All hail Couture!!!!!!!!
All hail Costume!!!!!!!
Non functional flights of fancy? Or Incidental displays of fashion?
How does this relate to film?
After reading Stella Bruzzi's text on Clothing and Identity in the movies, there was a clear message at the forefront of her discussion: between the interface of fashion and film lies a tension between couture and costume, the couturier and costume designer. Take Chanel for example, she prioritised the clothes over the narrative which saw her premature departure from Hollywood, barely after a year of being there.
Bruzzi talks about the couturier creating clothes for spectacle and the costume designer creating clothes to serve the purposes of the narrative. The positioning of fashion in a film highlights fundamentally different motivations. The friction over the 'authorship' of the most innovative design was exemplified when Edith Head claimed the black bateau dress worn by Audrey Hepburn in Sabrina was her creation. When in fact, Paramount claimed the dress was too innovative for Head and that it was in fact Givenchy's creation.
Eventually, the couturier surpassed the costume designer, creating the show-stopping outfits, whilst the costume designer was given the pre-transformation clothes.
From the 1950s to the 1980s, fashion in film became a general reflector of current modes. The exceptions were known as "non-functional flights of fancy" (Bruzzi, p7). Gaultier worked within the realms of cinema because it was an oppurtunity for him to explore his imaginative creativity. Other examples include Chanel's flamboyant outfits for Delphine Seyrig in Last year in Marienbad; Paco Rabanne's space age suits in Barbarella. Interestingly, just on this point, the 60s was the last time that fashion really looked into the future.
In most aspects of the spectacularity of the couturier show-stopping outfits within film, the costume preceded the character, rather than follow it. Especially with Gaultier, costume was deliberately intrusive. Bruzzi talks about Gaultier's costumes as being 'pure aesthetic displays and perversely functional (p11).
Traditional means to accentuate and compliment the narrative was lost. The clothes became sensationalised in their own right; the character hidden behind the costume spectacle. This was how couture differentiated itself from general fashion in films. I think this is very relevant to the contemporary fashion films, in particular Pugh, who uses the spectacularity to his advantage - to create beautiful cinematic texts.
On the other hand, another interesting thing about the 60s was the fact that there was less reverence towards haute couture. There was a more "harmonious relationship between couture and street styles" (Bruzzi, p7). The unexpected started to occur. An example of this was Belle de Jour, which had a much more mundane wardrobe.
Chanel and Yves Saint Laurent epitomised the 'perfect simplicity' in their 60s couture. The capsule look; to look cool, elegant, understated. It was about all about minimalist couture still functioning in a spectacular way because of its exclusivity.
Moving on from this again, was the desire to highlight quality, a fetishism of detail, not about the wearer. Armani propelled a male interest in clothing in American Gigolo with the famous Armani Suit. Erotic fascination and objects of fetishism is what the 80s were about.
No comments:
Post a Comment