Friday, 18 January 2013

Lecture Three: Cinema Couture


"Clothes can function independently of the body, character and narrative"
(Bruzzi 1997, p.3)

This notion of fashion as an intrusive force on film forces me to consider that couture intentionally alienates spectators to impose new meaning on the narrative. It allows responders to be distanced from experiencing a crystallised vision of social reality and begin to 'question existing assumptions about the relationship between spectator and image' (Bruzzi 1997, p.3).

For example the way Audrey Hepburn is fashioned in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' provides not just an alternate 'type' of woman but one that specifically is for women. Firstly, her sleek, thin body, dark, butchered hair and stunning Givenchy black dress provides a stark contrast to the look of Marilyn Monroe. Audrey offers a more mature, elegant look that is still quite sexy but not an object for sex. She is androgynous- possessing both masculine and feminine qualities that forced people to become interested in her and her fashion. These signs also demonstrate her rebellious nature and how it was she who was in control of herself.

 Audrey is one of the first seductive, androgynous and non-conformist female protagonists. The stunning evening gown she is still wearing at breakfast is reflective of her rebellious lifestyle of endless parties while scenes of her singing 'Moon River' in her denim jeans, ballet flats and oversized jumper offers an extremely relaxed look that is still very sheik. It is also known that Audrey Hepburn actually preferred, denim, slacks, men's shirts and turtle necks to dresses and skirts and so there is little discrepency between on and off screen.This is also seen within her film 'Funny face' where her black turtle neck has now become a fashion staple. Women were exposed to shape-shifting fashion that made it more relatable to women.

http://www.doctormacro.com/movie%20star%20pages/Hepburn,%20Audrey-Annex.htm





(Left:http://pennylifeinpics.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/editorials-marie-antoinette-kirsten.html)
The screenings today featured 'Marie Antoinette' which, to be perfectly honest, was quite boring, however I thought the costuming was absolutely phenomenal with each new scene bringing a completely new parade of dresses. What I thought was most interesting was the fact that Kirstin Dunst posed for the Vogue September issue (2006) in floor-length gowns designed by the likes of Alexander McQueen, John Galliano and by Milena Canonero. 

It has made me realise the extent to which film affects fashion. To me when I think of fashion I think of the whole picture- the photographers, the clothing (of course), the designers and the magazines.  Having Kirstin Dunst pose creates spectacle and draws people in, making them buy the issue and forces them to consider fashion. And so I come to my next point which was brought up today during the lecture- 'Fashion has always hovered near the interface between art and commerce'. The photo spread for Vogue includes a pink and grey taffeta gown by McQueen and a breathtaking Galliano dress of black aluminium foil for Dior Couture. It is the way we see these moving and stagnate images on screen and in magazine stands that dictate how we should 'create and perceive our own clothed selves' (Hollander 1975). I truly believe that after this course i won't remember a thing about the story of Marie Antoinette but all I will have remembered was the fashion parading with Manolo Blahnik shoes and the endless dresses. 




    No comments:

    Post a Comment