Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Birdman 
I have finally had the chance to see Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) and it will probably remain my choice as best film of last year. A delirious showbiz comedy, certainly one of the best movies about theater or film ever made. Michael Keaton, incredible in his role, is the declining movie star Riggan Thomson, who has abandoned the superhero role of Birdman that made him rich and famous and is now trying for validity as stage actor and director by starring in his own self-financed Broadway play adapted after a Raymond Carver story.

The film is so intelligently constructed (the on- and off-stage are so interlinked that you often get the feeling you can’t tell fiction from reality, if the characters talk as themselves or playing the Carver dialogue) and filmed, by cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, who won the Oscar last year for Gravity (giving you the impression that it is a one-take film), that it makes me want to say that it has its own stand-alone place in cinema. Birdman is placed in the theater world, but it cleverly alludes to the vanity of blockbuster Hollywood, to superheroes and remakes and cinema interested solely in box office rankings, to actors addicted to celebrity, trying to adapt themselves in a new world dictated by social media. But it takes a visionary non-American director to render an American subject in such an incisive, original, vibrant, satirical yet emotional way.

And it’s wonderful to realise director Alejandro González Iñárritu’s talent for comedy (I still can’t shake off the heavy impact that the tormenting story in 21 grams had on me). The entire supporting cast is amazing, from Edward Norton (hylariously narcissistic) and Emma Stone (I don’t think there is any other actress more entitled to the Oscar nomination – for what these nominations are worth – in supporting role), to Naomi Watts (she continues to prove herself better), Amy Ryan and Zach Galifianakis. The score from Antonio Sanchez adds to the originality of Birdman, maintaining an edgy, jazzy vibe throughout, transmitted to the viewer. Everyone seems to have done their piece flawlessly and it shows.

photo: movie poster | production credits

Posted by classiq in Film | | 5 Comments

Style in Film: Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face

Style in Film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face

Audrey Hepburn also immortalised the beatnik style in Funny Face

 
Musicals must be my least favourite movies. I rarely watch them and I rarely, hardly ever, like them (Singing in the Rain is among the very, very few I enjoyed). Funny Face is not among them, although I do acknowledge its importance in fashion. The plot seems ridiculous, but the film is smarter than it first appears to be, a Pygmalion story in the form of a parody about the fashion world. Audrey Hepburn’s clothes, the ones her character, Jo Stockton, is wearing in Paris for the photo shoots, were designed by Hubert de Givenchy, and watching the film was like taking a trip through the fashion history of that time. Not only that, but Fred Astaire and Kay Thompson (who is great in her role), playing fashion photographer Dick Avery and fashion editor Maggie Prescott, respectively, are clearly a hint to Richard Avedon and Diana Vreeland, two of the most important figures in fashion history. The photos for the title sequence were produced by Avedon himself and many of the pictures Dick Avery takes in Paris remind of the famous photographer’s work, so watching the film did very much seem like flipping through a 50s fashion magazine, one directed by Diana Vreeland herself.

But there is another style that has become a fashion statement in Funny Face that I would also like to talk about. The beatnik style, one of the elements that characterised the new youth culture movement which emerged in America and Europe during the 1950s. In the United States, the Beat Generation – writers (Jack Kerouac was one of them) and artists and their acolytes – thrived in New York in the Greenwich Village bars and coffee-houses, while in Paris they gathered in the cafés of St-Germain-des-Prés. Their uniform, an innovative style at the time, was head-to-toe black (today it seems incredible that this had to be invented), described as a combination of “French bohemian, English intellectual and US hobo”. Journalist Lee Gibb said: “They have replaced the American haircut with the French haircut. They have replaced high heels by low heels, low heels by no heels and no heels by bare feet.” They wore polo necks and jeans, duffel coats and dark glasses.

It’s this style that Audrey Hepburn first immortalises on screen in Funny Face. She is introduced to us as a bookshop clerk and amateur philosopher, working in a book store in Greenwich Village, and, when in Paris, she is more interested in meeting philosopher Emile Flostre than in the fashion, walking the French capital’s streets in all-black and a beige trench coat on top, its design resembling a duffel coat.
 
Style in Film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-1

The cap sleeved black dress

Style in Film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-2

.Eight years before this movie, Avedon had shot Dorian Leigh looking nostalgic on a train for Harper’s Bazaar. The magazine’s editor, Carmel Snow, was not impressed, telling him that “Nobody cries in a Dior hat, Dick”.

Style in Film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-3

Style in film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-10

The overexposed close-up of Audrey’s face is Richard Avedon’s.

Style in Film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-5

Style in Film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-4

Style in Film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-6

,The romantic, but very modern wedding dress in the collection Jo is modelling. Full ballerina-length skirt, drop-waisted bodice and high neckline.
 
Diana Vreeland, however, was not pleased with the interpretation of herself, reportedly saying about the film “never to be discussed”, after she attended a preview with her staff. I am sure that no one, actress or fashion editor, can measure up to her personality (Vreeland was unique), but imperious Maggie Prescott, with her inventiveness for language, abounding energy, and her eye for quirky looking girls she transforms into successful models, does recall Vreeland. Carmel Snow, the editor-in-chief of Harper’s from 1934 to 1958, on the other hand, was thrilled with the publicity Funny Face generated for Harper’s Bazaar.

There isn’t really much else I can say about Audrey Hepburn’s relationship with Givenchy than I already have in my previous articles (covering Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Sabrina and How to Steal a Million). “When I first went to Hubert”, Audrey would say, “I was still in home-made dresses.” Of the collaboration of Givenchy, who designed Hepburn’s clothes especially for the script, director Stanley Donan  said: “His design, his thought centered and focused on her [Audrey’s] physical being. It’s like a great composer when he writes for a great artist. She was the physical expression of what Givenchy did.” The rest of the wardrobes, including that of Kay Thompson, were designed by Edith Head. She played her usual safe design game, dressing the editor in two-pieces suits and a blouse or shirt, but I love that she went for a trousers look as well (see top image below, Kay is to the left).
 
Funny Face costumes-Kay Thompson

Style in Film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-9

Style in film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny face-11

Style in film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-12

Audrey Hepburn's style Funny Face

,This dress reminds me that my favourite Red Carpet dresses at this year’s Gold Globes were yellow.

Style in Film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-7

Style in Film-Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face-8
 

photos: movie stills captured from this Blu-ray edition | Paramount Pictures

sources: Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has to Travel, by Lisa Immordino Vreeland / Edith Head: The Fifty Year Career of Hollywood’s Greatest Costume Designer, by Jay Jorgensen / Fifty Fashion Looks that Changed the 1950s, by Paula Reed

Posted by classiq in Film costume | | 3 Comments

Giorgio Armani: A 40 Year Anniversary Book

Giorgio Armani by Rizzoli 
The fashion book I am most looking forward to this year is Giorgio Armani, set to be released in May. I’ve had a few disappointments in the fashion books I’ve most recently read (which I haven’t yet talked about on the blog, but I will), so what I am hoping from this one is for it to tell his story, to paint a complete picture of one of the greatest fashion designers and his clean design aesthetic, to call upon the many years of his fashion house, upon its beginnings, influences and evolution of the Armani style. The book will be written in Armani’s own words and presented in photographs from the likes of Steven Meisel, David Sims, Craig McDean and Mario Testino, which I hope will closely follow the designer’s creations and sources.

This is an older, very good interview with Giorgio Armani (his disarming honesty about not having someone special around to share everything he has today with, the “intoxicating cocktail of insecurity, ambition and vision” that has brought him his success), one I hope you will enjoy too.
 
Giorgio Armani by Rizzoli-2
 
Giorgio Armani by Rizzoli-1
 
Giorgio Armani by Rizzoli-3

photos: from the book Giorgio Armani, by Rizzoli

Posted by classiq in Books, Fashion | | 1 Comment

Christmas Traditions

Classiq_Christmas Traditions 
In keeping with last year’s theme, when I asked some of my favourite artists and designers to share their most special holiday traditions, I’ve invited five blogger friends from four continents to talk about the traditions that recapture the joy and spirit of Christmas for them year after year. Heart-warming stories which promise to keep you inspired this festive season.
 
Classiq_Christmas Traditions_2

Christmas Traditions-Lisa Hjalt photoClassiq-Christmas Traditions-1 
Continue reading →

Posted by classiq in Christmas time | | 16 Comments

“I Don’t Want An Outfit to Speak Louder Than Me”

Virginie Mouzat-1 
An unassuming, fuss-free, clean-cut personal style, that often eschews anything resembling a trend and still remains completely relevant. Virginie Mouzat, who says that her style icons often come from the cinema (Catherine Deneuve, Fanny Ardant, Katharine Hepburn), is former fashion critic and deputy editor of Le Figaro and current editor-in-chief of Fashion at French Vanity Fair. Her classic, part feminine, part tomboy style is one of the things I admire about her and only the first thing I wanted to talk about today.

The second one is her work as a fashion writer. You see, the Pre-Fall collections have started to be presented and my only thought was “Not again!” (and “another eighty something designs by Karl Lagerfeld for Chanel!”). The last Spring 2015 collections only showed in October. Now it’s December and the Fall 2015 fashion weeks start in February. It’s just too much! And what makes it even worse is the subjective press coverage. Many of the collections of legendary fashion houses or of the supposedly most talented designers have become repetitive, to say the least (and who is to blame them, having to meet all those absurd demands?), bridging the gap between runway and fast fashion, but the critical reaction is always mostly positive, filled with accolades, abounding favours and enslaved to the advertisers that keep the fashion magazines and newspapers in print. Fair and objective are a lot more difficult to find, even though designers themselves can only benefit from honest criticism, which can only help them evolve.

Virginie Mouzat is one of the few who voice their own opinion, an independent and informed opinion, and I only regret that I don’t read French better so that I can fully appreciate her fashion reviews. As she told The Business of Fashion earlier this year (it’s a great, thought-provoking article, you can read it here), she grew up reading books. In fact, she is not just a fashion writer, she is a novel writer as well (she had her first book, Une Femme Sans Qualités, published in 2009, and the second one, La Vie Adulte, in 2010). But “people in fashion don’t read my books, because people in fashion don’t read… Instead of becoming some sort of outcast because of the novels, I tried to turn them into tool for more freedom and richness. I tried to give my job more width”, she explains in the same interview. That should give you a clue of what a down-to-earth kind of person she is, of her blunt, feisty, uncompromising personality. She also talks about “creating content that goes beyond just talking about textile and trends — trying to make fashion intelligent, like a symptom, an expression of oneself, of the time. Fashion is a way of thinking; dressing is a way of thinking.” Yes, that’s what a fashion writer should do. Just as a fashion editor should have a visionary mind. It’s how fashion can be taken more seriously by not just the people who work in the industry, it’s how they can be explained why it matters so much, how clothes fit into a wider cultural and economic context.

Virginie was also one of the names taken into consideration for the position of Paris Vogue editor-in-chief after Carine Roitfeld’s departure, and I have the feeling things would have stood quite differently if it had been her in charge.
 
Virginie Mouzat-2

Virginie Mouzat-3

Virginie Mouzat

photos: 1-Vogue.com / 2-François Halard/Trunk Archive, via Net-A-Porter / 3-Juanlu Real, Vogue Spain / 4-Imaxtree, Elle Germany

Posted by classiq in Fashion, Style | | 8 Comments