The Beautiful Fall...

I have to admit that when I saw the first image from the Spring Summer 2011 Vuitton campaign it left me a bit underwhelmed. Besides not looking quite how I pictured it, I kind of felt like it could have been even more over the top than they were. I guess my attitude has always been if you're going to do gaudy, then do it big, you know? But I kept going back to that first image, and I suppose by the time the rest of the campaign made an appearance it had really grown on me. Now having seen the entire set (or what I assume is the entire set) I actually kind of love it.

For starters it perfectly captures the spirit of the collection, which was wonderfully flashy, fun and decadent. I love the kind of Tony Duquette-lite vibe, all of that glamorous chaos going on in the background. Combined with the sort of louche poses that Kristen, Raquel and Freja are striking and the lurid clothes the photos remind me of vintage Yves Saint Laurent Opium ads. There aren't any blatant similarities, just the hint of both the 70s and Orientalism in the styling, but there's still something similar about the feel of this. Going back to the poses, I like that they seem somewhat candid. I mean obviously they're not, but they don't seem as deliberate and precise as, say, the poses in the Gucci campaign. I have to say though that the one thing I'm not completely thrilled about was the choice to publish two separate images with the same clothes. There were a lot of looks shown in this collection, so it seems silly not to use different looks for each of the shots, but I guess that's a pretty minor complaint. Much as I've grown to like this campaign though I can't help wondering what Mert & Marcus would have done if they had shot this. I'm not necessarily saying that I wish they had, but I am curious about what it might have looked like if they did. Still, that doesn't change the fact that this is the first of Steven Meisel's campaigns for Vuitton that I've actually liked. I also have to say that these images don't do the photos justice. They look much better in print.

images from facebook.com/louisvuitton

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

Mrs. Draper, you're trying to seduce me...

I have somewhat mixed feelings about the intersection between Hollywood and fashion. On the one hand I understand it and have come to accept that most American fashion magazine covers feature celebrities instead of models, that red-carpet watching has become a national pastime, and that celebs are considered integral to a designer's success. On the other I wish the boundaries between Hollywood and fashion were more clearly defined because the open border between the two nations makes it far too easy for things like Lindsay Lohan to happen to perfectly innocent couture houses. But in all honesty things like celebrities gracing our covers or showing up in a campaign isn't something that pisses me off on principle. As long as the result is good I'm fine with it. Unfortunately the list of quality ad campaigns with celebrity faces is a short one, so in general I don't look forward to the news that a celebrity has been cast. I think so many of them fail to impress because the designer and their team and/or the photographer and theirs seem to think that having so-and-so with the famous face in the campaign is enough to make the campaign. Every so often though there's an anomaly, a case where all of the chips - celebrity, design house, photographer, photographic elements - fall into place and you're left completely shocked that the end result doesn't suck. Such is the case with the hot-off-the-presses S/S 2011 Versace accessories campaign staring Mrs. Draper-Francis herself, January Jones.

There's no mixed feelings about this. Stunning, stunning, stunning. It is without a doubt the best campaign Testino has done for Versace, one that really reminds us of exactly what it is that he's capable of. The choice of celebrity should come as no surprise to anyone since Jones is often seen wearing Versace to events. She's gorgeous to begin with, but she looks absolutely incredible in the shots that have been released so far. I love that the hair and makeup so clearly recalls January's look as Betty, not to mention that her expressions, from wan detachment to icy determination, seem right out of the ex-Mrs. Draper's handbook. But let's be honest here, there's a sexuality to these images that I doubt anyone would associate with Betty Draper. The pin-up poses and teases of nudity are more sex bomb than ice queen. It's a great contrast, and it makes for images that are both aloof and alluring, kind of look but don't touch unless I tell you to. These accessory shots really have me wishing that January was cast for the entire campaign. Clearly she knows how to model, and honestly I'd go so far as to say that she's putting a lot of today's models to shame. Call it sacrilege if you must, but I think that photos like these could even give some of the greats a run for their money. Oh and January, consider your sins at the Met Gala absolved.

images from wwd, telegraph.co.uk and twitter/styledotcom

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

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

All About Evil...

For me the only thing besides the awe-inspiring, vertigo-inducing footwear shown on the Alexander McQueen S/S 2010 runway that made an impression was the film, directed by Nick Knight of course, that played at the opening of the show. In it model Raquel Zimmermann, lit in deathly shades of blue and naked as the day she was born, was writhing around in a state akin to ecstasy (really, the only way to writhe imo). Slithering around on the aforementioned naked model were dozens of snakes. It was an incredibly powerful image, a giant video screen dominated by a beautiful woman falling prey to the evils of temptation. Or, you know, not. Personally the video made me think more of Lilith, the personification of temptation itself, than of Eve, the mortal who gave into it.

TBH I'm not at all surprised that McQueen and Knight chose to adapt that image for the campaign. But whereas the video was haunting, dark and overtly sexual, the campaign is lighter, both literally and figuratively. For starters, you'd be hard pressed to find pythons or boa constrictors that haven't already been made into accessories in the colors that Knight dreamed up. Pretty much every primary and secondary shade on the color wheel is present and accounted for, and with the sheer amount of serpents both large and small the first impression of the shot is like a bomb exploding in your retinas. You don't know where to focus first, though the chartreuse snakeskin "armadillo" platforms, as they've been informally known, are a good place to start. Of course, those shoes are on someone's feet, and those feet are connected to a body somewhere under the swirling mass of cold-blooded color. Let your eyes adjust for a second and then you see her, though just barely, and that's where the otherwise striking image falls flat for me. All you see is snake patterns everywhere, dominating the entire image. While the intensity of the color and pattern makes for a strong first impact, any impact that the image of a woman tangled in serpents might have is completely lost. I cannot fathom why anyone would have chosen that snake printed catsuit as the wardrobe for this shot because it blends right in. That may very well have been the intent, but I don't think it makes for a great image. It's simply too much of one thing. Besides that, and more confusingly, with all of the extravagantly molded, printed and puffed mini dresses shown on the runway you pick a printed lycra catsuit to represent the collection? I mean granted, all that the runway collection amounted to was a bunch of beautifully manipulated prints, and that's exactly what the ad is trying to sell you, but again, the printed clothing is canceled out by the snakes. It's basically just part of the background.

So I'm torn about it. On the one hand it's a really cool image on it's own. Even though McQueen's ads don't show up in magazines, there is absolutely NO WAY you would miss this if it did. Plus it's the polar opposite of all the other ads this season which have been focusing first and foremost on the clothes. This is an unapologetic feast for the eyes by comparison. But the problem is that the eyes, or at least my eyes, don't really have anywhere to go once the initial bang of "Ooh, colored snakes" wears off. There really isn't anything else to look at after that because that's precisely what dominates the entire photograph. Quite honestly I think that she should have been naked, wearing only the shoes (and might I add, not those particular shoes). As it is the ad doesn't have the same dark eroticism going for it that the film did, which in all fairness could be partly because there's no motion. But they still could have achieved a sense of dangerous sexuality without the benefit of movement. And besides, it's not like this ad is actually selling you a product anyway, so she really didn't have to be wearing anything at all. The image would have been better had she not been. I think what's frustrating me is that I can totally see what could have been, and the fact that it's not is driving me crazy.

Doll parts...

Even though I didn't end up reviewing the S/S 2010 collection during the shows this fall, don't for one second think that I was just ignoring it. The truth is I really liked it. It wasn't a blockbuster up to par with the extremely high standards that Miuccia Prada has set for herself over the years, but there was something about it that appealed to me. Now the ads are popping up slowly and surely, and from the first shot that I saw it had my attention. A trend that seems to be permeating the new spring ad campaigns is that a lot of them are focusing mainly, or almost entirely, on the clothes and accessories. There aren't interesting stories, amazing locations and dizzying special effects on display, which forces the viewers (that would be us) to focus on the other things that make up a photograph. Those elements of a photograph that we can often take for granted or just not notice are coming through loud and clear now that some designers and photogs are stripping back to the bare essentials; model, clothes, hair, makeup and light.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with the new Prada campaign. In the model's articulated poses and blank expression throughout the shots that have surfaced so far, the fledgling model looks more like a mannequin than a human. Besides the creepy plastic quality the most striking thing in some of the shots is the way that the image is cropped. The top half of the girl's head is missing, only showing everything from the lips down, and her legs are cut off right at the hips. The only color in the shots is the model's glossy vermilion pout. Feminists would probably have a field day arguing the subliminal chauvinist messages that an image portraying a young girl with no face contains. Let's not even delve into the fact that the faceless girl on display is in pigtails. Lucky for us fashion isn't a staunchly feminist universe, because chauvinism aside the images are pretty damn gorgeous. The last shot, in the floral dress, isn't as exciting to me for the simple fact that you can see more of the model's features. So take that feminazis! Sometimes a full face just doesn't make for a standout photograph. But truth be told I also don't love the poses in those two shots either. Overall it just isn't as interesting an image.

I absolutely love how minimal this campaign is. As with minimalist clothing, a minimalist photograph isn't just something that's plain. Meisel proves that point exceptionally well with this campaign, managing to fill the space with enough detail to keep the eye interested. In fact, the photos are good enough that you can almost ignore the fact that they are simply and blatantly pushing the product, and nothing more. They're not saying anything about fashion, about femininity, about beauty, about life...they're just saying "buy me", and that kind of honesty is rare these days.

images from Northern Star and honeycombchild at The Fashion Spot, and Love Magazine Blog

Meh...

You know what kills me? What kills me is when you're looking forward to something and in the end all that excitement was for nothing. Anticlimax. Unmet expectations. Disappointment. Whatever you decide to call it, the feeling is a frustrating one. It pains me to say that it's exactly how I'm feeling about the hot-off-the-presses Givenchy S/S 2010 campaign, which debuted on WWD yesterday. Why was I looking forward to it you might ask, given that I was left feeling pretty indifferent about the collection? For starters, the cast. Oh it's not some eclectic ensemble of girls like it has been in past seasons, nor was there news that some super or another was making an appearance, not that either of those things would automatically whip me into a frenzy of breathless excitement anyway. But when I read that Tisci's go-to Givenchy girl MCB (that's Mariacarla Boscono to civilians) would be joined by Natalia Vodianova, my interest was piqued. I've made it clear that I'm by no means an avid follower of models, but I consider both Mariacarla and Natalia to be talented, which is an increasing rarity these days. I think I also have a soft spot for both of them since I can remember their individual rises to icon status. Plus, I was interested in seeing what Mert & Marcus would do with their second campaign for the label since their first effort was solid, though somewhat reserved by their standards.

As it turned out this season the campaign may as well have been by ex-Givenchy photogs Inez & Vinoodh, because it looked almost exactly like some of their Givenchy campaigns. That, my friends, is just the very big tip of the sucky iceberg. Granted M&M's campaign last season wasn't exactly their normal fare, but I just don't get the point of ditching every last thing you're known for, especially if it's in favor of something that someone else has done. On the other hand I have to question the decisions made by Tisci and his team. Why hire Mert & Marcus if you're not going to let them do their signature work? Granted their aesthetic can get a little grating sometimes, but it's distinct enough that you would never mistake it as another photographer's work. But this campaign, you would never guess it to be theirs. The fact that M&M resorted to a predictable Givenchy campaign formula of a group of models striking unposed poses in coordinating clothes is made even worse by the fact that neither Natalia or Mariacarla are at their best here. They're just sort of lifelessly staring into the camera, and on top of that Natalia's hair was inexplicably dyed brown. It does nothing for her, and paired with MCB she's basically overshadowed because she looks pretty much unrecognizable at first glance.

I will say this though, the clothes are shown very well, especially in the middle shot, and at the end of the day that is basically the point of an ad campaign. But then you could argue that a good campaign should do more than just display the product, it should make you crave it and if it's a really good ad, crave the life it's portraying as well. The thing is that there really isn't anything to hate about the campaign, but there really isn't anything to love about it either from where I'm sitting. Okay, so maybe that's not entirely true. There is one thing to love; Simon Nessman. He makes the campaign worth looking at more than once, for no other reason than the fact that he's unnaturally beautiful. It's shallow, yes, but it's as good a reason as any to pay attention to something. And really, you'd probably be lying if you said you didn't like the view of him as well.

images from WWD.com via Flashbang at the Fashion Spot

On pointe...

Campaign time is apparently right around the corner, and what better way to get into the spirit of things than to marvel at the stunning first image from Jeurgen Teller's campaign for Marc Jacobs. Given Jacobs' inspiration for the season (dance, theater, performance in general) the campaign could really have gone in any number of directions.

If the first shot is anything to go by, we're in for a gorgeous, dramatic and truly funny campaign from Teller and Jacobs. I don't know about you, but I can't wait to see more.

No, you're eyes aren't fucking with you. That really is a toilet she's standing in. More to come as the story unfolds.

image posted by Luxx at tFS from Models.com

The agony and the ecstacy...

When I had heard that Jennifer Connelly would be appearing in a Balenciaga campaign for the second time, I wasn't exactly jumping for joy. Given David Sims track record as the photographer of Balenciaga's campaigns since 2002, the resulting campaign thoroughly sucked, and seemed to rely solely on the fact that there was a famous face starring in it, as opposed to actually doing anything interesting with that famous face. But for F/W 2009 Ghesquiere enlisted a new lensman, Steven Meisel. That gave me hope, though not much.

My ambivalence about it only grew once I saw the first image. It was kind of awkward, the colors were dull, and the hair and makeup team took the striking Ms. Connelly and ruined her. Reclining on a chaise with fried, semi-teased hair and smudgy burgundy eyes she looked like the drunken aftermath of a Valley of the Dolls theme party. So I wrote the entire campaign off as a failure (having only seen the first image, but I'm like that) and didn't think much more about it. A few weeks later I happened to pop into the thread on tFS and the newest image posted did more than just catch my eye. Jennifer was sprawled on the floor, gripping the chaise which had toppled over, and her face was tilted back in a look that was somewhere between ecstasy and pain (the good kind, obviously) . I liked it. A lot actually. So much so that I wanted to see more. Now the whole campaign has been unveiled, and even though it's not perfect, there is some gorgeous going on.

First off, the girl can pose. Some of what she's doing looks intensely uncomfortable, but you'd never guess it by looking at her face, and I'd expect nothing less of an Oscar winner. The poses are really the most striking thing about the campaign. They're just not the kind of thing you see every day in fashion photography. I also love the rich, warm color of the set. Coupled with the lighting, the whole image has a beautiful painterly feel to it. I'm guessing that's the point here actually, because some of the seemingly random props (a guitar, a bust, unrolled bolts of silk draped across the furniture) are the kinds of things you would see in renaissance or baroque portraiture.

Of course with the good comes the bad, starting with hair and makeup; it's just wrong. I can see what they were going for, but it looks like the screwed up, beauty school version of it. Plus, I just don't think that smokey eyes suit Jennifer very well. It's not her look. I'm also a little disappointed in the styling. They neglected some of the more striking looks in the collection, instead picking some of the duller pieces from a lineup that was extremely rich and colorful. Don't get me wrong, I'm still not a firm believer in the collection itself, but I do think there were much more photogenic pieces in it to choose from than some of the ones seen here. I also think the lack of variety in the looks and colors that they chose, focusing mainly on the blurry, streaky prints in muted colors from the second half of the collection, ends up taking away from the individuality of each image. In the end it's a solid campaign that has a lot going for it, but just misses the mark on being really good. It has, however, made me far less cynical about the whole celebrity-as-model thing. I wouldn't have thought that possible.

all photos from Balenciaga.com

Pussy Galore...

Finally the Lanvin campaign has debuted, and for the first time I'm truly excited by a campaign since the F/W 09 ads began to surface. That's not so surprising given that Lanvin campaigns have the unique distinction of never being truly bad. Oh of course some are better than others, but because each season looks so distinct (which means they're unpredictable) and the ideas are always so interesting (which makes them stand out) it's a sure bet that you'll never be let down. Since 2005 Alber Elbaz has used Steven Meisel to bring his visions to life, and the results have produced some of the more creative fashion advertising that I can think of. This campaign is no exception.

Picture this if you will; supermodel Kristen McMenamy, elegance, madness, a touch of Bourdin and a pair of black cats. The result is sort of Crazy Cat Lady: The Early Years...before her beauty withered and her surroundings became squalid. As for those black cats, they bring to mind so many different things; mystery, the occult, danger as well as the legendary Chat Noir in Montmatre. For me though the whole thing kind of brings to mind the scene in Batman Returns when Michelle Pfeiffer is killed and then transforms into Catwoman, particularly the first shot.

As of right now I'm going to call it; I love these ads. I love the look of insanity etched on Kristen's face. I love the severe lighting, white skin and odd, angular poses that recall Guy Bourdin. I love that the only color is the red lipstick, and most of all I love that the ideas used in the campaign combine to create something completely unexpected. I mean, can you honestly say that this is what you would have expected to see given the collection of vaguely '40s Parisian elegance Alber delivered in March? I certainly wouldn't have, and yet, the ads suit the collection perfectly.

images posted on theFashionSpot by surrealseven

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