J to tha L-O
January 2, 2012, 11:11 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized



Oscar
March 9, 2010, 10:28 pm
Filed under: party girls, Uncategorized

Armani has been killing it on the Oscars carpet. To mine eyes, they had the top spot last year (Anne Hathaway’s dress) and again this year (Amanda Seyfried’s dress).  The loveliness and some of my pet peeves, in no particular order (except for Amanda, who gets #1):

Firstly, it was abundantly clear that both J.Lo and Seyfried were wearing the same designer, same collection – I thought that there are people who get paid well to make sure such a thing does not happen? Is a stylist out of work? These ladies gave us two pieces from Armani’s iridescent bubblewrap collection. And I’m calling it bubblewrap in the best possible way. What cool fabric! J.Lo’s was pink, Amanda’s pale green. They were both lovely, but in the Battle of the Bubblewraps, Amanda wins on silhouette. The super-sleek and structured swoop-up bodice combined with the full skirt – and of course, that amazing fabric – made her look like Space Princess. And with her giant eyes, she does Space Princess well.

I am madly in love with this fabric. Have I mentioned that? I like this iteration well enough, and J.Lo is doing a valiant job of trying to pull it off, but this much “look” really appears to be for the tall and straight only. That is a lot of look. The dress is, as they say, wearing her. Charlize could have pulled it off. Or Nicole. Or Joy Bryant. Very tall. Very straight.

Speaking of Ms. Theron, anybody who is sort of John Galliano’s muse is someone I shall envy – – and someone who will not be showing up in boring dresses. Get over it.  Her rose-boobs dress was actually pretty restrained for John. That’s what he’d have her wear to the grocery store. Some folks are throwing tantrums over the fact that the design of the dress highlighted Charlize’s breasts. Um, really? This is the first time in history a dress has highlighted a woman’s breasts? I find the image of satin folds abstractly evocative of beautiful roses decorating a woman’s breasts to be quite lovely. It’s certainly one of the more elegant ways it’s been done. Charlize’s neckline was straight across, hardly any cleavage. The colors were beautiful. The red lip and very simple everything else? The perfect foil. Elegant, feminine, graceful.

On first glance at Carey Mulligan, I was disappointed. A black strapless? Really? Snooze. But then I realized that the bodice of her dress was decorated with forks. And scissors. And watch gears. So random. So cute. All quirky-adorable-whimsical. Totally Carey.

SJP really pissed me off.  She always really pisses me off. Because I despise Sex and The City and Carrie Bradshaw and it is impossible for me to separate her from that. She doesn’t really want me to. I liked that neato Chanel dress she had on though. It was pretty and interesting and unexpected. If only it had gotten a cooler wearer. One without an *enormous* hairpiece. That dress deserved better.

Well played, Demi. The color is spot on. Love the superfrilly skirt. She just needed a touch more in the chest area because she was looking a little got-too-skinny-and-lost-the-boobs.

Penelope Cruz is too hot for all these boring dresses she wears. Who is her stylist? Penny, call me.

Zoe Saldana’s Givenchy. It was pretty. Yes it was. It could have used a bit more “editing” to make it more carpet-friendly. But it was pretty. And she can wear anything. And it was *interesting*, dammit.

Generally, what was with all the gold? Again, I thought there are people who get paid to make sure this does not happen?



2010 Grammys Fashion
February 1, 2010, 12:33 am
Filed under: party girls, Uncategorized

First, that 3D MJ tribute was the lameness. My Michael deserved better.

Anyway, so Jennifer Hudson and Jennifer Nettles both wore dresses from Victoria Beckham’s collection which, I believe, Victoria actually designed. I like both dresses. Quite a bit. And this pains me because I don’t like Posh and I don’t want to like her dresses. And yet, they are quite nice. And these two don’t look completely like Roland Mouret ripoffs, like some of her dresses do. And, Lady Gaga must be addressed. Here’s the thing: I like some of her get-ups. What bugs me a bit about Gaga’s Get-ups being discussed as “fashion” is that, to me, they are not really “fashion”. They are costumes. The two are not entirely mutually exclusive, but they are not the same either. I see what Gaga wears as costumes which are part of the performance art aspect of what she does. They’re not, like, *clothes*, exactly.



Golden Globes/SAGs Fashiony Stuff
January 27, 2010, 12:49 am
Filed under: party girls, Uncategorized

1. Kate Hudson

Rocked it at the Globes. More alien technology. What the *hell* kind of fabric is that? It is completely, perfectly crisp and smooth and holding its shape. It’s like that really thick, smooth, fondant they put on fancy cakes. The white strapless, *gorgeously* detailed gown, tasselled earrings, bouffant-ish hair, red nails – now *that* is modern Marilyn Monroe.  As for her SAGs dress…meh. No, I take that back. It was better than meh. But it was meh in comparison to her Globes dress — she set the bar high with that one. Not sure why she went for back-to-back white. (Back-to-back, ha, get it?) My only complaint is that, from the front, it was a tad Dynasty. Is she planning to also wear white to the Oscars as a sort of white gown trifecta? Actually, that would be cool. If actresses started dressing thematically during awards season – like they are slowly unveiling a cohesive little mini-collection.  We shall see.

2. Diane Kruger

That pink LaCroix was all sorts of cotton candy, in the best way. And I don’t know why the little white bow-thing at the waist makes it perfect, but it does. The marigold gown was clearly reminiscent of Michelle Williams at the Oscars a few years ago, but different. Michelle’s look had more of a vintage-y feel, while Diane’s was more modern – and I love that she also wore non-white jewels with that color, like Michelle. Non-white jewels seem to work with that yellow, non?

3. Christina Hendricks

The color scheme of gown, skin, hair, lips was smashingness. A lot of people ragged on her because of her boobs. Kills me. Half of these chicks go out and pay good money for boobs like that. The only (minor) problem with that dress was that the skirt should have been more narrow. I think the lack of a narrowed hem took away from the overall hourglass/Jessica Rabbit effect, but not much because girlfriend was looking hot. That was a Christian Siriano dress. Holla, Project Runway. Christina’s SAGs dress – good, not super-inspired.

4. Some bitchery:

If Jennifer Aniston is not the most goddam boringly-dressed woman ever…Would it kill her to change her hairstyle this decade? Ever *not* wear “beachy” peach makeup? Put on, ya know, cobalt blue or something? I can’t with her.

Penelope Cruz is too hot to constantly wear black.

Michelle Monaghan needs a sandwich.

5. Generally,

The shoulder pads need to go away. Now. You can call them “structured” all you want. They are still shoulder pads.

When are they going to start wearing pants outfits on the red carpet? WHEN?



October 28, 2009, 3:03 pm
Filed under: ornaments, Uncategorized

brollies! (yes, rihanna will be involved, i can’t help it.)

why umbrellas?  cuz oooh baby it’s rainin’ rainin’…

brolly 1920s wedding

brolly purple

brolly folded parasol

brolly wedding

brolly red lace

brolly like missoni

brolly antique print



October 25, 2009, 2:53 am
Filed under: little miss, Uncategorized

more film and fashion.

so, ya know how people say film influences fashion and stuff? it looks like, in addition to the Alice in Wonderland-inspired designs that are on the way, Amelia Earhart-wear is also on the horizon. get it? on the horizon? ….sorry. Bloomingdale’s is already touting the “Amelia look”. it seems like the reviews for the film are kinda sucky, but i’d like to see it if only for the costumes. i’m sure there will be leather bomber jackets, neck scarves a la Snoopy as The Red Baron, jumpsuits and aviator shades, but i’m interested to see what other looks they throw in there.   about the aviator shades — i am not a fan. mostly because they look silly on me. so thanks a  bunch to this movie for making sure they’re not going away anytime soon. they look cool on other people though. in addition to being an aviatrix, amelia was a stylin’ lady and actually launched her own fashion line, so i bet the costuming will be supersnaz.

amelia is wearing fur. good thing there was no PETA back in the day. i like her mary janes.

ae12

adore her love of menswear.

ae11

this picture is amazing. she’s just chillin’ in her plane, getting ready for a little flying around, and the photo looks like something right out of a fashion spread. she was a really beautiful woman.

ae10

amelia doing her best james dean.

ae9

the flight suit! she puts every dude in top gun and george w. to shame.

ae8

demure.

ae7

great, stark shot. soulful eyes.

ae4

very tailored – seems unusual for her.

ae13

this one strikes me because it appears to be a type of flight suit, but also evokes current herve leger designs at the same time

ae3

katharine hepburn pants.

ae2

talk about timeless. take away the hat, step outside right now and you will see many a lady walking around in leggings, knee-high leather boots and a leather trench.

ae



October 23, 2009, 12:03 am
Filed under: ornaments, Uncategorized

Disney. Tim Burton. Tom Binns.

Something fashion-y inspired by Tim Burton’s very distinctive vibe, created by a neat-o designer with funding and distribution by Disney? Oh, yes please. To coincide with the release of Burton’s Alice in Wonderland starring Johnny Depp, Disney will be rolling out a series of apparel and accessory lines inspired by the film and designed by fashion types, not Disney types. Somebody is a licensing genius.

Generally, the idea of Disney-approved apparel conjures up gag-worthy images of random crap covered in Mickey ears. But, I can’t imagine (here’s hoping) Tim Burton or Tom Binns going for that. Disney seems to be getting more comfortable with an increasingly explicit recognition of the adult themes of some of its “children’s” films. Cartoon movies, especially those born of The Brothers Grimm, have always had story lines dark as hell. But in the past, Disney’s insanely profitable merchandising  business has largely stayed away from the dark, preferring to churn out pint-sized, sequin-covered versions of its princesses’ dresses. Now, it looks like Disney’s consumer products division is ready to take a more sophisticated approach as the merchandising planned for Alice will include some decidedly adult goodies.

Johnny Depp may be partly responsible for Disney’s attitude adjustment. Apparently, Mickey freaked the hell out during filming of the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie when he got wind of Depp’s drunken, sexually ambiguous, guy liner-ed, Keith Richards-based Jack Sparrow character. Well, Johnny told Mickey that he wasn’t going to water down his take on the character, so he could like it or shove it. Mickey was still nervous for fear that the character didn’t jive with Disney’s family-friendly image, but reluctantly went along with it. And then Pirates hit and hit big — mostly because of Jack Sparrow.

Disney must have learned something there since combining an already heavy-on-the-acid story like Alice with the minds of Burton and Depp pretty much guarantees a  dark, cracked-out film. And then they chose Tom Binns, CFDA award-winning jewelry designer, to create a jewelry line inspired by the film — a jewelry line presumably *not* requiring Mickey ears on every piece. Binns is already pretty famous for being a favorite of Michelle Obama. He is known for “punk couture” designs which mix elegant, classic elements with coarser, rock and roll details. Man, if that doesn’t sound like the perfect fit for Tim, Johnny and Alice?

tomb7

tomb6

tomb3

tomb4

tomb5

tombinnsneck1

tombinnsring



October 19, 2009, 3:10 pm
Filed under: little miss, Uncategorized

phoebe philo.

so, phoebe philo works for celine now and had her first show for them. i really liked it. except for the look that resembles a burlap sack that had to have stitches. the rest of it is pretty great, though. varied textures and a nice, neutral “color story”. all classy and minimalist and stuff. and it’s actually clothing that a normal person could wear in real life. well ok, i’m not sure how wearable a leather t-shirt is, but i could imagine a wearable version of it. flowy chiffon trousers = loveliness.

pp3

pp10

pp9

pp8

pp7

pp6

pp5

pp4

pp2

pp12

pp11



October 12, 2009, 11:49 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

save christian lacroix.



October 12, 2009, 11:43 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

and what is with michael kors and carmen kass? dude, get a little variety already.