This show trumpeted itself as using “150 shades of blue.” There were also tons of slouchy pockets and hair that stuck up to there and beyond.
The boy-girl dynamic that Chanel has always embodied can be seen in this outfit. It may be a minidress, but the masculine touches (including the pockets that suggest drop wasited jeans) are easily seen.
More large cowl necklines, and 149 more shades of blue (ok, not really, but still) after the jump.
Are denim outfits really back? If they looked like the two piece outfit on the left, they would be. Perhaps the white hems on the jacket and the skirt are part of what makes it work? As for the outfit on the right, I just love the jacket with the balloon sleeves and how the cowl sits when it’s unfastened.
More slouchy drop-waistedness on the left, which pairs itself interestingly with the feminine cut and color of the rest of the dress. Compare that with the subtle pattern on the tight button-down dress on the right, with its wide masculine shoulders that slim down into a tight almost pencil like skirt.
The play with inflated vs tight is best seen here in two outfits that on first glance look very different, but on second glance are actually made from the exact same fabrics. Fraternal twins, as it were.
These are both a play on office wear. The one on the left is also a play on the sailor suit, with the big 80s bow on the oversized cowl. The one on the right is just fascinating. The jacket comes off, and what are we left with? Is that a white blouse, as it looks on first glance, and then a seriously drop waisted skirt? The pockets are instructive, since there’s no way they would be able to sit that high if that’s where the skirt began. So either she has her hands tucked into her waistband…or this is in fact a full dress, where the fabric switches at the top of the thigh. How is that going to look without the jacket? Oh wait, this is couture, I’m not supposed to think that hard about the practicalities. Sorry!
Two oddities: Chiffon vs cellophane. The chiffon is anchored at the shoulders and the skirt with more sequins that you can shake a stick at. The pockets help break up the choice to start the “skirt” portion so low after such a frilly frosty baby doll top above. As for the cellophane jacket and mini skirt, I’m guessing that theaters ask that you unwrap yourself before the performance begins and keep shifting to a minimum.
And then, just over halfway through the show, the ultra modern androgynous look began to fade away, and in its place a 1920s notes began to emerge. I just love the panel dress on the left, as well as the sequined knees on both sets of stockings. The dress on the right has an odd seam forcing your eye to the center, causing one the nearly miss the fabulous sequinning on the pockets and neckline, and the tuliped sleeve caps.
Are those supposed the be eyeballs on the hems of the skirt and sleeves on the left? How much do I love that the pattern at the empire waist line lines up perfectly with said sleeve hems? In short, I want this dress. As for the LED panel thing on the right, is that M&M trim? Or mints? What has the panel been programmed to say? Can we turn it on and find out?
The dress on the left is squeeguee-clean only. The Cyndi Lauper knock off on the right will be seen in her life story movie in ten years time. Mark my words.
And then the roaring 20s come roaring in. This makes sense, since it was a time when the drop waist and androgyny ruled fashion for the first time in modern history. Both of these keep modern touches in the necklines and the fabric choices, but the lines of both gowns are 1920s all the way.
I..um…What is that sticking out of her ass? A bustle of enormous proportions? Is it a cape that hasn’t finished unfurling? A wedding dress birthing from her back? It’s a love mini dress, and I love the bow on the left shoulder, but I need to know–how does she sit down?
(pictures via Getty Images)