Friday, March 17, 2017

How Do You Know When...


... you are a little too obsessed by Fashion? Perhaps that would be today, when I spied this lovely hand-dyed and fringed indigo scarf hanging on a post in a parking lot.

How sad, I thought. Someone has left behind a lovely scarf. And how thoughtful for someone else to have picked it up. I sure hope that person comes back for it...

Then of course I saw this:



 

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Something Fishy about "Funny Face"




Mon Dieu!  March Harper's Bazaar has abducted stills from the 1957 film "Funny Face". They've been rejiggered to show off the season's new looks with some (purposely I assume) crude collageing and colorizing. It looks terrible, and what's the point?

Bazaar often mines its trove of Audreyiana. She was a favorite of one-time fashion editor Diana Vreeeland (who later became editor-in-chief of Vogue). Photographer Richard Avedon loved her (and vice versa). Diana loved Richard. And so it goes.


Not long ago Bazaar featured Audrey's granddaughter in photographs by Avedon's grandson. Nice attempt at an homage to the originals at least.

I think they tried too hard on this one. The drawings by Bernard Seindler superimposed on the photos are (purposely I assume) crude collages and colorized overlays. One dress even has paper doll tabs. Tiny photos of shoes, handbags and jewelry are strewn about. The quality of the stills is poor. Unless you were a fan of the movie you won't understand the context.

The film was in glorious Technicolor. All the lobby stills I found, unfortunately, were not.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

You might say I should lighten up. I might mention that "Funny Face" has been a perfect candy box confection of a treat for 60 years and needs no updates. It also shouldn't be high-jacked in the name of Fashion. Below, evidence that Bazaar may have been extracting their revenge for this:

Dovima and Audrey reading on the set