We’re just a few weeks out from 2020, and at this point, I think it’s safe to say we’re all suffering from list fatigue. The desire to declare the best cultural relics of the year/decade feels both natural and hubristic, yet even trying to round up “the best” books, movies, TV shows, et cetera, can leave a lot of great stuff on the table.
On that note, in considering the last 10 years on film, I found myself thinking less about obvious hits and more about the sleeper gems that, one way or another, defined some part of the decade for me. One film that resonated with me more than I care to admit was Matt Spicer’s 2017 romp Ingrid Goes West.
I first saw the film on a plane a few months after my 24th birthday, hurtling from my hometown of New York to my adopted city of L.A., and protagonist Ingrid’s desperate striving to fit in among the glitterati of Venice Beach made a discomfiting kind of sense to me. No, I never kidnapped someone’s dog in an effort to become BFFs with the owner, but I could relate to Ingrid’s distinct sense that there was some aspect of the L.A. lifestyle that she was failing to embody.
As I watched Ingrid fight to ingratiate herself with a crowd of flaxen-haired influencers led by Taylor (Elizabeth Olsen), I had to watch through my fingers; Ingrid’s need was so raw, so recognizable, that it practically leapt off the screen. Recently, I rewatched the film with college friends in the New York apartment I returned to a year ago, and improbably enough, I found myself looking back on Ingrid—and my own L.A. misadventures—with some measure of empathy. She was just trying to fit in, after all.
Ingrid Goes West may not have dominated awards discussions or influenced the moviemaking discourse, but it spoke to me in a way that the year’s Oscar winners didn’t. In that spirit, here are other Vogue staffers on the movies that affected them most this decade.
It’s crazy to think that Black Swan came out in 2010, because it’s legendary and iconic in my books—as though it’s been around for decades. I still think it’s one of Natalie Portman’s best performances to date. And I die for Winona Ryder’s role as a jealous, jaded ballerina (performance of the decade). —Christian Allaire, fashion and style writer
For sheer cinematic virtuosity, I don’t think anything in the last 10 years can touch Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)—the ultimate embodiment of Hitchcock’s sentiment that a movie should be intelligible to the audience with the sound turned off. There were times while watching it when I literally couldn’t believe what I was seeing, such was the gleeful intensity of the spectacle—and the fact that director George Miller didn’t gather an armful of Oscars for this totemic achievement only shows the Academy’s raging bias against genre films, even when masterfully executed. —Corey Seymour, senior features editor
The Souvenir (2019), Joanna Hogg’s ruminative and largely autobiographical fourth feature film, tells two distinct, but not unrelated stories. One’s about a young woman in a harrowing on-again, off-again relationship with a dashing heroin addict; the other’s about that same young woman, a film student, discovering her voice as an artist—a journey that I found so deeply and personally moving, I spent the 20-minute walk from the theater to my apartment absolutely dizzy with emotion. This was, for me, a decade rich with discovery—I turned 16 in 2010—and Hogg spoke to that weird/banal, exciting/scary experience of figuring out what matters to you (and what you deserve) with a quiet (but no less powerful) authority. —Marley Marius, features assistant
The German movie Hell (2011). I just love the apocalypse. —Liana Satenstein, senior fashion news writer
For me, almost nine years later, it’s still Nicolas Winding Refn’s style-over-substance Los Angeles noir-romance Drive (2011). Isn’t Drive crazily, gratuitously violent? Isn’t Ryan Gosling as a taciturn stunt driver-hero little more than an emo, alpha-male cliché? Is Carey Mulligan the least convincing working-class-L.A.-mom-with-a-convict-husband you’ve ever seen? Am I still in love with her? And with this ludicrously cool one-last-job-gone-wrong neon-lit thriller? Yes, yes, yes. —Taylor Antrim, executive editor
I’m cheating: I’m picking four. I know that’s not the point, but there are a few vectors of the decade in film that felt significant to me. First of all, Melancholia (2011) reflects the only part of the coming apocalypse I can feel smug about: having known it was coming all along, and submitting wearily to its companions, hedonism and emptiness. Watching Kirsten Dunst clomp around in a wedding dress as everyone else pretends everything is normal is the only fitting parallel to the hectic nature of our current moment. Then, there’s Magic Mike: XXL (2015); much has been made of the current lustful moment, when women are more vocal about desire than they ever have been, and I believe MMXXL was what flipped the switch and permitted us to reveal the lust-addled natures we’ve nursed all along. On a completely different note, To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before soothed my eternal teen soul perfectly; as we’ve inched towards chaos, we’ve reached for simpler, lovelier things, like romantic comedies and Noah Centineo. Finally, The Farewell honors the kind of modest, tortuous, but quotidian fables we tell just to get by, and it broke my heart. Oh, wait, one more: Call Me By Your Name. Do I dare to eat a peach? —Estelle Tang, senior culture editor
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Show Your Gratitude With These Last-Minute Thanksgiving Gifts
Thanksgiving is such a marvelous time of year for so many reasons. It’s that sweet spot between fall and winter where the leaves are still falling off the trees, but you can start to imagine snow falling on the ground. It’s the coziest of holidays, dedicated to spending time with family, giving thanks, and of course having more than one helping of mashed potatoes. But Turkey Day can also be at times a little stressful. There are so many things to manage: the perfectly plated dinner, the perfect outfit, and a gift or two for that one family member you don’t see very often.
If you’re looking for a little last-minute gift for yourself or a loved one, we’ve got you covered. Want to look great in the kitchen while basting the bird? Consider wearing a cute little Dôen prairie frock with a festively printed apron from La Double J and a pair of surprisingly comfy platform mules from Coach. In need of some chic homegoods? Why not treat yourself to a floral Tory Burch dinner plate or grab a set of cheese knives for the gourmand in your life? No matter what you get, whether it is for yourself or a family member, take a moment to think about your year and the people who made it so lovely.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Why Is Everyone Saying “I Love That for You”?
It’s hard to pinpoint the exact moment when a phrase achieves meme status, but it seems to be happening more than ever. From “I’m baby” to “You hate to see it,” expressions that first gained currency in the shadowy depths of Twitter and Instagram often go mainstream, but it can be tricky to trace the precise etymology that takes, say, “Weird flex, but okay” from extremely online slang to all-purpose catchphrase.
The expression “I love that for you” and its variants (“I love that for me/us/them”) has picked up steam of late. If you’re a culture vulture, you might suspect that its origins could partly be traced back to The Bachelor’s Arie Luyendyk Jr., a living manifestation of compulsory heterosexuality who exclaimed “I love that” in 2018 enough to merit a three-minute compilation video. It’s now become a widely used phrase within queer communities, appearing even as the title of an LGBTQ+ lifestyle blog.
Gretchen McCulloch, internet linguist and author of the best-selling book Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language, took to the Google Ngram Viewer—which tracks phraseology usage dating back to 1500—to search for possible linguistic predecessors to “I love that for you.” What she found wasn’t entirely surprising: “There are no results for the full phrase ‘Love that for you’ until 2008, so it seems like its origins are more recent,” she tells Vogue.
So how did “I love that for you” gain traction in the first place? The answer is complicated, and—like so many things in our current dystopia—at least partly YouTube-related.
“Like many queer cultural artifacts, ‘I love that for you’ comes from teens, and we’ve picked it up,” Rose Dommu, a senior staff writer at Out, who employed the phrase in a February interview, tells Vogue. Dommu attributes “I love that for you” to beauty guru James Charles, while cautioning that Charles is the equivalent of “a human retweet.”
Charles made headlines in May for his gummy-supplement feud with fellow YouTuber Tati Westbrook, but to his ardent, primarily teenage fan base, he’s been a star for years. At his zenith, Charles boasted 16 million YouTube subscribers who flocked to his DIY makeup tutorials like moths to a perfectly contoured flame, and he quickly parlayed that success into branded partnerships, Met gala invitations, and even a CoverGirl contract.
Before the feud, Charles won fans not only with his impeccable makeup skills, but also his taxonomy of catchphrases. In a March video titled “Learn the sister dictionary with James Charles,” Charles broke down the bon mots he’d become famous for on YouTube in alphabetical order: H was for “Hi, sisters” (used to open up every vlog); N was for “Not with that attitude”; and L, of course, was for “Love that.”
“‘Love that’ can be expanded to ‘Love that for you’ or ‘Love that for me,’” Charles explains in his always-upbeat tone. The shortened version of the phrase has made its way onto official James Charles merchandise, and like any good neologism, it even commands its own UrbanDictionary page. “Kind of like ‘love that,’ but generally means that you don’t actually care,” one user reports, making sure to hashtag #JamesCharles.
“I love that for [X]” has spread from Charles throughout the YouTuber community; it can be sincere praise of a friend’s outfit choice, or it can be used as a heightened form of “LOL” to express bemusement at the uncanny, like Tana Mongeau tweeting “I love that for us” when she and one of her followers tweeted the same joke about Donald Trump and Kim Kardashian’s May 2018 meeting. It’s a pet phrase of Mongeau’s; in fact, if you’re so inclined, you can even watch her saying it for two minutes on a loop.
Just as Charles has moved from star to scandal-maker, the phrase “love that for you” has curdled from earnest to sarcastic; this shift is evidenced by an October Reductress headline reading, “Knock Your Proud Friend Down a Peg or Two by Declaring, ‘I Love That for You!’” In its sarcastic form, “I love that for you” is a prime example of what writer Myriam Gurba calls “the queer art of being mean,” but it’s an inherently versatile phrase, one that’s as easy to employ sincerely as it is to toss off as an insult.
At its heart, “I love that for you” is a queer internet catchphrase with with real-world legs; like other online slang that has made its way IRL, it’s a signifier of someone who “gets it.” That is, for now, anyway; the chances are good that the phrase could go mainstream, emblazoned across water bottles and workout tanks the world over. Dommu notes how quickly the phrase has spread beyond Charles: “I hear people saying it now who would never watch his videos.” These days, when she catches herself saying “I love that for you” on the podcast she hosts, Out’s Outcast, she edits it out. “I can see some very non-gay brand marketing with it,” she predicts. “In five years, someone will be using ‘I love that for you’ to sell a sandwich.”
The thing that makes “I love that for you” great, though, is not its mainstream potential, but its versatility. How often can a phrase go from a genuine expression of loving support (as in, “The thing you’re doing will benefit you, friend”) to a subtle act of shade (“The thing you’re doing is tragically misguided, but I’m not going to say so”) with a simple change of intonation? “I love that for you” functions as a cultural bridge between millennial irony and Gen-Z sincerity—allowing everyone to take what they need and leave the rest.
The expression “I love that for you” and its variants (“I love that for me/us/them”) has picked up steam of late. If you’re a culture vulture, you might suspect that its origins could partly be traced back to The Bachelor’s Arie Luyendyk Jr., a living manifestation of compulsory heterosexuality who exclaimed “I love that” in 2018 enough to merit a three-minute compilation video. It’s now become a widely used phrase within queer communities, appearing even as the title of an LGBTQ+ lifestyle blog.
Gretchen McCulloch, internet linguist and author of the best-selling book Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language, took to the Google Ngram Viewer—which tracks phraseology usage dating back to 1500—to search for possible linguistic predecessors to “I love that for you.” What she found wasn’t entirely surprising: “There are no results for the full phrase ‘Love that for you’ until 2008, so it seems like its origins are more recent,” she tells Vogue.
So how did “I love that for you” gain traction in the first place? The answer is complicated, and—like so many things in our current dystopia—at least partly YouTube-related.
“Like many queer cultural artifacts, ‘I love that for you’ comes from teens, and we’ve picked it up,” Rose Dommu, a senior staff writer at Out, who employed the phrase in a February interview, tells Vogue. Dommu attributes “I love that for you” to beauty guru James Charles, while cautioning that Charles is the equivalent of “a human retweet.”
Charles made headlines in May for his gummy-supplement feud with fellow YouTuber Tati Westbrook, but to his ardent, primarily teenage fan base, he’s been a star for years. At his zenith, Charles boasted 16 million YouTube subscribers who flocked to his DIY makeup tutorials like moths to a perfectly contoured flame, and he quickly parlayed that success into branded partnerships, Met gala invitations, and even a CoverGirl contract.
Before the feud, Charles won fans not only with his impeccable makeup skills, but also his taxonomy of catchphrases. In a March video titled “Learn the sister dictionary with James Charles,” Charles broke down the bon mots he’d become famous for on YouTube in alphabetical order: H was for “Hi, sisters” (used to open up every vlog); N was for “Not with that attitude”; and L, of course, was for “Love that.”
“‘Love that’ can be expanded to ‘Love that for you’ or ‘Love that for me,’” Charles explains in his always-upbeat tone. The shortened version of the phrase has made its way onto official James Charles merchandise, and like any good neologism, it even commands its own UrbanDictionary page. “Kind of like ‘love that,’ but generally means that you don’t actually care,” one user reports, making sure to hashtag #JamesCharles.
“I love that for [X]” has spread from Charles throughout the YouTuber community; it can be sincere praise of a friend’s outfit choice, or it can be used as a heightened form of “LOL” to express bemusement at the uncanny, like Tana Mongeau tweeting “I love that for us” when she and one of her followers tweeted the same joke about Donald Trump and Kim Kardashian’s May 2018 meeting. It’s a pet phrase of Mongeau’s; in fact, if you’re so inclined, you can even watch her saying it for two minutes on a loop.
Just as Charles has moved from star to scandal-maker, the phrase “love that for you” has curdled from earnest to sarcastic; this shift is evidenced by an October Reductress headline reading, “Knock Your Proud Friend Down a Peg or Two by Declaring, ‘I Love That for You!’” In its sarcastic form, “I love that for you” is a prime example of what writer Myriam Gurba calls “the queer art of being mean,” but it’s an inherently versatile phrase, one that’s as easy to employ sincerely as it is to toss off as an insult.
At its heart, “I love that for you” is a queer internet catchphrase with with real-world legs; like other online slang that has made its way IRL, it’s a signifier of someone who “gets it.” That is, for now, anyway; the chances are good that the phrase could go mainstream, emblazoned across water bottles and workout tanks the world over. Dommu notes how quickly the phrase has spread beyond Charles: “I hear people saying it now who would never watch his videos.” These days, when she catches herself saying “I love that for you” on the podcast she hosts, Out’s Outcast, she edits it out. “I can see some very non-gay brand marketing with it,” she predicts. “In five years, someone will be using ‘I love that for you’ to sell a sandwich.”
The thing that makes “I love that for you” great, though, is not its mainstream potential, but its versatility. How often can a phrase go from a genuine expression of loving support (as in, “The thing you’re doing will benefit you, friend”) to a subtle act of shade (“The thing you’re doing is tragically misguided, but I’m not going to say so”) with a simple change of intonation? “I love that for you” functions as a cultural bridge between millennial irony and Gen-Z sincerity—allowing everyone to take what they need and leave the rest.
Saturday, September 28, 2019
For Her Latest Role, Marisa Tomei Embraced Her Raw Side—Armpit Hair and All
In the opening scenes of Tennessee Williams’s 1951 play The Rose Tattoo, a tempestuous Italian immigrant named Serafina, is sitting in a state of decadent anticipation. Wine is chilling in an ice bucket; a bowl of roses is overflowing; the room is swathed in rose-patterned wallpaper; her hair “glitters like black coal.” She is waiting for her husband, the love of her life, and every detail of their Gulf Coast home reflects her ardor. But it is both the enduring force of love and its precariousness that Williams seeks to capture; that husband is killed within the first act, and Serafina soon slips into a reclusive, unkempt state. “Snatching the eternal out of the desperately fleeting is the great magic trick of human existence,” Williams wrote in the forward to the play.
“This play was written for me,” says Marisa Tomei who will play Serafina in the revival when it opens next month at Broadway’s American Airlines theater (previews have already begun). Tomei, an Italian-American romantic who sees the work as a powerful tale of the redemptive power of love, spent part of her summer with her friend and collaborator, make-up artist James Kaliardos, thinking through not only what shade of blush Serafina would have applied, but considering what herbs she would have grown in her garden, how she would have rubbed her elbows with lemons, and softened her feet with pumice stones from the volcanoes of Sicily. (Tomei’s own allegiances are to clean brands such as Intelligent Nutrients and Weleda.) “It’s been so fun to build this character from the inside out,” says Kaliardos. But to really “drop in” to the role, she does her own hair and makeup in the theater to achieve “full Serafina wildness.” In a further commitment to her craft, Tomei—somewhat inadvertently, due to an injury that limited her mobility—spent the summer growing out her underarm hair. “I love it,” she says. “I don’t think I’m ever going back.”
Emily Blunt Takes Over for Anna Wintour and Talks About Becoming Mary Poppins
For someone who is coming at this play knowing just a bit about Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or The Glass Menagerie, how would you describe it? It has some ingredients of a classical tragedy, and yet it is transplanted to the American South.
Strangely, this is to me his most joyous play, where sensuality isn’t a death trap, where falling passionately in love can be a fulfilling, life-giving experience. In some other plays, you’re carted off to the mental hospital if you feel that strongly.
Serafina is an immigrant who came to America with her husband and lives in a cloistered enclave. She is madly, madly in love with her husband, and according to the actual dialogue of the play, has sex with him every single night. That bed is the most beautiful heaven that she could ever imagine. That is her religion; but for most of the play, she has pretty much given up religion. She hasn’t really done anything but work as a seamstress and care for her daughter since her husband’s death. Now her daughter is assimilating and coming into her own sexuality, and it’s triggering a lot of feelings for Serafina. The play is about rebirth.
Tennessee Williams wrote the play when he was head-over-heels in love with a man named Frank Merlo who was from a big Italian family. They met when they were overseas, and lived overseas. The play is dedicated “To Frank for Sicily.”
Can you describe how you’ve prepared for this role?
Really it was a lot of eating a lot of pasta—a great gift to be given, so thank you Tennessee Williams! I didn’t know much about the immigrant experience for people who came over between the late 1800s and the late 1920s—what the conditions were, the kind of poverty they were coming from. I watched a lot of great Italian movies and documentaries, particularly about the immigrant experience during that era.
And then in terms of thinking through the physical preparation, James [Kaliardos] has a background in theater and performance, so we’re always delving into characters together. Just today we were vintage shopping, and James said, “What about this for Serafina?” We have a great costume designer, but since we’re here in Paris, we’ve been looking at peasant blouses and ‘50s skits, pieces that might be out of date, but that would also be appealing for a seamstress who could adapt them.
For this character, in terms of fragrance, it’s all about roses—any kind of rose cream, any kind of scent. She’s an intoxicated person, and I love that. When you get that clean, really organic rose smell, not with that edge, it’s really just so heavenly. Skin is very important for this character, and I feel that way for myself. I use Intelligent Nutrients, and a lot of homemade products. Serafina is coming from a tradition of women who know the plants and how to turn them into natural remedies and beauty products. She has her own garden, she has vegetables with a goat, and she is still connected to the land. I have a friend who would say that when Italian women make the salad, they mix it with their hands. Then they have the olive oil and lemon on their hands, when they touch their faces and their chests, and it sinks into their skin.
There's a major transformation in this play; can you talk about how that played out for you in terms of thinking about her self-presentation?
At the beginning, when she’s waiting for her husband, Serafina is perfectly dressed. She’s well-groomed, well-perfumed, her skin is soft, the bedroom is prepared, the antipasti is prepared; she really setting the table for love. And then after her husband is killed, she spends years in just her slip, not leaving the house very often. There’s an incredible scene where she’s trying to get ready for her daughter’s school graduation and she winds up looking like a sad clown with a very dilapidated hat. She can’t even look at herself—this person who at one point was taking such good care of herself.
She lets it go raw. I love her because she goes raw, and then she comes back to herself with that rawness incorporated. Before there’s almost a baroque quality to the quality of her love, and then she returns to the earth, and comes out anew. I injured my arm earlier this summer and it was kind of hard to move it. All my armpit hair is growing back in, and it’s allowed me to be in full Serafina wildness. I love it. I don’t think I’m ever going back.
“This play was written for me,” says Marisa Tomei who will play Serafina in the revival when it opens next month at Broadway’s American Airlines theater (previews have already begun). Tomei, an Italian-American romantic who sees the work as a powerful tale of the redemptive power of love, spent part of her summer with her friend and collaborator, make-up artist James Kaliardos, thinking through not only what shade of blush Serafina would have applied, but considering what herbs she would have grown in her garden, how she would have rubbed her elbows with lemons, and softened her feet with pumice stones from the volcanoes of Sicily. (Tomei’s own allegiances are to clean brands such as Intelligent Nutrients and Weleda.) “It’s been so fun to build this character from the inside out,” says Kaliardos. But to really “drop in” to the role, she does her own hair and makeup in the theater to achieve “full Serafina wildness.” In a further commitment to her craft, Tomei—somewhat inadvertently, due to an injury that limited her mobility—spent the summer growing out her underarm hair. “I love it,” she says. “I don’t think I’m ever going back.”
Emily Blunt Takes Over for Anna Wintour and Talks About Becoming Mary Poppins
For someone who is coming at this play knowing just a bit about Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or The Glass Menagerie, how would you describe it? It has some ingredients of a classical tragedy, and yet it is transplanted to the American South.
Strangely, this is to me his most joyous play, where sensuality isn’t a death trap, where falling passionately in love can be a fulfilling, life-giving experience. In some other plays, you’re carted off to the mental hospital if you feel that strongly.
Serafina is an immigrant who came to America with her husband and lives in a cloistered enclave. She is madly, madly in love with her husband, and according to the actual dialogue of the play, has sex with him every single night. That bed is the most beautiful heaven that she could ever imagine. That is her religion; but for most of the play, she has pretty much given up religion. She hasn’t really done anything but work as a seamstress and care for her daughter since her husband’s death. Now her daughter is assimilating and coming into her own sexuality, and it’s triggering a lot of feelings for Serafina. The play is about rebirth.
Tennessee Williams wrote the play when he was head-over-heels in love with a man named Frank Merlo who was from a big Italian family. They met when they were overseas, and lived overseas. The play is dedicated “To Frank for Sicily.”
Can you describe how you’ve prepared for this role?
Really it was a lot of eating a lot of pasta—a great gift to be given, so thank you Tennessee Williams! I didn’t know much about the immigrant experience for people who came over between the late 1800s and the late 1920s—what the conditions were, the kind of poverty they were coming from. I watched a lot of great Italian movies and documentaries, particularly about the immigrant experience during that era.
And then in terms of thinking through the physical preparation, James [Kaliardos] has a background in theater and performance, so we’re always delving into characters together. Just today we were vintage shopping, and James said, “What about this for Serafina?” We have a great costume designer, but since we’re here in Paris, we’ve been looking at peasant blouses and ‘50s skits, pieces that might be out of date, but that would also be appealing for a seamstress who could adapt them.
For this character, in terms of fragrance, it’s all about roses—any kind of rose cream, any kind of scent. She’s an intoxicated person, and I love that. When you get that clean, really organic rose smell, not with that edge, it’s really just so heavenly. Skin is very important for this character, and I feel that way for myself. I use Intelligent Nutrients, and a lot of homemade products. Serafina is coming from a tradition of women who know the plants and how to turn them into natural remedies and beauty products. She has her own garden, she has vegetables with a goat, and she is still connected to the land. I have a friend who would say that when Italian women make the salad, they mix it with their hands. Then they have the olive oil and lemon on their hands, when they touch their faces and their chests, and it sinks into their skin.
There's a major transformation in this play; can you talk about how that played out for you in terms of thinking about her self-presentation?
At the beginning, when she’s waiting for her husband, Serafina is perfectly dressed. She’s well-groomed, well-perfumed, her skin is soft, the bedroom is prepared, the antipasti is prepared; she really setting the table for love. And then after her husband is killed, she spends years in just her slip, not leaving the house very often. There’s an incredible scene where she’s trying to get ready for her daughter’s school graduation and she winds up looking like a sad clown with a very dilapidated hat. She can’t even look at herself—this person who at one point was taking such good care of herself.
She lets it go raw. I love her because she goes raw, and then she comes back to herself with that rawness incorporated. Before there’s almost a baroque quality to the quality of her love, and then she returns to the earth, and comes out anew. I injured my arm earlier this summer and it was kind of hard to move it. All my armpit hair is growing back in, and it’s allowed me to be in full Serafina wildness. I love it. I don’t think I’m ever going back.
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
The Buzziest Movies Coming Out This Fall Are All Directed by Women
Fall is always a great time for movies. After all it’s when all the Oscar contenders begin to roll out. (Many of which may premiere this September at the Toronto International Film Festival.) But all those choices could be dizzying! To narrow things down this season, consider penciling these seven must-see films into your schedule—and the best part about them? They are all directed by women.
With major awards ceremonies having a history of shutting out female filmmakers for consideration—there have only been five women nominated for best director in Oscars history, and Kathryn Bigelow is the only woman to ever win the category—this new crop of female-led films serves as a reminder that some of the most interesting Hollywood stories are, yes, indeed coming from women. From a group of savvy strippers in Hustlers to the trials and tribulations of being a 19th-century teenager in Little Women, there’s something for every moviegoer this fall. Here are the seven films we’re most excited for this fall.
1. Hustlers (September 13)
This star-studded affair, directed by Lorene Scafaria, follows a clever group of strippers—Jennifer Lopez, Constance Wu, Cardi B, Lili Reinhart, Lizzo, and more!—who band together to con their wealthy Wall Street clients. The screenplay is actually based on a real-life New York Magazine article, titled “The Hustlers at Scores,” but this fictional movie version? Consider it the perfect hybrid: Ocean’s 8 meets Showgirls.
2. Harriet (November 1)
Director Kasi Lemmons tells the story of abolitionist Harriet Tubman (played by Cynthia Erivo), who escaped slavery and became an American hero by freeing hundreds of slaves and changing the country’s history forever. It’s largely believed that it will be a major player in the upcoming awards season. Added bonus: Janelle Monáe costars as a mentor who prepares Tubman for her mission.
3. Charlie’s Angels (November 15)
This reimagined version of the 1970s action series—directed by Elizabeth Banks, who also plays a Bosley in the film—stars Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska as three weapon-wielding angels who work for their mysterious boss, Charlie. Noah Centineo, the internet’s collective boyfriend, also costars. Now it’s also hard to outdo the 2000s trio of Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore—but with Stewart proclaiming, “I think women can do anything,” before proceeding to beat up a dude? It’s a strong start.
4. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (November 22)
Directed by Marielle Heller, this biographical drama is based on the real-life friendship between journalist Tom Junod and TV star Fred Rogers (known as Mister Rogers), who is played by Tom Hanks. The plot follows Junod, a jaded magazine writer who is assigned to profile Rogers and in the process learns about empathy and kindness; consider it the feel-good movie that 2019 most definitely needs.
5. Queen & Slim (November 27)
Melina Matsoukas (who has done a ton of Beyoncé’s music videos!) directs a drama—written by Lena Waithe, no less—about a young black couple (Daniel Kaluuya and Jodie Turner-Smith) who is on a first date when they are pulled over for a traffic infraction. Things escalate, and Kaluuya’s characer kills the officer in self-defense, which sends the duo on the run. Indya Moore, Chloë Sevigny, and Flea also star.
6. Portrait of a Lady on Fire (December 6)
This French film, starring Noémie Merlant and Adèle Haenel, is directed by Céline Sciamma (Girlhood and Tomboy). The plot is set in Brittany, France, in 1770 and follows the young daughter of a French countess who develops an attraction to a female artist commissioned to paint her wedding portrait. (Sort of like 2018’s lesbian thriller Lizzie with Sevigny but even artsier.) The film already won the Cannes Film Festival’s prestigious Queer Palm prize this year. Could it also be an Oscar contender come 2020?
7. Little Women (December 25)
This film adaptation of the classic Louisa May Alcott novel is directed by Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird) and stars a stellar cast including Emma Watson, Saoirse Ronan, Meryl Streep, Timothée Chalamet, Laura Dern, and more. It follows four teenage girls living in Massachusetts in the 1860s, following the Civil War. Plus, with Chalamet as the 1800s boy next door? It’s a must-see.
With major awards ceremonies having a history of shutting out female filmmakers for consideration—there have only been five women nominated for best director in Oscars history, and Kathryn Bigelow is the only woman to ever win the category—this new crop of female-led films serves as a reminder that some of the most interesting Hollywood stories are, yes, indeed coming from women. From a group of savvy strippers in Hustlers to the trials and tribulations of being a 19th-century teenager in Little Women, there’s something for every moviegoer this fall. Here are the seven films we’re most excited for this fall.
1. Hustlers (September 13)
This star-studded affair, directed by Lorene Scafaria, follows a clever group of strippers—Jennifer Lopez, Constance Wu, Cardi B, Lili Reinhart, Lizzo, and more!—who band together to con their wealthy Wall Street clients. The screenplay is actually based on a real-life New York Magazine article, titled “The Hustlers at Scores,” but this fictional movie version? Consider it the perfect hybrid: Ocean’s 8 meets Showgirls.
2. Harriet (November 1)
Director Kasi Lemmons tells the story of abolitionist Harriet Tubman (played by Cynthia Erivo), who escaped slavery and became an American hero by freeing hundreds of slaves and changing the country’s history forever. It’s largely believed that it will be a major player in the upcoming awards season. Added bonus: Janelle Monáe costars as a mentor who prepares Tubman for her mission.
3. Charlie’s Angels (November 15)
This reimagined version of the 1970s action series—directed by Elizabeth Banks, who also plays a Bosley in the film—stars Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska as three weapon-wielding angels who work for their mysterious boss, Charlie. Noah Centineo, the internet’s collective boyfriend, also costars. Now it’s also hard to outdo the 2000s trio of Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore—but with Stewart proclaiming, “I think women can do anything,” before proceeding to beat up a dude? It’s a strong start.
4. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (November 22)
Directed by Marielle Heller, this biographical drama is based on the real-life friendship between journalist Tom Junod and TV star Fred Rogers (known as Mister Rogers), who is played by Tom Hanks. The plot follows Junod, a jaded magazine writer who is assigned to profile Rogers and in the process learns about empathy and kindness; consider it the feel-good movie that 2019 most definitely needs.
5. Queen & Slim (November 27)
Melina Matsoukas (who has done a ton of Beyoncé’s music videos!) directs a drama—written by Lena Waithe, no less—about a young black couple (Daniel Kaluuya and Jodie Turner-Smith) who is on a first date when they are pulled over for a traffic infraction. Things escalate, and Kaluuya’s characer kills the officer in self-defense, which sends the duo on the run. Indya Moore, Chloë Sevigny, and Flea also star.
6. Portrait of a Lady on Fire (December 6)
This French film, starring Noémie Merlant and Adèle Haenel, is directed by Céline Sciamma (Girlhood and Tomboy). The plot is set in Brittany, France, in 1770 and follows the young daughter of a French countess who develops an attraction to a female artist commissioned to paint her wedding portrait. (Sort of like 2018’s lesbian thriller Lizzie with Sevigny but even artsier.) The film already won the Cannes Film Festival’s prestigious Queer Palm prize this year. Could it also be an Oscar contender come 2020?
7. Little Women (December 25)
This film adaptation of the classic Louisa May Alcott novel is directed by Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird) and stars a stellar cast including Emma Watson, Saoirse Ronan, Meryl Streep, Timothée Chalamet, Laura Dern, and more. It follows four teenage girls living in Massachusetts in the 1860s, following the Civil War. Plus, with Chalamet as the 1800s boy next door? It’s a must-see.
Sunday, July 28, 2019
The Week in Washington: “They’re Doing It as We Sit Here”
So, ok, be careful what you wish for. After years of praying and pleading for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to come before Congress and explain to the nation exactly what was so damning, so shocking, in his 448-page report, our dream came true last Wednesday. The special counsel did indeed testify to a number of staggering truths—among them that his investigation could not exonerate the president—but his lackluster delivery, rather than the fiery indictment Democrats were hoping for, resulted in the same quandary: how do you wake America up to the horrors facing us? Do you begin impeachment proceedings, knowing that you will never have the votes in the Republican-lead Senate? Or do you just keep sleep-walking through this nightmare? On Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that the decision on whether to pursue impeachment will be made in a “timely fashion” and denied accusations that she is trying to “run out the clock”; that same day, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said in a court filing that “articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of the Committee’s investigation, although no final determination has been made”; According to CNN, at present “of the 235 Democrats in the House, there are at least 101 … who’ve made public comments advocating at least for starting the impeachment inquiry process, while some have gone further.”
Meanwhile, Trump preens and gloats. The day before the Mueller hearing, he appeared before an assemblage of teenage conservatives called Turning Point USA, and rambled: “How about this whole witch hunt that’s going on? Should I talk about it for a second?... First of all, it’s very bad for our country. No collusion, no obstruction. … I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” (This event was also notable because the president spoke in front of a seal that one of the sponsors had hastily downloaded from the internet, and that was in fact mock emblem: the eagle had been given two heads and was clutching golf clubs and a wad of cash, and the slogan “E Pluribus Unum,” was replaced with “45 Es un Títere,” Spanish for “45 Is a Puppet.”)
Yesterday, the president ramped us his attacks on anyone who would dare question the king, vilifying Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, chairman the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which has initiated many of the investigations into the current administration. In an attack inspired by a segment Trump saw on FOX, he maligned and slandered Cummings, who has been an outspoken critic of conditions at the border, and called the congressman’s Baltimore district a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess,” accusing him of using “his Oversight Committee to hurt innocent people and divide our Country!”
In other bad news, for first time in nearly 20 years, the federal government has ordered the death penalty to be reinstated, with Attorney General William Barr directing the Bureau of Prisons to begin scheduling executions. Meanwhile, the White House has announced a new spokeswoman at the Treasury Department—it’s Monica Crowley, a former FOX news contributor who has smeared President Obama as an “Islamic community organizer” and enthusiastically promulgated birther conspiracy theories. And, despite Mueller’s warning that Russian election interference is continuing—“They’re doing it as we sit here”—the Republican Senate blocked legislation to help protect and defend election integrity. “The Republican leader has already indicated his intention to bury this bill in the legislative graveyard,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor just prior to McConnell’s block. “That’s a disgrace.”
Lastly, this week the president tweeted numerous times about the case of A$AP Rocky, currently being held on assault charges in Sweden. “Just spoke to @KanyeWest about his friend A$AP Rocky’s incarceration,” Trump wrote. “I will be calling the very talented Prime Minister of Sweden to see what we can do about helping A$AP Rocky. So many people would like to see this quickly resolved!” The commander-in-chief was not moved to tweet one word about the thousands detained at the border, including Francisco Erwin Galicia, an 18-year-old Dallas-born U.S. citizen wrongfully incarcerated by border officials for more than three weeks, even though he showed them a birth certificate proving he is an American. As CBS News reported, “During the 23 days he was in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, Galicia was not allowed to shower… The teen said he lost 26 pounds during his time in the immigrant detention center and said officers didn’t provide him with enough food. He was crammed into an overcrowded holding area with 60 other men. They slept on the floor with aluminum-foil blankets—some even had to sleep in the bathroom area, he said.”
Meanwhile, Trump preens and gloats. The day before the Mueller hearing, he appeared before an assemblage of teenage conservatives called Turning Point USA, and rambled: “How about this whole witch hunt that’s going on? Should I talk about it for a second?... First of all, it’s very bad for our country. No collusion, no obstruction. … I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” (This event was also notable because the president spoke in front of a seal that one of the sponsors had hastily downloaded from the internet, and that was in fact mock emblem: the eagle had been given two heads and was clutching golf clubs and a wad of cash, and the slogan “E Pluribus Unum,” was replaced with “45 Es un Títere,” Spanish for “45 Is a Puppet.”)
Yesterday, the president ramped us his attacks on anyone who would dare question the king, vilifying Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, chairman the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which has initiated many of the investigations into the current administration. In an attack inspired by a segment Trump saw on FOX, he maligned and slandered Cummings, who has been an outspoken critic of conditions at the border, and called the congressman’s Baltimore district a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess,” accusing him of using “his Oversight Committee to hurt innocent people and divide our Country!”
In other bad news, for first time in nearly 20 years, the federal government has ordered the death penalty to be reinstated, with Attorney General William Barr directing the Bureau of Prisons to begin scheduling executions. Meanwhile, the White House has announced a new spokeswoman at the Treasury Department—it’s Monica Crowley, a former FOX news contributor who has smeared President Obama as an “Islamic community organizer” and enthusiastically promulgated birther conspiracy theories. And, despite Mueller’s warning that Russian election interference is continuing—“They’re doing it as we sit here”—the Republican Senate blocked legislation to help protect and defend election integrity. “The Republican leader has already indicated his intention to bury this bill in the legislative graveyard,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor just prior to McConnell’s block. “That’s a disgrace.”
Lastly, this week the president tweeted numerous times about the case of A$AP Rocky, currently being held on assault charges in Sweden. “Just spoke to @KanyeWest about his friend A$AP Rocky’s incarceration,” Trump wrote. “I will be calling the very talented Prime Minister of Sweden to see what we can do about helping A$AP Rocky. So many people would like to see this quickly resolved!” The commander-in-chief was not moved to tweet one word about the thousands detained at the border, including Francisco Erwin Galicia, an 18-year-old Dallas-born U.S. citizen wrongfully incarcerated by border officials for more than three weeks, even though he showed them a birth certificate proving he is an American. As CBS News reported, “During the 23 days he was in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, Galicia was not allowed to shower… The teen said he lost 26 pounds during his time in the immigrant detention center and said officers didn’t provide him with enough food. He was crammed into an overcrowded holding area with 60 other men. They slept on the floor with aluminum-foil blankets—some even had to sleep in the bathroom area, he said.”
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Read the Funny, Fearless Judith Krantz on Dressing at 70 in Vogue
Judith Krantz, author of best-selling books that combined sex and shopping and paved the way for a whole subset of women’s fiction, died on June 22 at the age of 91. Beginning with Scruples in 1978, her 10 novels contain as many brand names as declarations of passion and romantic trysts. Krantz wrote about dressing for her age at 70 in Vogue, declaring her unwillingness to go gently into that unfashionable night. “I’m more than old enough to dress any way I choose, to adopt a Katharine Hepburn–like uniform and stick to it with dignity for all occasions, or else to find a way to remain stylish without looking like Vivienne Westwood,” she wrote. “But I love fashion too much to confine myself to a standard look.” Read her full piece, titled “Just Seventy,” below.
This article was originally published in the August 2001 issue of Vogue.
According to a longtime rule of fashion, if you were old enough to wear it the first time around, don’t consider wearing it again. I’ve sported bare legs with heels, the cinched-waist mid-calf skirt, the trapeze, the chemise, the chiffon blouse without a bra, the Mary Quant miniskirt, the YSL Smoking, the total Courrèges white-boot look, the bell-bottom trousers with the po’ boy sweater, the power suit, and the tie-dyed Zandra Rhodes evening pajamas. If I had to dress in something I’d never worn before, I’d be limited to a pair of stilettos with fishnet stockings, a Pucci bikini, and a cocktail hat.
That’s what happens to a woman like me, 73 years old and as fascinated by clothes as I ever was in my 20s. I’m more than old enough to dress any way I choose, to adopt a Katharine Hepburn-like uniform and stick to it with dignity for all occasions, or else to find a way to remain stylish without looking like Vivienne Westwood.
But I love fashion too much to confine myself to a standard look. I had my era in which to use clothes for seduction, and I made the most of it. Now, as I have for decades, I can focus on being imaginatively put-together yet appropriate. Yes, appropriate, a word that will never go out of style. As Emerson said, “The sense of being perfectly well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity which religion is powerless to bestow.” Go, Ralph Waldo!
I learned about grown-up clothes when I lived in Paris for a year after college in 1948-1949 and was introduced to the inexpensive “little dressmaker” who copied the haute couture with great skill. Women then were either still schoolgirls or considered to be adults. There were no hottie, Sex and the City years in which to roam the wilder shores of fashion. By the time the New Look lost its grip. I’d developed the beginnings of a style of my own—never flamboyant or cutting-edge, and always far from funky, yet both sophisticated and fundamentally classic. I’ve definitely followed the fashions of five decades, but I’ve never been a fashionista. My miniskirts never crept up to micro. Today I can see absolutely no reason why age should make me change my personal style in any way.
Before I tell you the current secrets of my closet, that intimate garden every woman cultivates, whether pruned or overgrown, Zen or magpie-full, I have to discuss my figure, since size determines options in clothes. With the plea that you won’t hate me for it, I must admit that I’ve maintained the same weight for 46 years, ever since I started to exercise regularly and watch my diet with severe dedication. Obviously I’m profoundly compulsive, but in a healthy way. I’ve never had an eating disorder, but I am a control freak who sticks to a lean high-protein diet, mostly chicken, fish, fresh fruit, and a bit of veg, plus the occasional fling with a steak. Fortunately I have no sweet tooth, and as the years passed, my stomach became accustomed to smaller portions. I’m hardly a haggard bag of bones since my 104 pounds are confined to a five-foot-two frame, with strong but slender arms, rather skinny legs, and a torso that’s firm and very flexible but marked by the rounded tummy I was born with. (I can feel my abs of iron but have never seen them.) I’m a 6 above the waist, an 8 below, so I buy clothes in 8 and have them altered.
I started doing Pilates long before it was popular, and I owe my body as much to 36 years of Pilates three times a week as to disciplined eating. My trainer, Diane Severino, says that my muscles simply have no idea that Ive grown older since they’ve been subjected to the same extremely rigorous advanced workout for decades.
Maintaining my weight and shape—although a few pounds have given in to gravity and migrated south to my waistline—doesn’t mean that I find it easy to dress well in this all-but-hysterically youth-oriented period of fashion.
There has never been a time in which so many designers are concentrating their efforts on the young and perfect, that midriff-baring, navel-proud, thighs-of-a-goddess tiny minority. Older customers are heartlessly treated as if they have no right to new clothes for the many special occasions in their life. Do designers imagine that most women have the body of Jennifer Lopez? Don’t they understand that women with the money to buy really good clothes and who still have active social lives usually are not young? Oh, don’t get me started!
For daytime there’s no problem. I have a many-hued bouquet of Chanel jackets bought over the years for the promotion of my novels. I’ve given away those that somehow lost their zing—which, mysteriously, can happen overnight; I’ve changed a lot of shoulder pads, but I still have a dozen jackets to choose from, wearing them over J.Crew long-sleeved, round-necked T-shirts, Chanel blouses, French-cuffed white cotton shirts made in Hong Kong by Ascot Chang, or thin cashmere sweaters, all of which I tuck into my pants and belt.
I live in pants by day or night 90 percent of the time because they make me look taller. I have them custom made by Lucy De Caste nou in Beverly Hills. She has my patterns in pleated and flat pants, which we adjust from time to time. I wear white linen, cotton, and silk crepe in the summer, and black in all weights and fabrics the rest of the year. I also have a few pairs of gray-flannel and beige pants. I believe that the luxury of made-to-order pants is the most important element of my wardrobe. Impeccable fit is as essential to me as comfort: I’ve never found a pair of jeans I could endure for long. The skirts of my suits get an airing only for serious lunches, board meetings, and public speaking. I also own several perfect black Chanel silk, wool, and chiffon skirts to pair with jackets for evening, worn with sheer black Wolford panty hose and black shoes, again for a taller look. I always wear skirts for ballroom dancing, a hobby of my husband’s and mine.
I need a lot of evening clothes, and that’s where the difficulty begins. I’ve recently conducted a sweep of all the better-dress departments of Beverly Hills without finding one single acceptable long dress that covered the upper arms, the Bermuda Triangle that few women over a certain age want to reveal, or as Boaz Mazor of Oscar de la Renta says, “Never wave goodbye over 40.” (How long has it been since you’ve seen Sophia Loren’s upper arms in a photo?) What to do if you’re not Sophia and haute couture isn’t an option? I’ve found several paths.
First of all I keep my most successful purchases as long as possible, so that my closet contains many outfits that are more than ten years old and many individual items, like a ravishing black-and-gold lace scarf from Geoffrey Beene and an Anne Klein suede blouson zip-up jacket, both of which I’ve had for 30 years, and which go out to dinner smashingly together over a black sweater and pants, Suits aside, I buy only separates—dresses are too limited—and I make time every season to experiment with putting things together in new ways. When I find an unexpected combination I write it down so it won’t be forgotten. I never buy prints, because they don’t adapt to mix- and-never-match, and they’re too memorable.
Secondly, I go to my favorite designers’ trunk shows when they come to L.A., to ferret out those few items designed for someone over 35. (I always crumple fabric in my fist for five minutes to see how badly it wrinkles, and I order nothing I haven’t studied while looking in a full-length mirror.) Trunk shows allow me to order clothes in color since I try to wear black as rarely as possible. Women of my age tend to wear black, and I disappear at a party unless I’m wearing color—which, in any case, is more flattering. Finally, I’m getting to know the vintage stores where I can pick up the essential odd jackets that can turn pants and skirts into new outfits.
To be specific, in March, to the gala opening of the Alvin Ailey company at the Music Center, the invitation called for “festive cocktail wear.” I unearthed a Chanel favorite that’s four years old: a gold lamé tunic with slim matching pants, under a lightweight brown-and-beige tweed coat trimmed with collar and cuffs of the same lamé. It’s the oddball mixture of fabrics that makes it always look up-to-date, and I can usually wear it at least twice a year.
Also in March, an invitation to the benefit preview of Christie’s auction of Tony Duquette’s furnishings demanded “Evening Dress in the Duquette Manner.” Three years ago I couldn’t resist buying Oscar de la Renta’s very elaborate ruffled jacket in celadon-and-white-striped taffeta embroidered with delicate pink flowers with green stems... almost a costume. (A wise saleslady once told me that if you buy something you don’t need, the invitation will come.) When I fell for it, I also ordered two solid taffeta celadon skirts, long and short, as well as thin cashmere sweaters in celadon and pale pink.
For the Duquette evening I wore the long skirt, the matching sweater, and the jacket. I piled on three vintage costume necklaces of green and red stones, from a collection accumulated over many years. Then I added big vintage green-and-red Chanel earrings and a massive matching brooch pinned on one sleeve.
That, I decided, took care of the “Duquette Manner” and proved my theory that if you buy things you love, take care of them, and hang on to them even though you don’t know why, a day will come when they prove brilliantly useful. Also, small jewelry makes small women smaller. Big jewelry for all women!
Oscar’s striped jacket reverses to plain celadon, and with the short skirt, the pink sweater, and my good pearls it makes a great party suit. (Note: Pearls can sometimes make older women look older.) I expect to own this outfit forever. Obviously I’m not of the “give away everything you haven’t worn in the last few years” school—that attitude is for the very trendy or ultrarich. Most women would be wiser to keep their greatest buys in the back of their closets for that distant future in which I now find myself living. I still miss a Jean Muir tweed cape I gave away 23 years ago. As for my four superb Norells from the sixties, I could wear them today—if only I still had them.
Soon after the Duquette evening, I went to a dinner party in my most beloved possession, a short black velvet Chanel jacket embroidered by Lesage with bunches of violets. Fifteen years ago it came with long, wide black satin pants, and I paid more for it than any other piece in my closet. I’ve had the satin trim rebound in grosgrain, and it never looks less than splendid. I wore the jacket open over a plain black silk, low-cut chemise tucked into new black velvet pants, a multistranded Miriam Haskell necklace in two tones of green, and large amethyst briolette drop earrings. As with most of my clothes, my friends have seen that jacket, worn one way or another, at least once a year for fifteen years, but I doubt they remember. And if they do, so what?
Three of my friends dress exclusively in Armani. They’re all larger and more impressive than I am and always beautifully turned out, but rather than go the safe Armani way, I search for a touch of fantasy in my clothes. I think of getting dressed as a form of play, like sketching flowers with colored pencils.
I’m serious about buying the very best accessories. They know no age limitations, and they reward me every day. Hermès scarves tend to follow me out of the store. During the day I’m rarely without their transforming colors around my neck, even in a bathrobe. The minute one looks too familiar I send it to a good home. As for Hermès bags, I buy no others. Once you’ve owned one, there’s no turning back. I take them to be refurbished every year so they always look well loved, no matter their age. My husband has indulged my Kelly passion with a black crocodile medium-size bag and two minis, in ruby-red and dark-green crocodile. Age has its prerogatives!
What did I buy this past spring? (After all, I don’t wear only old clothes.) Two long evening dresses from Oscar, one with a pink lace top and an Edwardian black satin skirt, the other in a raspberry silk crepe, with a long-sleeved, boat-necked overblouse and a mermaid skirt slit high on the side, both ordered with stoles to guard against air-conditioning. I couldn’t resist Oscar’s light white wool coat trimmed with eyelet for daytime—it’s been forever since I’ve bought a new spring coat. I remember when it was a beloved yearly ritual. The coat came with a matching skirt and top, and I added an identical top in navy—many different looks to be created there.
At Chanel, in the cruise collection, I found a navy-and-white-striped Norfolk jacket that looked really new, as well as a simple but ravishing long pink jacket with a fly front. (After a certain age, a woman’s wardrobe needs frequent transfusions of pink.) From the spring collection I bought only a tucked white chiffon blouse with a floppy black bow, very “Coco.” I hope M. Lagerfeld starts to remember his loyal customers in the fall collection. At his prices, he’d better!
From Marni, in homage to Sarah Jessica Parker, I bought a whimsical navy cashmere sweater with two huge red-and-white- striped flowers at the neckline. Carrie would wear it with shorts; I’ll pull it over white silk trousers. And finally I found a Kate Spade short raincoat in geranium, an ideal casual cover-up. When I shop I always wear something tried and true. Eileen Ford once told me that when she judged foreign model competitions she brought photos of her best girls for comparison because you lose your eye so quickly; and the same thing goes for clothes.
As for shoes, I bought only Prada and Miu Miu flats. There may be some women of my age who want to flaunt bed-of-nails-hooker stilettos, but I”m not one of them. The height of heels today is as ridiculous as Marie Antoinette’s wigs, a form of tulip-mania although far more painful and potentially harmful. Foot fetishism, anyone? And what of the 80 percent of this spring’s shoes that are open in the back and front and must be worn without stockings? I did that in the last years of World War II and hated the feeling. Few bare legs are impeccably pretty, and even fewer toes. To me, a woman dressed for evening with bare legs simply looks unfinished. How can the shoe industry not offer more choice? Thank Heaven for Kate Spade and her fleet of flat Mary Janes; thank Heaven for spotless white Keds.
On many a summer day I may indeed be that famous little old lady in tennis shoes, but in immaculate white trousers, a fresh white shirt, a red cardigan over my shoulders, and a sulfur-yellow Hermès bag, I won’t feel like one. And my feet won’t hurt.
This article was originally published in the August 2001 issue of Vogue.
According to a longtime rule of fashion, if you were old enough to wear it the first time around, don’t consider wearing it again. I’ve sported bare legs with heels, the cinched-waist mid-calf skirt, the trapeze, the chemise, the chiffon blouse without a bra, the Mary Quant miniskirt, the YSL Smoking, the total Courrèges white-boot look, the bell-bottom trousers with the po’ boy sweater, the power suit, and the tie-dyed Zandra Rhodes evening pajamas. If I had to dress in something I’d never worn before, I’d be limited to a pair of stilettos with fishnet stockings, a Pucci bikini, and a cocktail hat.
That’s what happens to a woman like me, 73 years old and as fascinated by clothes as I ever was in my 20s. I’m more than old enough to dress any way I choose, to adopt a Katharine Hepburn-like uniform and stick to it with dignity for all occasions, or else to find a way to remain stylish without looking like Vivienne Westwood.
But I love fashion too much to confine myself to a standard look. I had my era in which to use clothes for seduction, and I made the most of it. Now, as I have for decades, I can focus on being imaginatively put-together yet appropriate. Yes, appropriate, a word that will never go out of style. As Emerson said, “The sense of being perfectly well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity which religion is powerless to bestow.” Go, Ralph Waldo!
I learned about grown-up clothes when I lived in Paris for a year after college in 1948-1949 and was introduced to the inexpensive “little dressmaker” who copied the haute couture with great skill. Women then were either still schoolgirls or considered to be adults. There were no hottie, Sex and the City years in which to roam the wilder shores of fashion. By the time the New Look lost its grip. I’d developed the beginnings of a style of my own—never flamboyant or cutting-edge, and always far from funky, yet both sophisticated and fundamentally classic. I’ve definitely followed the fashions of five decades, but I’ve never been a fashionista. My miniskirts never crept up to micro. Today I can see absolutely no reason why age should make me change my personal style in any way.
Before I tell you the current secrets of my closet, that intimate garden every woman cultivates, whether pruned or overgrown, Zen or magpie-full, I have to discuss my figure, since size determines options in clothes. With the plea that you won’t hate me for it, I must admit that I’ve maintained the same weight for 46 years, ever since I started to exercise regularly and watch my diet with severe dedication. Obviously I’m profoundly compulsive, but in a healthy way. I’ve never had an eating disorder, but I am a control freak who sticks to a lean high-protein diet, mostly chicken, fish, fresh fruit, and a bit of veg, plus the occasional fling with a steak. Fortunately I have no sweet tooth, and as the years passed, my stomach became accustomed to smaller portions. I’m hardly a haggard bag of bones since my 104 pounds are confined to a five-foot-two frame, with strong but slender arms, rather skinny legs, and a torso that’s firm and very flexible but marked by the rounded tummy I was born with. (I can feel my abs of iron but have never seen them.) I’m a 6 above the waist, an 8 below, so I buy clothes in 8 and have them altered.
I started doing Pilates long before it was popular, and I owe my body as much to 36 years of Pilates three times a week as to disciplined eating. My trainer, Diane Severino, says that my muscles simply have no idea that Ive grown older since they’ve been subjected to the same extremely rigorous advanced workout for decades.
Maintaining my weight and shape—although a few pounds have given in to gravity and migrated south to my waistline—doesn’t mean that I find it easy to dress well in this all-but-hysterically youth-oriented period of fashion.
There has never been a time in which so many designers are concentrating their efforts on the young and perfect, that midriff-baring, navel-proud, thighs-of-a-goddess tiny minority. Older customers are heartlessly treated as if they have no right to new clothes for the many special occasions in their life. Do designers imagine that most women have the body of Jennifer Lopez? Don’t they understand that women with the money to buy really good clothes and who still have active social lives usually are not young? Oh, don’t get me started!
For daytime there’s no problem. I have a many-hued bouquet of Chanel jackets bought over the years for the promotion of my novels. I’ve given away those that somehow lost their zing—which, mysteriously, can happen overnight; I’ve changed a lot of shoulder pads, but I still have a dozen jackets to choose from, wearing them over J.Crew long-sleeved, round-necked T-shirts, Chanel blouses, French-cuffed white cotton shirts made in Hong Kong by Ascot Chang, or thin cashmere sweaters, all of which I tuck into my pants and belt.
I live in pants by day or night 90 percent of the time because they make me look taller. I have them custom made by Lucy De Caste nou in Beverly Hills. She has my patterns in pleated and flat pants, which we adjust from time to time. I wear white linen, cotton, and silk crepe in the summer, and black in all weights and fabrics the rest of the year. I also have a few pairs of gray-flannel and beige pants. I believe that the luxury of made-to-order pants is the most important element of my wardrobe. Impeccable fit is as essential to me as comfort: I’ve never found a pair of jeans I could endure for long. The skirts of my suits get an airing only for serious lunches, board meetings, and public speaking. I also own several perfect black Chanel silk, wool, and chiffon skirts to pair with jackets for evening, worn with sheer black Wolford panty hose and black shoes, again for a taller look. I always wear skirts for ballroom dancing, a hobby of my husband’s and mine.
I need a lot of evening clothes, and that’s where the difficulty begins. I’ve recently conducted a sweep of all the better-dress departments of Beverly Hills without finding one single acceptable long dress that covered the upper arms, the Bermuda Triangle that few women over a certain age want to reveal, or as Boaz Mazor of Oscar de la Renta says, “Never wave goodbye over 40.” (How long has it been since you’ve seen Sophia Loren’s upper arms in a photo?) What to do if you’re not Sophia and haute couture isn’t an option? I’ve found several paths.
First of all I keep my most successful purchases as long as possible, so that my closet contains many outfits that are more than ten years old and many individual items, like a ravishing black-and-gold lace scarf from Geoffrey Beene and an Anne Klein suede blouson zip-up jacket, both of which I’ve had for 30 years, and which go out to dinner smashingly together over a black sweater and pants, Suits aside, I buy only separates—dresses are too limited—and I make time every season to experiment with putting things together in new ways. When I find an unexpected combination I write it down so it won’t be forgotten. I never buy prints, because they don’t adapt to mix- and-never-match, and they’re too memorable.
Secondly, I go to my favorite designers’ trunk shows when they come to L.A., to ferret out those few items designed for someone over 35. (I always crumple fabric in my fist for five minutes to see how badly it wrinkles, and I order nothing I haven’t studied while looking in a full-length mirror.) Trunk shows allow me to order clothes in color since I try to wear black as rarely as possible. Women of my age tend to wear black, and I disappear at a party unless I’m wearing color—which, in any case, is more flattering. Finally, I’m getting to know the vintage stores where I can pick up the essential odd jackets that can turn pants and skirts into new outfits.
To be specific, in March, to the gala opening of the Alvin Ailey company at the Music Center, the invitation called for “festive cocktail wear.” I unearthed a Chanel favorite that’s four years old: a gold lamé tunic with slim matching pants, under a lightweight brown-and-beige tweed coat trimmed with collar and cuffs of the same lamé. It’s the oddball mixture of fabrics that makes it always look up-to-date, and I can usually wear it at least twice a year.
Also in March, an invitation to the benefit preview of Christie’s auction of Tony Duquette’s furnishings demanded “Evening Dress in the Duquette Manner.” Three years ago I couldn’t resist buying Oscar de la Renta’s very elaborate ruffled jacket in celadon-and-white-striped taffeta embroidered with delicate pink flowers with green stems... almost a costume. (A wise saleslady once told me that if you buy something you don’t need, the invitation will come.) When I fell for it, I also ordered two solid taffeta celadon skirts, long and short, as well as thin cashmere sweaters in celadon and pale pink.
For the Duquette evening I wore the long skirt, the matching sweater, and the jacket. I piled on three vintage costume necklaces of green and red stones, from a collection accumulated over many years. Then I added big vintage green-and-red Chanel earrings and a massive matching brooch pinned on one sleeve.
That, I decided, took care of the “Duquette Manner” and proved my theory that if you buy things you love, take care of them, and hang on to them even though you don’t know why, a day will come when they prove brilliantly useful. Also, small jewelry makes small women smaller. Big jewelry for all women!
Oscar’s striped jacket reverses to plain celadon, and with the short skirt, the pink sweater, and my good pearls it makes a great party suit. (Note: Pearls can sometimes make older women look older.) I expect to own this outfit forever. Obviously I’m not of the “give away everything you haven’t worn in the last few years” school—that attitude is for the very trendy or ultrarich. Most women would be wiser to keep their greatest buys in the back of their closets for that distant future in which I now find myself living. I still miss a Jean Muir tweed cape I gave away 23 years ago. As for my four superb Norells from the sixties, I could wear them today—if only I still had them.
Soon after the Duquette evening, I went to a dinner party in my most beloved possession, a short black velvet Chanel jacket embroidered by Lesage with bunches of violets. Fifteen years ago it came with long, wide black satin pants, and I paid more for it than any other piece in my closet. I’ve had the satin trim rebound in grosgrain, and it never looks less than splendid. I wore the jacket open over a plain black silk, low-cut chemise tucked into new black velvet pants, a multistranded Miriam Haskell necklace in two tones of green, and large amethyst briolette drop earrings. As with most of my clothes, my friends have seen that jacket, worn one way or another, at least once a year for fifteen years, but I doubt they remember. And if they do, so what?
Three of my friends dress exclusively in Armani. They’re all larger and more impressive than I am and always beautifully turned out, but rather than go the safe Armani way, I search for a touch of fantasy in my clothes. I think of getting dressed as a form of play, like sketching flowers with colored pencils.
I’m serious about buying the very best accessories. They know no age limitations, and they reward me every day. Hermès scarves tend to follow me out of the store. During the day I’m rarely without their transforming colors around my neck, even in a bathrobe. The minute one looks too familiar I send it to a good home. As for Hermès bags, I buy no others. Once you’ve owned one, there’s no turning back. I take them to be refurbished every year so they always look well loved, no matter their age. My husband has indulged my Kelly passion with a black crocodile medium-size bag and two minis, in ruby-red and dark-green crocodile. Age has its prerogatives!
What did I buy this past spring? (After all, I don’t wear only old clothes.) Two long evening dresses from Oscar, one with a pink lace top and an Edwardian black satin skirt, the other in a raspberry silk crepe, with a long-sleeved, boat-necked overblouse and a mermaid skirt slit high on the side, both ordered with stoles to guard against air-conditioning. I couldn’t resist Oscar’s light white wool coat trimmed with eyelet for daytime—it’s been forever since I’ve bought a new spring coat. I remember when it was a beloved yearly ritual. The coat came with a matching skirt and top, and I added an identical top in navy—many different looks to be created there.
At Chanel, in the cruise collection, I found a navy-and-white-striped Norfolk jacket that looked really new, as well as a simple but ravishing long pink jacket with a fly front. (After a certain age, a woman’s wardrobe needs frequent transfusions of pink.) From the spring collection I bought only a tucked white chiffon blouse with a floppy black bow, very “Coco.” I hope M. Lagerfeld starts to remember his loyal customers in the fall collection. At his prices, he’d better!
From Marni, in homage to Sarah Jessica Parker, I bought a whimsical navy cashmere sweater with two huge red-and-white- striped flowers at the neckline. Carrie would wear it with shorts; I’ll pull it over white silk trousers. And finally I found a Kate Spade short raincoat in geranium, an ideal casual cover-up. When I shop I always wear something tried and true. Eileen Ford once told me that when she judged foreign model competitions she brought photos of her best girls for comparison because you lose your eye so quickly; and the same thing goes for clothes.
As for shoes, I bought only Prada and Miu Miu flats. There may be some women of my age who want to flaunt bed-of-nails-hooker stilettos, but I”m not one of them. The height of heels today is as ridiculous as Marie Antoinette’s wigs, a form of tulip-mania although far more painful and potentially harmful. Foot fetishism, anyone? And what of the 80 percent of this spring’s shoes that are open in the back and front and must be worn without stockings? I did that in the last years of World War II and hated the feeling. Few bare legs are impeccably pretty, and even fewer toes. To me, a woman dressed for evening with bare legs simply looks unfinished. How can the shoe industry not offer more choice? Thank Heaven for Kate Spade and her fleet of flat Mary Janes; thank Heaven for spotless white Keds.
On many a summer day I may indeed be that famous little old lady in tennis shoes, but in immaculate white trousers, a fresh white shirt, a red cardigan over my shoulders, and a sulfur-yellow Hermès bag, I won’t feel like one. And my feet won’t hurt.
Thursday, May 30, 2019
There's a Normal People TV Show, and It's Already Filming
We're getting a Normal People TV show, an adaptation of Sally Rooney's book that you and everyone you know and the models and Taylor Swift is reading or has read. It's already filming, and in the US, it will air on Hulu, announced today. The streaming site will air the upcoming BBC Three adaptation in twelve half-hour episodes, following protagonists Marianne and Connell as they go from high school to college while pingpong-ing back and forth like a millennial Irish Ross and Rachel. If that sounds flippant, I'm only being an ironic millennial myself—Rooney's second novel is cleverly, addictively written and I hope the show is as good as, for example, the adaptation of Elena Ferrante's Neopolitan novels was.
Here's what we know: Sally Rooney is adapting the series with writers Alice Birch and Mark O’Rowe. The series stars Daisy Edgar-Jones (War of the Worlds, Cold Feet) as Marianne, and Paul Mescal as Connell. Lenny Abrahamson (of Room) and Hettie McDonald are directing the series. It premieres in 2020.
Edgar-Jones and Mescal seem like hip, appropriately cynical yet beautiful twenty-somethings from a quick perusal of their Instagram feeds, so things bode well for the series.
A casting call was apparently put out to real-life Trinity College students in Dublin to appear in the show, to heighten the realism (hopefully there will also be real Tesco sandwiches and bottlers of Magners). Now if the Normal People TV show can get all its Marxist theory correctly rendered, that will be a bonus.
Monday, April 29, 2019
A Phish Wife Reviews the Trey Anastasio Documentary Between Me and My Mind
I never thought I’d say this, necessarily, but Trey Anastasio and I fundamentally agree when it comes to Phish, the legendarily trippy jam outfit he fronts. “It’s a weird band,” Anastasio says in the new documentary about him, Between Me and My Mind, which premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival on Friday night. The line elicited uproarious laughter from the frothing crowd of Phishheads at the Beacon Theatre in New York, a crew so passionate they could put the Avengers: Endgame fans to shame. It was funny because it’s true: Phish is a quartet known for 13-minute jams and psychedelic laser light shows; a drummer, Jon Fishman, who wears a donut-print dress to every concert just because; and onstage theatrics that have included the appearance of Abe Vigoda in a wombat costume.
My husband of seven years’ musical soul is stirred by all of this; meanwhile, I’m over here listening to Lemonade for the millionth time. As I previously wrote at Vogue, this is my plight as a Phish wife, and occasional Phish widow, because another thing Phish is known for is its touring prowess, siren-calling my husband and his fellow “phans” to shows all over the country. Inconveniently (for me), they are often timed to major holidays like New Year’s Eve at Madison Square Garden, Halloween in Vegas (not exactly friendly for our 2- and 5-year-old children), and Fourth of July at SPAC (the Saratoga Performing Arts Center). Though we’ve largely come to a happy, thoughtfully negotiated place with my husband’s Phish show attendance, it’s fair to say I nestled into my seat at the world premiere of Between Me and My Mind as something of a skeptic—even if I was sort of proud that I knew the title derived from the song “Light” and the lyric: “I can see the light between me and my mind.”
I’m not sure what came over me, but in the ensuing 100-minute, deeply heartfelt documentary directed by Steven Cantor, I did, actually, see the light—not so much about Phish’s music but in Anastasio himself. I saw him as a guy who wakes up at 6:15 a.m., makes his coffee, pets his cat, and tinkers around on the piano in his New York living room, which includes a basket teeming with Broadway Playbills (at last, my kind of show!); a guy who played the guitar beside his dying best friend, whose loss he attempts to process throughout the film; a goofy dad who cracks corny jokes with his two daughters, Eliza and Bella, who recall him gutting their old TV to make an under-the-sea diorama; a creative with multiple side hustles (Trey Anastasio Band and a new solo album, Ghosts of the Forest) who gets really, really excited about meticulously planning Phish’s annual New Year’s Eve “gag.” In the film, it’s the 2018 stunt of turning the MSG stage into a pirate ship sailing over a sea of fans to the sounds of a new song: “Soul Planet,” the title of which is repeated on a loop and may be stuck in my head until the end of time.
Yes, Phish is a weird band, but Between Me and My Mind showed me, up close, that it’s a weird band fronted by a good man and his true friends, the kind of guys who remind you of your favorite uncles. The joy and laughter are contagious when Anastasio visits each member of Phish at their rustic, though very well-appointed, New England homes/studios to hash out the plan for the big “Soul Planet” performance. After three decades as bandmates in one of the longest-running and most successful touring bands ever, it’s nice to see they’re not jaded, cocky, or otherwise over it. In fact, keyboardist Page McConnell tells Anastasio that he’s having as much fun now as he did when they first started playing together at the University of Vermont, at the Burlington bar Nectar’s in the ’80s. Anastasio reminisces that Sue—the woman who would become his wife—lived in an apartment nearby. Thirty-five years later, he says with a smile, and they’re still together. Maybe I’m biased because my husband and I also met in college 18 years ago, but the nostalgic moments in Between Me and My Mind moved me deeply: They seemed to say that friends, loves, and the dreams you have when you’re young can actually last.
Of course, jam god though he may be, Anastasio isn’t perfect, and the film acknowledges as much in its own way—that he was arrested in 2006 for possession of heroin and other drugs and driving while intoxicated; Phish broke up from 2004 to 2009. Between Me and My Mind never spells that out for the viewer in text on the screen like other rockumentaries might; it assumes you already know the backstory and, in lighter scenes, are in on all of the jokes. It is a film made primarily for phans (and well-informed, open-minded wives of). But the lack of traditional, overt explanation also makes the narrative feel more intimate and personal—like when Trey and Sue Anastasio walk hand in hand on the boardwalk of the Jersey Shore, and she tells him that, when he was using, she was scared he would die. When the phone rang on the night of his arrest, in fact, she thought someone was calling to tell her that he had. But when he asks if she ever regretted marrying him, she shakes her head no.
Between Me and My Mind also hinted at the question of when, if ever, Phish will retire—perhaps return my husband to me for cozy New Year’s Eves at home with Champagne and takeout, like regular people? It wasn’t the answer a Phish wife dreams of: Anastasio references Martin Scorsese’s the Band documentary, The Last Waltz, in which lead guitarist Robbie Robertson says he can’t bear the thought of 20 years on the road. Anastasio, on the other hand, disagrees, saying something like, “I’m going to be doing this forever.” The crowd went wild, my husband rejoiced, and after seeing this movie, I can’t exactly blame him. Anastasio is the furthest thing from a megalomaniacal rock star; if my husband must go to Vegas and MSG and SPAC, at least it’s for a worthy person.
My husband of seven years’ musical soul is stirred by all of this; meanwhile, I’m over here listening to Lemonade for the millionth time. As I previously wrote at Vogue, this is my plight as a Phish wife, and occasional Phish widow, because another thing Phish is known for is its touring prowess, siren-calling my husband and his fellow “phans” to shows all over the country. Inconveniently (for me), they are often timed to major holidays like New Year’s Eve at Madison Square Garden, Halloween in Vegas (not exactly friendly for our 2- and 5-year-old children), and Fourth of July at SPAC (the Saratoga Performing Arts Center). Though we’ve largely come to a happy, thoughtfully negotiated place with my husband’s Phish show attendance, it’s fair to say I nestled into my seat at the world premiere of Between Me and My Mind as something of a skeptic—even if I was sort of proud that I knew the title derived from the song “Light” and the lyric: “I can see the light between me and my mind.”
I’m not sure what came over me, but in the ensuing 100-minute, deeply heartfelt documentary directed by Steven Cantor, I did, actually, see the light—not so much about Phish’s music but in Anastasio himself. I saw him as a guy who wakes up at 6:15 a.m., makes his coffee, pets his cat, and tinkers around on the piano in his New York living room, which includes a basket teeming with Broadway Playbills (at last, my kind of show!); a guy who played the guitar beside his dying best friend, whose loss he attempts to process throughout the film; a goofy dad who cracks corny jokes with his two daughters, Eliza and Bella, who recall him gutting their old TV to make an under-the-sea diorama; a creative with multiple side hustles (Trey Anastasio Band and a new solo album, Ghosts of the Forest) who gets really, really excited about meticulously planning Phish’s annual New Year’s Eve “gag.” In the film, it’s the 2018 stunt of turning the MSG stage into a pirate ship sailing over a sea of fans to the sounds of a new song: “Soul Planet,” the title of which is repeated on a loop and may be stuck in my head until the end of time.
Yes, Phish is a weird band, but Between Me and My Mind showed me, up close, that it’s a weird band fronted by a good man and his true friends, the kind of guys who remind you of your favorite uncles. The joy and laughter are contagious when Anastasio visits each member of Phish at their rustic, though very well-appointed, New England homes/studios to hash out the plan for the big “Soul Planet” performance. After three decades as bandmates in one of the longest-running and most successful touring bands ever, it’s nice to see they’re not jaded, cocky, or otherwise over it. In fact, keyboardist Page McConnell tells Anastasio that he’s having as much fun now as he did when they first started playing together at the University of Vermont, at the Burlington bar Nectar’s in the ’80s. Anastasio reminisces that Sue—the woman who would become his wife—lived in an apartment nearby. Thirty-five years later, he says with a smile, and they’re still together. Maybe I’m biased because my husband and I also met in college 18 years ago, but the nostalgic moments in Between Me and My Mind moved me deeply: They seemed to say that friends, loves, and the dreams you have when you’re young can actually last.
Of course, jam god though he may be, Anastasio isn’t perfect, and the film acknowledges as much in its own way—that he was arrested in 2006 for possession of heroin and other drugs and driving while intoxicated; Phish broke up from 2004 to 2009. Between Me and My Mind never spells that out for the viewer in text on the screen like other rockumentaries might; it assumes you already know the backstory and, in lighter scenes, are in on all of the jokes. It is a film made primarily for phans (and well-informed, open-minded wives of). But the lack of traditional, overt explanation also makes the narrative feel more intimate and personal—like when Trey and Sue Anastasio walk hand in hand on the boardwalk of the Jersey Shore, and she tells him that, when he was using, she was scared he would die. When the phone rang on the night of his arrest, in fact, she thought someone was calling to tell her that he had. But when he asks if she ever regretted marrying him, she shakes her head no.
Between Me and My Mind also hinted at the question of when, if ever, Phish will retire—perhaps return my husband to me for cozy New Year’s Eves at home with Champagne and takeout, like regular people? It wasn’t the answer a Phish wife dreams of: Anastasio references Martin Scorsese’s the Band documentary, The Last Waltz, in which lead guitarist Robbie Robertson says he can’t bear the thought of 20 years on the road. Anastasio, on the other hand, disagrees, saying something like, “I’m going to be doing this forever.” The crowd went wild, my husband rejoiced, and after seeing this movie, I can’t exactly blame him. Anastasio is the furthest thing from a megalomaniacal rock star; if my husband must go to Vegas and MSG and SPAC, at least it’s for a worthy person.
Monday, February 25, 2019
A Helpful Guide to Nailing Your Oscars Acceptance Speech
The Oscars is trying it without a host this year, proving that even the Academy knows that after 91 years, it’s time for some change-ups. But while red carpet trends may come and go, there’s one awards show staple that we can always count on: the speeches.
The awards show acceptance speech is a historically hard one to truly perfect—not every attendee arrives prepared, for one thing—but when a good one is carried off, it’s really something to behold. As the founders of an international speech-writing service, we thought it would be a good time to provide a go-to guide to the art of the expertly delivered acceptance. (Even if you’re not nominated this year, who knows what the future will bring?) So without further ado, we’ve rounded up our favorites from Academy Awards history, all of which prove that whether you’re delivering a maid of honor toast or accepting a best picture trophy, there are certain speech-giving rules that will guarantee you a “standing O”—on whatever stage you find yourself.
Use the below historical Oscar moments as your guide to giving a great speech. And if all else fails? Keep it brief, keep it heartfelt, and, please, don’t forget to thank your family. (They won’t forget it.)
PRO TIP #1: HOOK THEM IN
Shirley MacLaine, Best Actress for Terms of Endearment (1984)
Faced with a program that tends to run way too long, you’d better believe that the Academy producers are itching to hit that play-off music button, so there’s no time to waste. MacLaine does it right by coming out of the gate with a hysterical opening line—“I’m going to cry, because this show has been as long as my career”—that both breaks the ice, gets the audience on her side, and sets the tone for her whole speech. It’s also just self-deprecating enough that when she one-eightys at the end, clutching her Oscar and proclaiming she really deserves it, everyone, even her fellow nominees, cheer her on.
PRO TIP #2: SHARE THE AIR
John Legend and Common, Best Original Song, “Glory,” from Selma (2015)
It’s obvious Common and Legend have had lots of practice on award stages, because joint speeches are incredibly tough, and these two make it look easy. (It’s hard to know when to pick up the mic and when to hand it over, but they expertly planned it out.) The key: Even though there are two speakers, there’s one cohesive speech. Legend’s portion builds off of Common’s, culminating in a poignant tearjerker. Not even John Travolta’s bizarre amount of face touching could bring it down.
PRO TIP #3: KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET
Julie Andrews, Best Actress for Mary Poppins (1965)
It may be the most tried tip in speech-giving history, but it’s also the truest: When in doubt, just keep it short and sweet. Andrews’s 1965 best actress speech clocks in at just about 30 seconds, managing to both leave the audience wanting more without skimping on the sentiment. (She thanks the whole of America, which is actually a sort of genius method of ensuring you don’t forget any names or lose the crowd by rattling off every agent and manager and hairstylist and PA you’ve ever worked with.)
PRO TIP #4: EXPRESS YOURSELF
Halle Berry, Best Actress for Monster’s Ball (2002)
In 2002, Berry became the first black woman to win the Academy Award for best actress, and while meeting that historic and overdue moment may have been daunting, she certainly brought it all: She communicates the magnitude of the moment, and makes us feel it, too, delivering poignant “thank yous” to the black actresses who came before her and paved the way. Even when the show’s producers try to count her off, her (appropriate) frustration is winning. She shakes her Oscar and shouts, “I’ve got to take this time—74 years here!” It culminates with Berry pumping her fist and jumping in the air. All of which remind us why she’s won best actress in the first place.
PRO TIP #5: STICK TO YOUR THEME
Viola Davis, Best Supporting Actress for Fences (2017)
Before Davis even accepts her best supporting actress Oscar in 2017, the audience is already on their feet—Davis does her part by giving them good reason to stay there. Every good speech has one theme that’s woven throughout: Davis’s is about living. She explains that the stories she wants to tell belong to the people who came before her, whose lives were frequently ignored, saying: “I became an artist—and thank God I did—because we are the only profession that celebrates what it means to live a life.” And when she closes out her time, she returns to her theme, thanking her husband and daughter for teaching her every day how to live. It’s cohesive, and powerful, and it’s about something far bigger than an awards show—Oscar gold.
PRO TIP #6: GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT
Matthew McConaughey, Best Actor for Dallas Buyers Club (2014)
It’s important to remember that a good speech is not all about you. Consider the people in the room: What do they want to hear? How do they want to feel? It’s an easy, almost hokey trick, but McConaughey gives the people what they what when he closes his best actor speech with his iconic Fast Times at Ridgemont High tagline: “Alright, alright, alright.” As he holds his Oscar close, that line also serves to remind the audience just how far he’s come.
PRO TIP #7: TELL A STORY
Jordan Peele, Best Screenplay for Get Out (2018)
Great speeches tell stories, and stories need a beginning, middle, and end. It’s no surprise that Peele, the winner for best screenplay, got that straight away. He starts off by setting the scene, admitting that he put down his pen nearly 20 times while writing Get Out, only to pick it up a 21st. The middle is all about the people who helped him create it. And the end is the resolution: victory. Peele also involves the audience, reminding everybody watching that everyone who bought tickets, told their friends—and screamed at the screen—is a part of this journey, too.
PRO TIP #8: NOVELTY OVER EVERYTHING
Best Picture, Moonlight (2016)
When you’re delivering a speech, there are expected variables—bad lighting or play-off music or bored seat fillers—but we doubt the 2016 winners for best picture could have ever anticipated their names would be called halfway through someone else’s speech. So though novelty may not have not been Barry Jenkins and Adele Romanski’s original intention for their speech, it’s certainly something no one will ever forget. Despite the truly insane mix-up, they’re somehow able to fold in the drama without letting it overshadow their big moment. It’s the definition of a memorable moment that people will be talking about the next day—and isn’t that exactly what you’re hoping for?
The awards show acceptance speech is a historically hard one to truly perfect—not every attendee arrives prepared, for one thing—but when a good one is carried off, it’s really something to behold. As the founders of an international speech-writing service, we thought it would be a good time to provide a go-to guide to the art of the expertly delivered acceptance. (Even if you’re not nominated this year, who knows what the future will bring?) So without further ado, we’ve rounded up our favorites from Academy Awards history, all of which prove that whether you’re delivering a maid of honor toast or accepting a best picture trophy, there are certain speech-giving rules that will guarantee you a “standing O”—on whatever stage you find yourself.
Use the below historical Oscar moments as your guide to giving a great speech. And if all else fails? Keep it brief, keep it heartfelt, and, please, don’t forget to thank your family. (They won’t forget it.)
PRO TIP #1: HOOK THEM IN
Shirley MacLaine, Best Actress for Terms of Endearment (1984)
Faced with a program that tends to run way too long, you’d better believe that the Academy producers are itching to hit that play-off music button, so there’s no time to waste. MacLaine does it right by coming out of the gate with a hysterical opening line—“I’m going to cry, because this show has been as long as my career”—that both breaks the ice, gets the audience on her side, and sets the tone for her whole speech. It’s also just self-deprecating enough that when she one-eightys at the end, clutching her Oscar and proclaiming she really deserves it, everyone, even her fellow nominees, cheer her on.
PRO TIP #2: SHARE THE AIR
John Legend and Common, Best Original Song, “Glory,” from Selma (2015)
It’s obvious Common and Legend have had lots of practice on award stages, because joint speeches are incredibly tough, and these two make it look easy. (It’s hard to know when to pick up the mic and when to hand it over, but they expertly planned it out.) The key: Even though there are two speakers, there’s one cohesive speech. Legend’s portion builds off of Common’s, culminating in a poignant tearjerker. Not even John Travolta’s bizarre amount of face touching could bring it down.
PRO TIP #3: KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET
Julie Andrews, Best Actress for Mary Poppins (1965)
It may be the most tried tip in speech-giving history, but it’s also the truest: When in doubt, just keep it short and sweet. Andrews’s 1965 best actress speech clocks in at just about 30 seconds, managing to both leave the audience wanting more without skimping on the sentiment. (She thanks the whole of America, which is actually a sort of genius method of ensuring you don’t forget any names or lose the crowd by rattling off every agent and manager and hairstylist and PA you’ve ever worked with.)
PRO TIP #4: EXPRESS YOURSELF
Halle Berry, Best Actress for Monster’s Ball (2002)
In 2002, Berry became the first black woman to win the Academy Award for best actress, and while meeting that historic and overdue moment may have been daunting, she certainly brought it all: She communicates the magnitude of the moment, and makes us feel it, too, delivering poignant “thank yous” to the black actresses who came before her and paved the way. Even when the show’s producers try to count her off, her (appropriate) frustration is winning. She shakes her Oscar and shouts, “I’ve got to take this time—74 years here!” It culminates with Berry pumping her fist and jumping in the air. All of which remind us why she’s won best actress in the first place.
PRO TIP #5: STICK TO YOUR THEME
Viola Davis, Best Supporting Actress for Fences (2017)
Before Davis even accepts her best supporting actress Oscar in 2017, the audience is already on their feet—Davis does her part by giving them good reason to stay there. Every good speech has one theme that’s woven throughout: Davis’s is about living. She explains that the stories she wants to tell belong to the people who came before her, whose lives were frequently ignored, saying: “I became an artist—and thank God I did—because we are the only profession that celebrates what it means to live a life.” And when she closes out her time, she returns to her theme, thanking her husband and daughter for teaching her every day how to live. It’s cohesive, and powerful, and it’s about something far bigger than an awards show—Oscar gold.
PRO TIP #6: GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT
Matthew McConaughey, Best Actor for Dallas Buyers Club (2014)
It’s important to remember that a good speech is not all about you. Consider the people in the room: What do they want to hear? How do they want to feel? It’s an easy, almost hokey trick, but McConaughey gives the people what they what when he closes his best actor speech with his iconic Fast Times at Ridgemont High tagline: “Alright, alright, alright.” As he holds his Oscar close, that line also serves to remind the audience just how far he’s come.
PRO TIP #7: TELL A STORY
Jordan Peele, Best Screenplay for Get Out (2018)
Great speeches tell stories, and stories need a beginning, middle, and end. It’s no surprise that Peele, the winner for best screenplay, got that straight away. He starts off by setting the scene, admitting that he put down his pen nearly 20 times while writing Get Out, only to pick it up a 21st. The middle is all about the people who helped him create it. And the end is the resolution: victory. Peele also involves the audience, reminding everybody watching that everyone who bought tickets, told their friends—and screamed at the screen—is a part of this journey, too.
PRO TIP #8: NOVELTY OVER EVERYTHING
Best Picture, Moonlight (2016)
When you’re delivering a speech, there are expected variables—bad lighting or play-off music or bored seat fillers—but we doubt the 2016 winners for best picture could have ever anticipated their names would be called halfway through someone else’s speech. So though novelty may not have not been Barry Jenkins and Adele Romanski’s original intention for their speech, it’s certainly something no one will ever forget. Despite the truly insane mix-up, they’re somehow able to fold in the drama without letting it overshadow their big moment. It’s the definition of a memorable moment that people will be talking about the next day—and isn’t that exactly what you’re hoping for?
Friday, January 25, 2019
We Need to Talk About Outlander Season 4
The season finale of Outlander airs this Sunday. The popular Starz series (based on Diana Gabaldon’s best-selling novels of the same name) racks up about 1.5 million viewers each week for its enviable blend of historical fiction and romance, fantasy and sci-fi—think of it like a mishmash of Downton Abbey, Braveheart, and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but with a strong feminist undercurrent. Unsurprisingly, women make up a huge portion of the fan base.
If you’re unfamiliar with the series, the show stars Caitriona Balfe as British combat nurse Claire Randall (a role that recently garnered her a fourth Golden Globe nomination), and the story begins with her visiting Inverness, Scotland, with her husband, just after the end of World War II. The pair are attempting to rekindle after their wartime separation and end up witnessing a traditional Druid dance at an ancient mystical site; Claire later returns alone and is somehow transported back to the Highlands in 1743, where she meets James “Jamie” Fraser, played by Sam Heughan. (While Heughan may, at face value, look like mere man candy in a kilt, once you become fully immersed in the show—and you will—you realize he’s so much more. So much so that he’s inspired a legion of fans to dub themselves “the Heuglighans.”) Once transported, Claire becomes caught up in the Jacobite risings—the attempt by the Catholic Charles Edward Stuart (aka Bonnie Prince Charlie) to regain the British throne for the House of Stuart—and ultimately, worlds and at least one metaphysical plane away from her husband, she falls madly, deeply, and passionately in love with Jamie.
Several seasons in, Claire and Jamie (aka the hottest couple on TV) have been through the ringer. There was the culture shock that one would suspect goes along with time travel, and then lots of flogging, war, prison time, sexual assault, rape, the loss of a child, separation, pirates, smugglers, and smallpox, among their many other trials. At the end of season three, Claire and Jamie arrive (via shipwreck, no less!) on the coast of Georgia in 1767. Season four picks up in the Carolinas.
Right off the bat, there are things not to like: Jamie’s bangs for one, a couple of pivotal miscastings for another, a plantation set (which, FYI, was actually shot in Scotland) that feels a little too Disney-esque, and yes, the fact that at times it can all skew very Days of Our Lives—but the subject matter is still shockingly resonant. In one early scene, Claire and Jamie stare out at an expansive view of the Appalachians, and she speaks about the American dream. She tells him about how the United States will take shape and the immigrants who will inhabit it. She addresses the injustices and barbarianism of slavery and explains how Native Americans, much like Highlanders, will have their lands taken from them and their traditions misappropriated. On the heels of an MLK weekend dominated with headlines about teens wearing MAGA hats facing off with Native American elder Nathan Phillips in Washington, D.C., and legions of football fans still employing the “tomahawk chop” in Arrowhead Stadium, a storyline that touches on the unique struggles of indigenous people feels ripped from the news, even if it’s set in the 18th century.
While it’s all admittedly a bit heavy for a series most famous for its very realistic “did they just show that?!” rolls in the hay, Outlander has always been after more than just cheap thrills. Though it’s a show that has always shaken off any claims of a political agenda, getting this particular storyline—set against the birth of a nation—right actually feels a lot like having a political point of view, especially at this moment in our American history. If Claire represents a more liberal way of thinking from the future, Jamie is her alpha male foil from the past. They both need each other to navigate this place where they’ve decided to plant their flag and call home, and their relationship flourishes when they listen to what the other has to say and compromise.
From the beginning, the overarching theme of Outlander has been that Jamie is a better man for having met Claire. He is challenged and changed by this union with a whip-smart woman who always lives her truth. She forces him to question everything he once knew. He may be thought of as the “King of Men,” but she’s the power behind the throne. This isn’t just a “behind every great man, there’s an even greater woman” tale, though—Claire learns just as much from Jamie as he does from her.
There’s a scene in the finale where the couple risks being separated yet again, and they clutch each other to say their goodbyes. You can feel the heat between them, all these years later, but there’s also respect, commitment, and a deep love for everything they’ve built together with an equal partner in a new land—things we should all try to remember and emulate as we cling to those we love and try to make sense of where we are right now.
If you’re unfamiliar with the series, the show stars Caitriona Balfe as British combat nurse Claire Randall (a role that recently garnered her a fourth Golden Globe nomination), and the story begins with her visiting Inverness, Scotland, with her husband, just after the end of World War II. The pair are attempting to rekindle after their wartime separation and end up witnessing a traditional Druid dance at an ancient mystical site; Claire later returns alone and is somehow transported back to the Highlands in 1743, where she meets James “Jamie” Fraser, played by Sam Heughan. (While Heughan may, at face value, look like mere man candy in a kilt, once you become fully immersed in the show—and you will—you realize he’s so much more. So much so that he’s inspired a legion of fans to dub themselves “the Heuglighans.”) Once transported, Claire becomes caught up in the Jacobite risings—the attempt by the Catholic Charles Edward Stuart (aka Bonnie Prince Charlie) to regain the British throne for the House of Stuart—and ultimately, worlds and at least one metaphysical plane away from her husband, she falls madly, deeply, and passionately in love with Jamie.
Several seasons in, Claire and Jamie (aka the hottest couple on TV) have been through the ringer. There was the culture shock that one would suspect goes along with time travel, and then lots of flogging, war, prison time, sexual assault, rape, the loss of a child, separation, pirates, smugglers, and smallpox, among their many other trials. At the end of season three, Claire and Jamie arrive (via shipwreck, no less!) on the coast of Georgia in 1767. Season four picks up in the Carolinas.
Right off the bat, there are things not to like: Jamie’s bangs for one, a couple of pivotal miscastings for another, a plantation set (which, FYI, was actually shot in Scotland) that feels a little too Disney-esque, and yes, the fact that at times it can all skew very Days of Our Lives—but the subject matter is still shockingly resonant. In one early scene, Claire and Jamie stare out at an expansive view of the Appalachians, and she speaks about the American dream. She tells him about how the United States will take shape and the immigrants who will inhabit it. She addresses the injustices and barbarianism of slavery and explains how Native Americans, much like Highlanders, will have their lands taken from them and their traditions misappropriated. On the heels of an MLK weekend dominated with headlines about teens wearing MAGA hats facing off with Native American elder Nathan Phillips in Washington, D.C., and legions of football fans still employing the “tomahawk chop” in Arrowhead Stadium, a storyline that touches on the unique struggles of indigenous people feels ripped from the news, even if it’s set in the 18th century.
While it’s all admittedly a bit heavy for a series most famous for its very realistic “did they just show that?!” rolls in the hay, Outlander has always been after more than just cheap thrills. Though it’s a show that has always shaken off any claims of a political agenda, getting this particular storyline—set against the birth of a nation—right actually feels a lot like having a political point of view, especially at this moment in our American history. If Claire represents a more liberal way of thinking from the future, Jamie is her alpha male foil from the past. They both need each other to navigate this place where they’ve decided to plant their flag and call home, and their relationship flourishes when they listen to what the other has to say and compromise.
From the beginning, the overarching theme of Outlander has been that Jamie is a better man for having met Claire. He is challenged and changed by this union with a whip-smart woman who always lives her truth. She forces him to question everything he once knew. He may be thought of as the “King of Men,” but she’s the power behind the throne. This isn’t just a “behind every great man, there’s an even greater woman” tale, though—Claire learns just as much from Jamie as he does from her.
There’s a scene in the finale where the couple risks being separated yet again, and they clutch each other to say their goodbyes. You can feel the heat between them, all these years later, but there’s also respect, commitment, and a deep love for everything they’ve built together with an equal partner in a new land—things we should all try to remember and emulate as we cling to those we love and try to make sense of where we are right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)