could think of was the amount of bells and whistles a Gucci couture gown would be covered in, given some of the recent runway collections. Oh sure, I praised the F/W 10 show because I thought it was good, but that doesn't mean I have complete faith that Frida won't lose control and relapse into her sequin abuse problem if she's left unsupervised for too long. At the time the news leaked Gucci had no comment, and I forgot all about it...until this week when the steps at Cannes were swarmed by starlets wearing Gucci. Now the impression I get from what's been written about it, and what I've seen so far, is that it's sort of Gucci's answer to Armani's Prive collection, although if memory serves Armani's collection is permitted to be called haute couture by the Chambre Syndicale, which would mean that his clothes meet the standards of true couture. Gucci isn't promoting this as haute couture, but more as a made to measure custom service for red carpet types and rich people who want something exclusive. But custom made red carpet pieces are nothing new for Gucci, they've been doing them since Tom Ford was still at the helm, so I don't really know why they're launching this as a completely separate collection.

The first woman was, somewhat fittingly given her marital status to Mr. Gucci Group himself, Salma Hayek. Now I'll say right up front that I think this is a pretty dress, and I like that the sparkle is kept to a minimum and restricted to two specific locations. It's a little bit more interesting than all over beading. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't beyond sick of the one-shouldered thing. It's become such a ubiquitous look for red carpet events at this point. I also think that this particular specimen would have been better without that little drape falling on the arm. So yeah, it's pretty dress, but it's not all that remarkable and it certainly isn't something unique. Also, it must be said that I'm a little peevish in general about gowns with rear zippers. The only reason to put a zipper up the back is if you absolutely don't have the option of putting it on the side. I can't really tell how this dress is constructed from pictures, so I'll let it slide, but it's a little annoying because you can see the little bubble in the back where the end of the zipper is, and that's precisely why I hate rear zips. But still, Salma looks beautiful in it, and I suppose that's the most important thing.

Next up was Camille Belle in a navy column, also one shouldered and also featuring strategically placed beading. The dress is fine I guess, although the only thing that made me look twice was the way the beading sort of dissolves down the back, which is a beautiful effect. But everything else about this look is both bland and kind of mature. The dress itself, from the color to the cut, seems destined for an older woman, probably in the over 35 age range, if not older. There's something almost conservative about it, despite the bit of sparkle and the slit up the leg. The hair and makeup really isn't helping matters as it makes Belle look about 15 years older than she is. But most of all this dress just looks like something you'd find in any number of department stores or dress shops. It's a standard evening wear template, not something you can go wrong with, but not something that's going to turn heads either.

The dress Kate Beckinsale wore was, at least, somewhat interesting to look at...although I don't really like it. There's something about the mix of the very dense silver beading and the sort of ethereal look of the draped shoulders and flowing train that doesn't quite work. I don't think the armor like panels really work well against the soft, romantic silhouette and delicate beading in the drapery at the hips. I dunno, it just doesn't work for me. From the back it gets worse, because in addition to the weird clash of hard and soft, the sewing in the rear seam is a little fucked up, to put it plainly. It's the kind of thing any fashion design professor would teach you how to avoid. That puckering, and especially right on the ass, is not pretty. I don't know if it's because the fabric has lycra in it, or if the dress wasn't properly altered, or if it was just poorly sewn, but it's shoddy looking and that's a shame, especially with Gucci promoting these looks as the most exclusive of all of their products.

Camille Belle also showed up to an event wearing a short, fitted, off the shoulder dress completely beaded in a degrade pattern. The dress is boring as hell, but it's cute and sparkly and a hell of a lot more youthful than the other dress she wore. But it's been almost 3 years since every young actress and "personality" in Hollywood has had their stylist slather them in Crisco so they could slip into an Herve Leger bandage dress, which is exactly what this looks like, and I'm completely burnt out on that look. More than anything I just like the effect that was achieved with the beading. Also wearing a short, sparkly number was Giannini herself, making the rounds of events along with her coterie of clients. Her dress is another that I've seen a million of, from runways to department store racks. It's nothing I'm about to piddle over.

The dress that French actress Lea Seydoux wore was by far one of the most interesting dresses of the ones I've seen. It's also one of my least favorites. There's just something about it that rubs me the wrong way. I wish I could offer an explanation as to why, but I have no effing clue. I will say this though, at the very least it's not a predictable red carpet choice (I don't even know when I last saw a cap sleeve) so that's a positive. But other than that I think I might actually hate it.

Naomi Watts has the distinction of wearing my favorite dress out of the ones that have been seen so far, which isn't saying much, but it's something. I love the angular pattern that basically makes up the entire dress. Despite how blah a pale beige strapless column gown is by it's very nature, there's at least something really graphic to look at with this one. I would have loved to see this in a darker, more severe color, something to play up the sharpness of those pleats. I for one am completely over the pale flesh-tone thing that so many women seem to gravitate towards for the red carpet. At the very least if you're going to go for a neutral color, go for black. It doesn't have that aura of "meh" to it. Still, it's a pretty dress, although I'm a little concerned about the workmanship. It looks a little rough on the bust.

And lastly there was Mrs. Gucci Group again, although I have to say I detest this dress. There's something cheap about it that I can't quite pinpoint, but the two things that come to mind when I look at it are: department store evening dress on the 50% off rack at Lohmann's, or some novice fashion student's attempt at making a "Versace" gown. I doubt if that's the kind of association Gucci want's anyone to have while looking at any of their products, least of all a custom made dress for the wife of their CEO.

Now, I'm fine with Gucci wanting to up their exclusivity factor by creating one-off pieces for celebs. They're not the first and they probably won't be the last. But here's the thing, if you set out to create a line that promises exclusivity, you better make damn sure that the product makes good on it. None of these dresses are the kind that would really pop on any red carpet, and I truly think that were it not for the fact that Gucci was promoting the line at one of the biggest red carpet events of the year, nobody would look twice at any of them. I also find it hard to believe that a paying client would want a custom made dress that was so indistinct. No, ultimately the label in a dress isn't important if the dress is beautiful, but you wouldn't go to Chanel to have a suit made for you that looks like any other suit, so why would you want a Gucci gown that looks like any other gown? I'll be honest, even when I've hated them Frida's evening gowns and party dresses have usually had some personality to them. Take the dresses she did for fall, there's no way those would blend in on a red carpet. Even though a casual observer might not know right away that they're Gucci, they would no doubt assume that they're high fashion. These dresses however could be by any second rate red carpet designer. It's kind of ironic that the dresses which will be produced in quantity look more exclusive and unique than the ones that are one of a kind. And I know I'm guilty of bringing every Gucci related post back to Tom Ford in some way, but I can't help pointing out that his custom designed pieces while he was at Gucci and YSL got people's attention and stood out at an event. For proof look no further than the one-sleeved nude column covered with clear crystals that Nicole Kidman wore to the 2003 Met Gala. Seven years later and nude beaded gowns are a dime a dozen, but that trend can probably be traced back to that one Gucci dress. Simply put it had the wow factor that none of these new designs possess, but it wasn't some completely out there design. I guess in the end high impact dressing doesn't need to be ridiculous, it just needs to be well calculated. If these new looks are an accurate representation of what the Gucci Première line is going to be about then to be honest I just don't see the point.

all images from daylife.com, zimbio.com and getty.com thanks to Flashbang at The Fashion Spot

About face...

Gucci

For me to say that I'm not Frida Giannini's biggest fan is something of an understatement. Anyone who has read either my blog or my posts on the Fashion Spot (which date back to the dawn of her career) can tell you without a doubt that I haven't always been kind to our girl Frida. So imagine my complete and utter disbelief to find that this season I was kinda impressed by her collection. That's right, I said impressed, so bear with me.

My issue with Giannini is three-fold; from the beginning she completely ignored the well established identity and aesthetic of the house, in her zeal to erase the memory of her iconic predecessor her collections were erratic and lacking in any kind of consistency, and the simple-minded trends/cliches she worked with gave the impression that her clothes were nothing more than luxed-up fast fashion. On top of those things her most recent collections have been too reliant on special effects rather than good design. By that I mean she spent too much time decorating basic pieces that, despite their astronomical price-tags and overt displays of "luxury", didn't actually seem all that luxurious. All in all her collections have been, to me at least, too self conscious, like after four years she still doesn't have the confidence needed to put her own permanent stamp on the Gucci legacy. Well apparently we may all be in for a change.

Giannini's collection for Fall Winter 2010 is hands down the best she has done in her eight-season tenure at the house. Gone are the gimmicks, the overwrought details, and the frivolous, youth-obsessed, flash in the pan trends. In their place are beautiful, sexy, timeless looking clothes for beautiful, sexy, confident women, not girls, women. Everything about this collection, from the rich palette of warm neutrals in contrasting shades, to the longer skirt lengths, and even the non-tricked-out accessories seem geared towards a more grown up clientele who doesn't need to flaunt their fashion cred. And unlike in past seasons this collection placed more emphasis on daywear, with sharp tailoring a focal point as opposed to flirty day dresses and party gear. Most of the day looks were built around this season's pant; narrow, low on the waist but not ridiculously so, and flared just enough to spill over the foot. In the past Giannini's pants, with their low waist, tapered leg and overall boyish look really didn't appeal to me, so it was nice to see her working on a new shape, especially one that's really flattering. With the pants she paired understated coats or furs that were luxe without being obnoxious and simple silk camisoles or blouses. As an entire look the pants, slightly oversized coats and silk button downs worn partially open definitely recalled Tom Ford's very first Gucci collection as creative director back in 1995, not that that's a bad thing. Mixed in with the pant looks were some sheaths with slashes along a bias seam held closed with polished gold hardware. Those few looks brought to mind the white jersey gowns with gold hardware that Ford showed in his iconic F/W 1996 collection which, again, isn't a bad thing. There were also a few looser draped dresses in smudgey prints or solid black before the collection moved into evening.

Let's face it, evening has always been a big deal at Gucci and it probably always will. In my opinion eveningwear has never been Giannini's strong suit, she's always showed a bit more skill with sportswear and casual dresses. But this time around, though I didn't love every look she sent out for after dark, I liked that the looks were more mature, more hedonistic and more "Gucci" than anything she's shown before. Most of the looks mixed python patterned lace or mesh with paillettes and ostrich feathers on the sleeves. Paired with coordinating patterned lace tights and metallic python sandals it was a lot of look, but because all of them were cut above the knee they avoided that sharp left into tacky territory. Sure, not all of them worked but the looks that did were really beautiful, and kind of unusual too in their mix of textures. A black one with a plunging v-neck held up by a metal collar worn with a bolero in ombré feathers had a beautiful degrade effect going on, from the opaque paillettes at the top down to the sheer tights on bare flesh at the bottom. The look reminded me, though very vaguely, of the beaded dresses and marabou boleros Tom did back in '04. Another, a cognac long sleeved dress with copper paillettes fading from top to bottom was also really beautiful. The best thing about these looks is that they're a more extreme, grown up take on glamour than what Giannini is known for. You're not likely to see some unkempt hipper-than-thou wild child pulling these looks off, that's for sure.

I think that this collection is completely refreshing coming from Giannini. It's not relying on anything but quality clothing and good styling, which is what made Gucci a powerhouse to begin with. It takes a bit of maturity to hold back and let the clothes be the focal point instead of a theme or overdone details. Are these clothes anything new? No. Are they bound to shake fashion to it's core? Probably not. But that's okay. I am still pretty shocked by how much I like this, although I'm starting to think that maybe I shouldn't be. The fact is that a lot of this bares a resemblance to Tom Ford's work at the house, especially in his disco-loving early days. Looking at this I'm left wondering why Frida spent so many seasons trying in earnest to avoid the territory he mapped out, because while this doesn't have the same heady punch of Ford's work, it fits his Gucci blueprint very well. This woman seems to be the softer, less depraved sister of Ford's femme fatale. She may not have that same predatory sensuality that leaves a path of broken men in her wake, but I bet she's got a few of her own tricks up her ostrich feather sleeve. Here's hoping we'll get to see them.

all images from Style.com

The not-so-glamorous life...

So even though I completely railed on the Gucci F/W collection (and I stand by that review) I admit that I was looking forward to seeing the ad campaign for it, which mainly had to do with the casting. The female models include Raquel Zimmermann, Anja Rubik, Abbey Lee, perennial Gucci droid Natasha Poly, Myf Shepherd (couldn't pick her out of a lineup if my life depended on it), Ernest Hemingway great-granddaughter Dree Hemingway, Freja Beha, vintage Gucci Girl Jacquetta Wheeler, and unexpected curve-ball Jamie Bochert. Now, in my opinion Frida Giannini's taste in models skews pretty bland for the most part, not to mention almost exclusively white (no change there, unfortunately), so I was thrilled to hear that this collection would break the cookie cutter Gucci mold of late with seasoned Gucci veteran Jacquetta and quirky underground fave Jamie. And I'll admit that even though the clothes shown on the runway were beyond tacky, they at least make for lots of visual interest, as well as having a built-in nightclubby vibe to them. So needless to say I was expecting something really fun, really glam, and maybe even a little sexy or edgy...not unlike the F/W 06 campaign shot by Craig McDean. My expectations were high, higher than they've ever been for something that Giannini's had a hand in doing, and I was eagerly awaiting the finished result. The result, however, was so anticlimactic that I now find myself wondering why I was ever interested in seeing this campaign to begin with. Like I said in my post about the Givenchy campaign, I'm not an Inez & Vinoodh fan. Their appeal usually eludes me. I don't really get a distinct point of view from them, and more often than not I find the results of their work completely unimpressive. In fact the only times I can think of where I've liked their work was their Balenciaga campaigns from the early 00s, and the one Gucci campaign they did with Tom Ford back in 2001. Other than that, nothing, and this campaign has done nothing to change that. What all of the glitter, glitz, camp and trashiness of the runway amounted to was a white backdrop with black platforms and an overcrowded group of models striking random "unposed" poses while never interacting with each other. That's one thing I can't stand, intentionally random stuff that looks like it was meticulously planned. I'm fine with meticulously planned perfection, and I'm fine with meticulously planned randomness that looks effortless, but I HATE meticulously planned randomness that looks rehearsed, and this does. Plus, could the concept be more boring? If you're going to latch on to a cliche, and at this point that's exactly what the whole 80s nightclub thing is, then ride it 'til the very end. In all honesty, with less models this would make a decent enough editorial concentrating on graphic clothes or something like that, but as an ad campaign? How does this really differ from the mind-numbingly boring studio shoots that Anna Wintour is repeatedly lambasted for doing at Vogue? This is just as boring as far as I'm concerned.

After seeing three of the final shots already, I have a pretty good feeling that this won't get much better than it is now, though I'd be thrilled if I turn out to be wrong about that. Oh I'm sure that there will be at least one good shot among the lot of them, but I doubt if it'll be anything worth remembering. In a strange way I can't even fully blame Frida for this campaign. Yes, she had final say in everything, but that F/W 06 McDean campaign was worlds better than this, and I believe she had final say in that as well. I don't even think I'd care as much if it wasn't for the fact that Frida, I&V and both of their creative teams responsible for creating this campaign from start to finish had all of the right ingredients at their disposal; a decent mix of models, visually impactful clothes and accessories, and a fun theme to work with as well. What made them decide to go for the most basic possible result will probably remain a mystery, and one that I'm not even all that interested in figuring out. Consider the lesson learned; never, EVER get your hopes up where Gucci is involved. It's pointless.

images from vogue.co.au and NothernStar @ tFS

So bad it's awful...

Gucci

I'd like to take you back a bit, back to February of 2006. At that time, a young up and coming creative director, who I don't even need to mention by name since it should be obvious, sent out her second major collection. In that collection, she had done a complete 180 from her first effort, sending out gaudy, glitzy, trashy disco inflected mini dresses and gowns. While the thinking behind that collection was actually in keeping with what the label had previously stood for, the elements were so poorly handled in both the design and styling that the final result couldn't have been more different. Two years later and she seems to have dug that very same grave for herself. While her efforts in the time between these two collections have been nothing short of mind numbingly boring and increasingly more predictable, she was smart to never, ever try her hand at sexy, glamorous clothes again. But if the new collection is anything to go by, she ain't so smart after all...

I doubt if you'll find anyone who can say they were surprised by the direction Frida Giannini went in for F/W 09.10. She basically just took her mens collection, added more glitter to it, and made the pants even tighter. That, my friends, is the genius of Giannini. She doesn't actually have to design two collections per season, she just has to fit them on two different types of bodies, and since male and female models' bodies are looking more and more alike as the first decade of the new millenium comes to a close, that really isn't too much work. Her boy and her girl are essentially the same person, and that person, unfortunately, is none too interesting. But, that's what Frida likes. She likes mindless youths who are more than happy to indulge in only the most mainstream of trends long after those trends have come and gone. So this season, Frida is giving us mid-80's nightclubbers. The shine of the clothes (and they were shi-ny) competed with the shine from the polished catwalk with spotlights reflecting off the surface (yet another area where she is far exceded by Tom Ford, set design). Very few of the clothes she showed would look anything but ridiculous worn before 8 pm; skintight leather leggings (the kind that girls have been obsessed with for a while now) were paired with micromini dresses in hideous overblown polka dots or stripes, cheap looking furs and sparkly lame blouses. Suits were comprised of cropped jackets paired with skintight pants in fabrics that only someone sipping a martini in Vegas circa 1963 should be wearing. Do not plan on looking good in these suits if you have anything that resembles an ass. For that matter, don't plan on looking good in most of these clothes if you have an ass, breasts or hips, translation; if you look like a woman, move on, cause Frida ain't dressing you. Her clothes skew younger and younger every season, and this fall, she's in friggin teenager territory. So if you've already gone through puberty and you don't gag yourself after eating, I really don't know what Giannini has to offer you. Seriously, who exactly is this Gucci customer she's dreamed up for herself? The hipster party girls who would actually want to wear this stuff (and I'm not counting celebs since they don't pay) likely can't afford the real thing, and the grown women who might go to Gucci for luxe fashion probably aren't interested in looking like Lady GaGa threw up on them. So who's left? Rich bitch trophy wives on Bravo reality series? Is that really the ideal Gucci woman nowadays?

But then there was eveningwear, or at least, the clothes that in Frida's head are eveningwear. What the real distinction is is beyond me since this all looks destined for an overhyped club that's clutching to the 80s revival thing that's going on. The eveningwear really just seemed like a cry for help to me. It's clear that poor Frida has a sequin abuse problem and does not know when to put the hot glue gun down. Dresses ran the gammut from short and sparkly to short and sparklier, with a hideously dumpy crystal covered jumpsuit thrown into the mix. It takes quite a lack of talent to make these models today look fat, but would you expect anything else from someone who cares less about creating flattering clothes and more about trying to prove to the world that she's a real designer? But the interesting thing is, for all of the effort she's put into trying to eradicate the memory of Tom Ford from the house, some of the clothes suggest that she was spending some time in the archives when nobody was looking. Specifically, she seemed to take a few elements from the F/W 97 collection, namely the sparkly crystal embroidered mini dresses and a one shouldered black jersey mini with a black patent leather band across the shoulder that looked an awful lot like a series of gowns that were suspended from patent leather harnesses in that 1997 collection. Besides the dresses and the unfortunate crystal covered garbage ba....jumpsuit....she also showed a few beaded tunicy/t shirt things over lurex leggings. I have no f-ing idea what those looks were about because, as with the jumpsuit, they made the models look fat and dumpy. It's like, if the Golden Girls were heading to Danceteria or Paradise Garage, that's sort of what you'd expect them to wear. All they need is a set of shoulder pads. The final look was definitely the best though, a silver and blue leopard print sequined skin tight pantsuit. I don't even have an insult for it, it speaks for itself. Now, besides the fact that this collection clearly displayed why Frida should never try to do sexy clothes (she just goes too far with everything), it also displayed how delusional some designers are when they discuss their collections. Supposedly, this collection was meant to convey a sense of dangerous, tough, seductive femininity. Call me crazy, but isn't that EXACTLY what Gucci was all about before this woman took over, and isn't that the very identity she has been making every effort to suppress for 3 years??? Did she just have her head planted firmy up her own ass while Tom Ford was creative director, or did she want to quash the identity he built at Gucci just so she could revive it years later when the time was right and she'd end up being on trend? (somehow I think the first theory is the more likely one. I just don't get manipulative genius from this woman). Whatever the case is, the fact that she attempted to tread the exact same territory (read: tough, slightly androgynous, highly sexualized and very glamorous) as someone who didn't exactly invent it, but who did write the handbook on it just proves that this woman should stick to what she knows...or whatever it is that she usually does. But the funniest thing that came out of the show notes is that the muse of this collection was, get this, Tina Chow. Tina, f***ing, Chow. Now, I'm sure a lot of people who didn't live to experience the 70's and 80's first hand won't know who Tina Chow was, and frankly I don't actually know how I do myself, but she was a renowned style icon who was known for her somewhat minimal, androgynous personal style and for having great taste in, and a large collection of vintage haute couture. Please, if someone sees the similarity between this collection and Ms. Chow's style, let me know. Seriously, just because you were inspired by early 80's disco doesn't mean you can pick any random style icon from that era and call them your muse, Frida!!! On top of all that though, this collection is pretty awful on a purely aesthetic level. In addition to looking so much like what young girls have already been wearing for a few years now, none of these clothes look remotely expensive. Oh sure, they're decked out in Swarovski, and those tacky shiny silks are probably very high quality, but the clothes look worlds apart from what the pricetag will look like. They look cheap.

In a way I feel bad for Giannini. She's in a terrible Catch 22 situation. On the one hand, when she does her usual work, picking up the breadcrumbs of old trends that other designers left for her, her work has nothing to do with the identity that's still associated with Gucci. And that identity is still stuck to the label like an albatross because to this day she hasn't established her own identity for the brand. Trendy and young just isn't an identity. Then on the other hand, both times where her work has come close to resembling what Gucci is all about it has sucked so thoroughly that all you can think is "don't even bother, dear". So really, what is there that can be done in a situation like that? The thing she does well (making Zara knockoffs) has nothing to do with the house she works for, and the thing she does terribly has everything to do with the house she works for. I think the only option is to put her out of her misery, thereby putting all of us out of ours.

All images from Style.com

They shoot horses, don't they?...

Have you ever thought that maybe the people who euthanize horses and greyhounds when they get hurt and can no longer race might be onto something? Keep that question in mind, there's a pop quiz later....

Alexander McQueen

I have to admit, I've never really been won over by Alexander McQueen's menswear efforts. It's not that I don't like his aesthetic for men or anything like that. It's that, since launching the line in 2005 the collections have had more twists and turns than someone with limited patience can possibly be expected to endure. It was like one of those movies that you sit through where you're screaming in your head "get to the f-ing point already!". McQueen never really has. Whereas his aesthetic for women is easy to identify and to put into words, the one real thread that connects his men's shows together is the impeccable tailoring. But since this is McQueen we're talking about, impeccable tailoring is a given and people expect something more. The one time in the four years since he started showing his men's line in Milan where I felt he hit the right note was with F/W 06, a mix of the severe lines, dramatic details and sinister undertones that he's well known for. Since then, nothing. Nothing has moved me...until now.

His F/W 09 collection was true McQueen, very aggressive, historically inspired, theatrical and twisted. If Alex from "A Clockwork Orange" was a real person and was cast as the lead in a Jack the Ripper biopic directed by Martin Scorcese, this collection would probably be pretty close to what the result might look like. A troupe of models, all with dark circles around their eyes, fedoras on their heads and canes in their right hand marched out in clothes that evoked all things London. McQueen opened with his signature sharp tailoring, camel overcoats and grey tweed, very traditional stuff being worn by guys who look pretty likely to beat you to a pulp in an alley for trying to stiff their whore out of her money...or something like that. Honestly though, the clothes all look pretty wearable when you look at them as individual pieces and without the styling tricks. A navy cardigan that was long enough to trail on the floor had two leather belts holding it closed across the chest and was shown with a vest and rolled up trousers. After that there was taupe knee-length coat worn over a skintight brown leather jacket (or vest, you can't really tell) and paired with gray tweed trousers detailed with cargo pockets. I actually really like those trousers. This whole section was kind of a mix between ruff and rugged street trash of the Dickens variety and dandified criminal. Then came a cognac colored leather apron, perfect for anyone who might be ritualistically dismembering someone, in style of course. It was a bit of that old-school McQueen darkness that has been all but dormant lately.

Soon after this though, the show took a turn for the darker side of things, both literally and figuratively. The beige, tan and muted shades of taupe and mushroom were replaced with black and steely gray, and the sort of delinquent tough guys grew into even more delinquent, tougher guys...you know the type, the ones that prowl the streets looking for trouble, victims and a bit of fun. There was a great shirt with a trompe l'oeil print that kind of resembled a male chest rendered in tarnished metal, a full length leather coat with an Astrakhan collar and a light grey suit of sorts, the vest worn wrapped around the chest like a harness and the coat slung on the shoulders. Overall I liked this section a whole lot more than the previous one.

After this there was a brief section of more ready to rumble toughs, though they had taken off their suits and replaced them with codpieces, metal breastplates, argyle sweaters with skulls hidden in the diamonds and boots laced up to the knees. But then came the best part; evening attire. What do the criminals of a Victorian/Dystopian London wear for evening you might ask? Why, only the sharpest of sharp tailoring in deepest black and bloodiest red of course. One frock coat in iridescent burgundy had an inset with a deep red brocade of some sort that looked like a cross between a floral and blood splatters. A waistcoat and trouser combo also had some sort of pattern either printed or woven into the groin area in a blue-tinged white/silver splatter that some on the Fashion Spot speculated might have been alluding to...er....DNA. And the final look was absolutely stunning; one half jacket, one half waistcoat, the back turning into a cape. It was up there with some of the best tailoring McQueen has ever done.

Overall this collection was refreshing not only because it was totally in keeping with the McQueen personality cultivated over years of his work, but also because it provided some kind of reassurance to his fans that his dark side is still very much intact and that he hasn't forgotten how to use it. I can only hope that carries over into his women's collection come March.

Versace

Six different exits, all of them head-to-toe in winter white opened the Versace men's collection for next fall. That right there is interesting in itself. So far this season black, and shades of grey that are dark enough to be considered black, have been the main and sometimes only colors on display. I have no idea if Donatella's opening looks were a conscious effort to make a statement or not, but it definitely made a powerful impression. In my bit about the Ferre collection I mentioned how underrated I think winter white is as a color. There's something super elegant and very soothing about it, not to mention kind of dramatic. So needless to say I thought Donatella's choice to open with those head-to-toe looks was pretty great. It didn't hurt that the clothes were really beautiful. She started with a classic double-breasted overcoat, followed by a suit with a thin turtleneck sweater underneath. Then there was a chunky knit sweater with trousers, a pea-coat and finally a short bomber style jacket paired with ever-so-slightly gray trousers (this look was my favorite). It made for a very bold and very dramatic opening to the collection, and even though I myself would think twice before wearing so much white (it's gorgeous, but not exactly durable) it certainly made me want to.

From there the collection moved into grays in every possible shade; steel, graphite, iron, anthracite, charcoal...all the way into black. Like Aquilano and Rimondi earlier this week at Ferre, Versace was smart to play with sheen in these monochrome looks. I especially love the metallic looking biker jacket worn with the shirt and tie and black trousers, and the belted coat that looks like either some kind of black tweed with gray flecks or some kind of wool with a slight metallic finish.

Interspersed throughout the collection of white, black and gray were occasional shots of different shades of blue. Everything from steely blue to petrol popped up as textured leather pea coats, jackets, iridescent shirts, the same thin turtlenecks that were throughout the collection and trousers. These looks really added something to the lineup because the colors really played off the monochrome neutrals nicely and added a bit of interest to an otherwise safe lineup.

About 3/4 of the way through the lineup however, La Donatella lost me. Out came a half-dozen or so looks all in beige, camel and red. What was this? Weren't we just moving at a solid pace through deep, cool monochromes? Every one of these looks was a complete miss for me, not even because they were particularly bad, but because they literally came out of nowhere. The entire section should have been completely nixed. It's not even like there was a need to fill space. There were already enough pieces and looks shown, all she had to do was send out some formal wear and take her bow. So simple. Anyway, it was a real headscratcher. Luckily after this she did send out some evening looks, my favorite being a coat with squared off lapels, white button-down worn open at the throat over a black turtleneck, and classic trousers topped with a cummerbund. It was definitely formal, but it was hardly traditional. Kind of makes me wish I went to more dressy functions.

All in all, a gorgeous collection filled with things I would love to wear through the winter months. Was it anything new or exciting? No. But you know what, there are just some times in life when gorgeous clothes end up making you not really care if someone has reinvented the wheel.


And now for the pop quiz; If I were to participate in a word-association exercise, which designer's name would make me think of euthanasia?

Gucci

If you guessed Frida Giannini, well, don't expect any prizes because really, who else could it be? I've seen many debates on the Fashion Spot arise in Gucci fashion show discussions, and they're almost always triggered by the same type of comment. Someone, whether they like the collection or not, says something to the effect of "Every time there's a Gucci show people start comparing it to Tom Ford. Get over it". From there the debate ensues, and to be fair I've participated in more than my fair share of them. But after looking at the new men's collection, and believe me we will get to that mess soon enough, I think I might be able to enlighten all of those who want the Tom Ford fans and Gucci purists to "get over it". Imagine a label you really love, one that always has you waiting anxiously when the collections are being shown just to see the photos because even though you can pretty much count on the fact that you'll love it like you always do, you're still a little nervous that this collection will be the one that disappoints. Do you have that label or designer in mind? Now imagine that the designer decided to leave the label, which is disappointing enough but it's an unfortunate part of the industry, and the person to succeed them is not only incompetent as a clothing designer, but is someone whose work is so mind-numbingly stale and uninteresting, so basic in it's technique that they have so thoroughly dumbed down the luxury label you once admired to the point that the clothes now look like what you would have found in Zara stores the world over a full year prior when whatever convenient, cliched little trend was still remotely relevant. Would you just "get over it"? Or, season after season would you sit back in disbelief and feel like you're relieving the same nightmare over and over again. Of course, I'm being a bit dramatic here, but believe me, the nightmare thing is not so far off the mark. And at this point, I don't think anybody is still mourning the loss of Tom Ford, they're mourning the loss of Gucci.

So, now that I've been presumptuous enough to try and explain why some people can't just get over it, on to the collection.

Giannini's menswear, from the time she took over in 2006, has always focused on the very young, very thin and very trendy male. Whereas the Gucci man used to be, well, a man, he's now in that awkward stage when you start sprouting a few hairs on your chin. But it looks bad, because it's only a few hairs and nobody thinks a goatee with just a few bits of stubble looks cool. So right off the bat it's a bit strange because she's designing clothes for guys who are really young, but the clothes still carry that Gucci pricetag. As the years have gone by and she's discovered the joys of a Bedazzler, the embellishments have multiplied and the prices have skyrocketed. Now, I know that there are some guys in their early 20's who, by whatever means, are able to drop $5,000 on a shrunken studded military jacket, but I'd feel pretty confident in saying that most guys who would want to wear that jacket and who have the body to fit into it probably wouldn't be able to afford the sales tax, let alone the whole jacket. But she's continued on undeterred , and the idiots (or executives, whichever you prefer) at Gucci let her because her tattoo-ed, logo-ed and over-embellished garbage sells like crazy to those with more money than taste.

This season Frida continues blazing her trail and leaving all of her competitors in the dust by channeling some interesting inspiration (subtle sarcasm just doesn't work in type, so I'm gonna be a little OTT with it), 80's New Wave rockers! I know what you're thinking, hasn't the better part of 2008 been marred by people experimenting with that very same trend? Why yes, it has. And haven't skinny trousers and jeans, neon colors and cleavage baring tops been appropriated by desperately cool boys everywhere for a while now? Why yes, they have. But in this season of grown up sophistication, razor sharp tailoring and restrained details let it be know that there was a voice of reason, a voice that said with perfectly clarity "Wait, I haven't gotten to use that cliche yet, so it's not passe". Seriously, she's never met a cliche she didn't like, and it's not even like she's picking from the good cliches like "Parisian Prostitute" or "Italian film star in the 60's". So for fall 09 she envisions her boy/man as some synth or keytair playing badass circa 1984, two-tone brothel creepers and all. Graphic patterned high-water suits were worn with super-bright shirts, skinny ties and the occasional wallet chain blown up to such stupid proportions that one might wonder what the guy wearing it is overcompensating for that even his wallet chain has to be big. I will admit, I do like the purple shirt worn with the darker purple tie, and the rest of the outfit would make any squatter a nice little waste-basket fire. In all seriousness though, I don't know how many guys would be interested in wearing so much of such bright colors in the winter.

From there she ditched the neon and went for blue, red and burgundy, and she introduced her new pant. For those guys who don't mind going down the drag performer route and torturing yourself by strapping down your man parts, has she got the pants for you! Have you ever seen something so sexy in your life? You heard it here first, knobby knees are the new erogenous zone for guys. Again I have a confession, the leopard v-neck is cute. If it wasn't so insanely overpriced, I'd wear it. Same goes for the wool motorcycle jacket. That waist-length blue jacket however? Pass.

Then she took a sharp left into full on, heroin addicted, Pete Doherty worshipping Dior Homme territory. What the connection is between a pretty literal interpretation of 80's New Wave and Hedi Slimane circa 04/05 is beyond me, but then again I stopped trying to make sense of this women when she showed granny florals one season and slutty disco lame the next. From then on it's been like that movie Sybil. Every season we discover a new personality for the Gucci client. Now she's just speeding up the process. Glittery skinny jeans, sternum-baring tops, ragged scarves and shrunken leather, or in one case beaded fur, jackets are apparently what her dude wears for evening, and why not? Nothing says cool like trying too hard.

This was yet another case of Giannini picking up the breadcrumbs other designers left behind so she can navigate her way out of having to actually design something. More and more I find myself entertaining the delusion that maybe this whole Frida Giannini era is some elaborate joke. We're all being punk'd and eventually there will be a headline on Style.com that says something like "Hah! Gotcha. As if this woman was really a designer." Like I said, delusions. But considering the woman behind all of this madness has deluded herself into believing that she knows fashion to the point where it's a wonder how she'll ever find a way out of her own fantasies, I'm just trying to keep up.

Oh yeah, she's schooled us bitches on fashion.

All photos from Men.Style.com