Those fashionable stars: whatever were they thinking?
I don’t know about you, but it always puzzles me when women who could look good in just about anything choose clothes designed to make them look as bad as possible.
Maybe it’s just too boring to look fabulous all the time. Maybe it’s the need to have that certain trendy edge.
But, whatever were these particular “stars” (not that I’ve ever heard of most of them) thinking when they chose their ensembles for the MTV movie awards (a ceremony I haven’t heard of before, either)?
First up we have a look I recall from the early-to-mid 60s—that’s the part of the 60s that wasn’t really the 60s, but rather the 50s morphing into the 60s. The design was called the balloon back then, and it was one of the most unflattering ever, featuring a puffy tucked-under skirt.
Now it’s been updated and made even uglier by a puffy balloon top as well:
Moving right along we have another unfortunate blast from the past, the always-chic white go-go boot, this time combined with the granny boot:
The following is just plain indescribable (that’s what we have photos for), although I suppose I could say it has a halter top, and might be called a purple rooster dress. There seems to be some sort of bustle underneath, reaching back to previous centuries, and it bears an ever-so-slight resemblance (I’m ashamed to say) to a mini-dress with a black top and white-ruffled tiered skirt that I wore to a friend’s wedding in the very late 60s.
But don’t despair. There’s a revival of one of my favorite fashions, the one-shoulder dress. I went off to college with a little black one, and I’d give quite a bit to have that wonderful dress right now. One-shoulder styles tend to be flattering:
Although not invariably:
I’ve never commented on women’s fashions before, so what I express here amounts to jack s**t for fashion sense. Too many of the homo men who run the fashion industry lack any sense of functionality and simple elegance. With women’s shoes they punish women with absurd high heels – very, very bad for women’s hips and knees, not to mention uncomfortable. My wife hates heels and only wears them when she absolutely has to. I am so glad I married a sensible woman.
All I have to say: we men, with a few exceptions, tend to stick with classic styles and we generally do not enjoy shopping for clothes. We favor comfort over any other consideration. We don’t mind dressing up when we have to, but we make sure that our suits fit well and don’t look foolish. We would never tolerate the imbecility of many women’s fashion designers.
Agree wholeheartedly with 90% of what you’re saying.
10 dissenting % go to the white granny boots Ms Parker’s wearing. I think they look very good on her.
Now, if only she had enough sense not to bring attention to her hands with those bracelets…
MY EYES! MY EYES! AAAARGH!
HURTS! HURTS!
MAKE IT STOP! Make it stop! Make it st…………….
I’ve long worked with a german lady, the social butterfly in my office, who probably just hit sixty now, famous for her virtually daily diversity in counter-culture styles; Her clothes are great fun for everybody at the office, and for me, for whom a lady in a t-shirt and jeans everyday is just fine too. I’m not too impressed with the pretentious at all, unless she’s with me… It’s all in the eyes of the beholder…
I have covered red carpet events in my photographer days… (mostly fashion in ny. 8 years doing fashion week, and events on top of my regular job. yes i am signed to an agency).
its easy to explain.
they have no sense of style themselves. they are empty foils in which they choose what the consensus tells them.
so if some fool tells them that 7 inch stilletos are the new thing, they will do it to promote it. many of them learn to look down and support the socialists because they try somethign stupic and the public copies them, which lends to the people are stupid we ahve to take care of them line of thought).
they really have no sense of self. they want to be what the world will love. they are olympic level narcissists. (not all of them, but those who are not have to circulate too).
once abstract expressionism destroyed uplifting art (as it was designed to do), people in the ‘in’ crowd no longer could tell what was good, waht was in, etc.
they could no longer walk into a gallery and look at art, understand it, and then take it home.
i dont know if its art but i like what it looks like gives way to group think which sas, i dont knwo if its art, i dont know if its beautiful, in fact, i dont knwo anything at all till i hear the consensus first.
and the consensus?
that this designers work is ‘in’… and so rather than see the emperors new clolthemakers clothing, they are wrapped in the repuation of a designer who can take the blame for their lack of substance.
by the way… if you want i can send you some shots of the woman that wrote sex in the city… she is pretty ok… i met her when lord paul was auctioning off his wifes stuff for breast cancer research at cristies… the woman wearing the go go boots (as you refer to them. i refer to those as high heeled wrestling shoes), is emaciatingly thin in person. (enough to surprise me, and i dont get surprised very much)
the gliterati today are not as they were in the past. in the past they were more genuinely personalities… today they are manufactured more than not (i could tell you about the R angels thing), and so they are selected for their ability to do what everyone wants them to!!! (and if you study who is related to whom, and connected to whom, you will find that many of the top stars are also dynasties! )
I could tell you all kinds of stories as to the stuff tha goes on…
just remember one thing that the public seems inable to remember or believe.
ITS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS ENTERTAINMENT, ALMOST NOTHING IS WHAT IT APPEARS.
[like how do i know where a star will be so that i can take photos? well, their pr people call me and arrange the thing that everyone thinks is not arranged. or some paper pays a fee. its not what it appears to be]
The last two aren’t bad, but I find the one in the upper right hiding behind the apple to be beautiful, and mysterious.
Oy! That first picture is of Liv Tyler, yes? she’s a gorgeous woman, but you couldn’t tell from that picture. You know it’s a sad day when Tia Tequilla (last image) looks better.
But being a dude, women’s fashions have always baffled me. But I know how to make even the worst outfit look better: on the floor next to my bed.
I’ll be here all week, please tip our blog hostess, and try the veal!
Now this is why I keep coming back to this blog. I never know whether I’ll find thoughtful ruminations on politics, ballet, or poetry, or perhaps a report on American Idol, or –now–celebrity fashion commentary. Are you familiar, Neo, with http://www.gofugyourself.com? If not, you may wish to check it out. The blog specializes in photos of celebrities wearing what they shouldn’t, accompanied by the wickedly funny commentary of the blog-owners, Heather and Jessica. This isn’t a site I would previously have guessed you would enjoy, but as of today I’ve changed my mind.
Mrs Whatsit: I must guiltily confess that I have indeed looked at that blog from time to time.
Glad you like the variety here. It keeps me entertained, anyway.
While I may dress more flashily than some men, I also like the idea that the pants I wear are of the same style I wore years ago, albeit with a bigger waistline. I like that some 30 + year old shirts of mine , some inherited from my father, have endured so long, and don’t look bad, either. My oldest is a 43-year old sweatshirt that admittedly needs some patching.
No guilt required; it’s just for fun. My 22-year-old daughter was quite shocked by the “fug” in the title when I first suggested that she might like the site (“MOM!”) but recently, she gave me the eponymous book as a Mother’s Day gift.
As a no-fashion person myself….
#1 has a kind of “elvish” look to her– she’d be *stunning* in stuff modeled off of the ladies of Lord of the Rings
#2 looks really top-heavy, and like her dress shrunk. Short skirt+3/4 sleeves=bad.
#3-WTF? A bit less frilly and it’d be nice, but the full-body fluff make her look like a shower poof…..
#4 Rather classic, she’s well-proportioned, the pose is flattering, and whoever got her in the two necklaces deserves a prize.
#5 Trying too hard. Would be flattering with a slightly more classic look– more support on the chest, maybe that “drape” on the right looking like it angles to the shoulder instead of to the waist? Should be shorter, too–looks like she’ll step on it.
A slightly looser hairstyle would be nice, too, but they had the right idea.
Definitely one of the most unflattering collections of pretty ladies I’ve seen in a while….
Gringo- right now, I’m wearing a shirt my brother got me when I graduated high school; yesterday, I wore a T-shirt from my grade school days. I may only have 25 years under my belt, but eh. I will never look as stunning as these ladies CAN, but then I also drive a car that’s worth less than their shoes.
I’m sure they paid top dollar for those rags, too. 😯
camojack: Actually, they probably paid nothing at all. Designers have arrangements whereby celebrities wear their clothes for free for the publicity. In fact, come to think of it, maybe some of these women were paid to wear these particular duds. That would explain a lot.
– nothing worse than an attractive woman with a big, ugly glaring tatoo staring back at you – she may as well have a little read snake tatooed on her forehead – yuck
I saw Liv Tyler and she did look inflated!
Excellent Neo!!
Foxfier Says: #1 has a kind of “elvish” look to her— she’d be *stunning* in stuff modeled off of the ladies of Lord of the Rings
Ah…. i hope your kidding… Liv played the daugher of the king of all the elves in LOTR, Arwen Undomiel.
[you do know her real life dad is steven tyler of aerosmith?]
The King’s clothes you ask? These have been around forever. You should have seen what some kings and queens actually paid smaller and larger fortunes to wear. The more things change the stupider they stay the same.
Oh, another oddity. Women seem to chase after men’s clothing. They have been doing it for centuries. First the tights, then pointed shoes, pants, etc. though not in that particular order.
Fashion seems to be a delusion created for the wishful with way too much money and absolutely no taste. I wonder how much drug usage runs in those circles? Mental illness?
Artfldgr – I know, but I’m going to assume that they didn’t do her makeup here to accentuate it in the same way–not to mention a lack of pointy ears. No-body is going to say that Agent Smith looks elvish, but Elrond sure did…. (Yeah, yeah, half elvish, whatever, I don’t want to calculate how elvish Strider was.)
That would mean that she “normally” has a lovely sort of fay look, and would look good in modern styles modeled off the movie’s gear without special effects; also, I liked Galandrel’s more than what Arwen wore. Maybe more like or than the more obviously “middle ages” looking ones.
She might have been able to pull off the last dress, style-wise.
At least there wasn’t the “two ribbons, glitter, tape and a belt buckle” look that someone wore several years ago.
Oops. Forgot to close the code. *blush*
Hypothesis:
Attractive women have a body style which varies within narrow limits. The difference is in the details and the combination–happy or not. For example, a small, slight woman with a huge chest is a curiosity–Dolly Parton–not a beautiful woman, irrespective of her, say, eyes.
Thus, there are only so many ways to emphasize or show off, or complement the beauty.
Once they’ve been done, the scope for originality, and top prices and fame and top prices and notoriety and top prices disappears.
There are limits to what a designer can do to dress an attractive woman attractively and they’ve already been found.
We are now in the position of seeing designers trying for fame and top prices by the tactic of epater les bourgeoisie.
I can barely dress myself but [in the voice of Forrest Gump] I know what FUNNY is!
They wouldn’t know class if it bit them on their under-slung a**es.
gm
Richard Aubrey –
I actually find Mrs. Parton very pretty– but I have a known bias to find folks more or less attractive based on their personalities; for example, I can’t stand Mr. Cruise, and Angelina Joelee (no idea how to spell it or if she’s married this week) looks rather freakish.
I think your theory has merit, though; just wonder why they don’t try drawing on the “styles” of the last 4000 years.
Fox. Good point. Most of that stuff is in the public domain.
When you figure the dross has been purified out by 4000 years’ worth of choices, the crap has been pared off by same, what remains might be worthwhile.
So a graceful version of an upper-class Roman woman’s summer dress, or whatever they call it, might be just the thing, and it would be something to refer to it as novel by being so classic. Instead of being novel by being so uuuuugggly. Either one could get notoriety and high prices.
Still, there’s the desire of some women to do anything, anything at all, to look different from their “competitors”.