Posts Tagged ‘j’adore’
The world is full of stylists who suck. Too many of them equate “styling” with piling on tons of discordant designer duds until the models look as if they covered themselves in glue before rolling around on the sales floor of a local Winners store. Susie Sheffman isn’t like that at all. She’s one of those rare creatures in fashion who understand that there needs to be a bridge between the fantasy of fashion and the accessibility of designer clothing.
What’s even more impressive is Sheffman’s ability to remain relevant in a business where there’s always an Eve Harrington waiting in the wings, ready to step in at a moment’s notice in her Celine shoes. I guess Sheffman’s talent speaks for itself because she doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon. Twenty years into her tenure as the Fashion Director for “FASHION,” she’s as relevant to the business today as anyone else working in this country.
I don’t write about fashion photographers very much, but I’m going to make an exception just to state that I adore Alex Prager. Her latest spread in the September issue of “Vogue” puts a smile on my face. That’s all!
I’ve got to call out “Vogue Paris” on its latest publicity stunt. The current controversy over a ten-year-old model made to look like a twenty-something vixen has been done so many times that it’s lost its meaning — to me, anyway. For the rest of you who can’t remember what happened three days ago, never mind three decades ago, I guess you have the right to be offended. I also have the right to tell you to wake the **** up and pay attention to the world around you so that you don’t make fools of yourselves by jumping on a bandwagon thirty years after it’s left the station. Where were you when nothing was coming between Brooke Shields and her Calvins? Where were you when a twelve-year-old Milla Jovovich appeared in her first “Vogue” editorial? Where were you when Tom Ford smeared makeup all over a couple of kids in “Vogue Paris” just a year ago?
Anyway, on a completely unrelated note, here’s Stella Tennant — one of the oldest broads in the fashion business — looking as gorgeous as ever in a “Vogue UK” editorial. I’m constantly calling out “Vogue Italia” for its publicity stunts. “Vogue Paris” gets its share of criticism from me, too. But every time I seem to write something about their British counterpart, it’s because they’ve done something to impress me. This editorial is as fresh as the day is long.
Well done, “Vogue UK” . . .
I just discovered the most wonderful thing to hit the Internet since my own dating profile on match.com. “T Magazine” has a terrific feature on their website called “The Scorecard.” It’s basically just a roundup of quotes from runway reviews, but it puts the shows into perspective for someone like me who tries to review them before I know what anyone else has to say about them.
Take Stella McCartney’s show, for example. I got a distinct utilitarian vibe from the show that took me back to 1986. I didn’t see that in any other reviews, and it made me believe that I’m onto something. I can’t imagine that a world reared on the garish decade that just passed will suddenly fall for Raf Simons‘ version of minimalism or Phoebe Philo’s spare sportswear. But I can get behind utilitarian chic. Remember, the same era that spawned Club Monaco and made the GAP into retail’s biggest powerhouse also defined the late 80s. The era wasn’t all excess, all the time. I got that vibe at Stella McCartney, even from her tablecloth citrus prints and her simple yet sexy suiting.
Anyway, “The Scorecard” makes me realize that I don’t have the same reference points as my fellow critics, and that makes me happy to continue to write these reviews, even if I sometimes feel as if I’m lingering in oblivion while everyone else has all the fun. I guess I don’t have bags under my eyes from four weeks of back-to-back fashion shows in four countries, either. I should be thankful for the little things . . .
So I walked into Sears the other day, and right beside the Estee Lauder counter there was a mannequin wearing this dress. Of course I’ve read the glowing reviews of Attitude by Sears by many of my fashionable friends, but I was completely unprepared for how chic this dress was. Then I looked at the tag. It was $59.99 — and if I read the sign correctly, it was on sale for an even lower price.
Just imagine this cute little number done up with a little more adventurous styling. It could have been on the Lanvin runway. In person, it didn’t look cheap at all!
I just left a comment about my fondness for the line on finalfashion.ca, but then I figured I should praise Sears for a job well-done on my own blog. Attitude is seriously Canada’s best kept secret. Well it was until I opened my big mouth.
I’ve defended Anna Wintour on this blog countless times. I’ve worked for her, and she was all business all the time. That didn’t matter to me. I was working for her. She was my boss and not my friend. That didn’t stop me from being friendly, because I am friendly. But it didn’t really upset me because I was an insignificant cog in the machine known as Condé Nast.
However, I wasn’t a model whose face sold a zillion copies of “Vogue.” I laughed out loud when I read on “Page Six” that Paulina Porizkova was snubbed by Wintour in the washroom at a recent AmFAR benefit:
“‘Hi, Anna,’ I said brightly to Anna’s mirror reflection. Her large eyes in her large head flickered. And with the slightest nod, one that may have been a twitch, she left me standing at the sinks . . . the glance she gave me is one I’d give to an expired carton of milk. I am aware my expiration date (as a model) is long past, but a slight acknowledgment that I wasn’t the bathroom attendant would have been nice.”
For much of my life I was the sort of person who lived according to the old adage “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it all.” But the older I get, the more I have to say about people who behave badly. Paulina Porizkova, you are my soul sister and the more you open your mouth, the more I adore you. Mwah!
I was a little disappointed with the first episode of the new “Melrose Place.” I thought it was slow, and I wasn’t really invested in the characters. But I kept watching it, hoping that the guest stars from the original show might make some magic happen.
Guess what? They did! I was literally awestruck while watching Dr. Michael Mancini and Amanda Woodward chewing the scenery in their latest scene during Wednesday’s episode. Not only were they able to fill a hundred plot holes with their ridiculously over-the-top dialogue, but they looked like robots while they were doing it. It was high camp on a level that I haven’t seen since the original show was cancelled.
This is the nightime soap I’ve been waiting for! I don’t want to see the actors winking at the camera, as if they know they’re better than the material they’re working with. I want the sort of unadulterated trash that I used to binge upon when Aaron Spelling was the king of TV.
I can’t wait until next week!