as someone who doesnt know that much about the fashion industry, but is very interested in creativity of any form, i was
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The September Issue
nitekat01 — 16 years ago(September 25, 2009 02:10 AM)
as someone who doesnt know that much about the fashion industry, but is very interested in creativity of any form, i was really hoping this documentary would give a good insight into the importance of the magazine (and sept issue) in relation to the fashion industry.
But all that it really seemed to boil down to, is that there are about 1 million readers, who will blindly go out follow the trends in this one magazine, and I, ANNA WINTOUR, Queen of Narnia/Wicked Witch of the Upper West Side, will be the one who decides what they copyand my decisions will be based on comments such as "it needs more colour!"huh???
there is that great scene in TDWP, where Meryl Streep comments on Anne Hathaways clothes telling her that she might not feel that fashion is important, but that the people in that room essentially dictate what the common person wears.
I was hoping the doco would give us more of an insight into that side of it! She has this apparent power, but does she make these decisions with any rationale or just whim?
other than that, i thought it had its moments. Anna W came across pretty bad, but NOT as bad as Miranda, so i guess it was a positive. Grace was greatdont know why she still works for Anna, and Annas daughter was the most shockingly normal (dare i say dismissive) of the fashion indutry. How disappointed her mother must have been. (I was secretly hoping for a twin sister to appear with a copy of JK Rowlings newest franchise hehehe)
oh and that camp black guy (i forget his name)in his vain attempts to appear creative, individual and unique proved himself to just be a silly gay/fashion stereoypeaw maybe he was like that before it became a stereotypestill he came across pretty silly. -
SweaterCannons — 16 years ago(September 25, 2009 05:30 PM)
I thought Bea Schaefer (Anna's daughter) was an exceedingly lovely, level-headed girl, too. She seems to respect what her mother does, but has a realistic attitude about the fashion world as well. I suspect Anna's "armour" masks quite a bit of defensiveness about what her family (her siblings and her daughter) think of her career. She says her siblings all think what she does isn't serious (I forget her exact words). And her father was a newspaper journalist, though he's the one who directed her into fashion.
Andre Leon Talley is the campy fellow. I, too, think he is ridiculous, and I really wonder how much influence he has at Vogue, or what he even does for that matter. His title is editor at large, but his name is near the very bottom of the masthead. He didn't seem, in the doc, to be much involved in putting the magazine together. He did dress Jennifer Hudson for the Oscars the year she won for Dream Girls, and the outfit she wore (an unflattering gown with a even more unflattering little cropped, high-collar jacket, metallic, I think) was universally derided. I'm not sure why anyone, other than himself, designated him an a fashion arbiter. -
DogtownGirl — 16 years ago(October 16, 2009 04:46 PM)
Wintour's daughter's name is spelled Bee Shaffer (see following, scroll down):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Wintour
Also, I thought Bee's not wanting to work in her Mother's industry, was most ball-sy. I admire her for speaking out. She came across well, in the film.
Andre Leon Talley came across badly, here Highly self-important, and lacking style. He tends to overload the putting on of accessories, too.
And yes, you can wear too much Louis Vuitton, lol. -
beforesunset83 — 16 years ago(March 01, 2010 08:14 PM)
Andre Leon Talley came across badly, here Highly self-important, and lacking style. He tends to overload the putting on of accessories, too.
And yes, you can wear too much Louis Vuitton, lol.
I agree. He needs to take Coco Chanel's legendary advice that before you leave the house, you should take one accessory off. Or in Andre's case, maybe thee accessories.
-"Tell our story Christian"
-"I'm flying high defying gravity"
-"Moo with me" -
Khaderach19 — 16 years ago(September 28, 2009 09:16 AM)
Since Wintour is at the helm of the most read fashion magazine in the world, that gives her clout over the entire industry.
remember the designer thakoon that was mentioned near the front half of the movie? He was chosen by wintour as a new talent to watch; she lead him into a gap contract and a consulting position at Mango (a spanish clothier company, which apparently pays as well as a editor position at vogue or as creative director of a fashion brand). Her decision to appoint him towards these positions puts his designs on the market, in which readers will read and buy his works. ( i think thats you "blue sweater" moment.)
as for the dynamic of grace and anna, its a symbiotic relationship that works well for the magazine. grace is overflowing with art and talent, but the magazine cant really run on running spreads on houte couture ad nauseam. Coddington herself says that her point of view is very much in the past, and she is comfortable staying with that point of view. Thats why she, unknowingly, needs Wintour to edit her. If the magazine was entirely her point of view then its just a book of pretty pictures. Wintour runs the business end and lets the creative people do their job. She has the final say on edits because in the end she has to sell cloths through the magazine. there was that one line when they where doing the run-through for the 1920's shoot; she said she wants most of the cloths to be ready-to-wear. Even though coddingtons entire shoot is amazing, if it doesnt sell a product then whats the point.
Wintour has to be decisive in her job. Dealing with highly creative people with strong points of views; who dont know how to edit themselves, she needs to be the one with the direction to know where to go. -
DogtownGirl — 16 years ago(October 19, 2009 06:12 PM)
Khaderach19:
Wintour has to be decisive in her job. Dealing with highly creative people with strong points of views; who dont know how to edit themselves, she needs to be the one with the direction to know where to go.
I agree, and this is why people like Wintour get misunderstood, or get thought of as being B's. My friend Eugene, who worked with Wintour and used to book models, such as Naomi (Yes, THAT Naomi) Campbell, Linda Evangelista and Christie Turlington, says that if one isn't strong, then one does not survive.
He told me that Wintour is nice but not "pleasant" and has no time for making friends, or for wondering how your children are doing, etc. if you and she happen to meet, or to see one another after a long time apart. Eugene told me that the whole fashion world is a bit callous-seeming, and ONLY meant for those people who have their armor already on, and who can fight to get to where they want to be.
He also tellingly told me that one can ask someone to lunch, after having just called them an A-hole, and that duplicity was widely accepted!
No joke. -
bing-57 — 16 years ago(March 01, 2010 03:04 PM)
Even though coddingtons entire shoot is amazing, if it doesnt sell a product then whats the point.
Except that this is a magazine. It is supposed to be a big book of pretty pictures. The company sells advertising space to make its money. The prettier the pictures the more advertising they can sell.
Yes, most shoots feature some specific designer's clothes and are just a free advertisement for that designer. But I'm not sure that the magazine gets any direct revenue from those sales.
As with most magazines, the company will do anything to get readers to buy it and advertisers to pay for it. Not every square inch has to be selling something.
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)? -
frumwannabe — 16 years ago(March 10, 2010 07:22 AM)
In brief, the fashion industry needs to advertise in order to increase consumption. Just like MacDonald's doesn't rely on customers deciding for themselves to buy their food; they create specials, toys with purchase, movie tie-ins, seasonal offerings (the St. Patrick's Day green mint-flavored milkshake, unavailable year round), anything to make people think of their product and desire it.
Fashion is just clothing, a necessity. It's a big industry in the USA and provides employment to thousands of people. To increase the amount of money people would spend if they just replaced worn-out goods and bought necessities, the advertisers created luxury goods (status), new designs (fear of appearing unsavvy of the trend), clothes which work together or are easy to care for (convenience and time saving), flattering styles (beauty) It uses the same points as any salesman and appeals to the human desire for change (and status and attractiveness and competition, etc.).
Even isolated, primitive cultures without fashion magazines enjoy creating adornment. The designer/fashion magazine culture is no more hysterical and self-conscious than, say, the tobacco industry. -
-
maryschroer — 16 years ago(March 20, 2010 07:29 AM)
I don't "get" it either. Anna is a good business person, but so are thousands of others. She's not unique or particularly special, and there are many good business people who also manage to be warm the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Vogue is just a bunch of photos of models wearing garish costumes that are inaccessible and irrelevant to the majority of the population. Really, can they blame people for not taking them seriously?
I mean, there's nothing wrong with it, no more than there is anything wrong with comic books, but I don't think either of them contributes anything enduring to society. Poor Anna, whose family finds her career "amusing" well that's more charitable than I would be. -
quangtran65 — 15 years ago(July 23, 2010 08:09 AM)
Vogue is just a bunch of photos of models wearing garish costumes that are inaccessible and irrelevant to the majority of the population.
How about these models wear the real clothes that you see in Prada, Oscar, etc. Not the clown outfits they use only for Vogue and runways?
Vogue isn't supposed to be accessible. That's part (if not most) of its appeal to the it's readers, as in it sells the readers fantasies of luxury and prestige, and supposed to represent the spectrum opposite to that of the real clothes seen in the Target catalogue. -
ShanaLD — 14 years ago(October 14, 2011 12:09 PM)
Think about this: in the mid- to late nineties, Tom Ford started showing 80s inspired clothing on the Gucci runway. Huge shoulder pads, bold colors, skinny pants, over-sized shirts. What do you see lots of teens wearing right now?
It works like this. Vogue, Bazaar and lots of other high end fashion magazines like Gap Press (a Japanese magazine) see what the high end designers are showing, they then interpret what they think are the most common and the best trends of any given season. Readers look to those magazines for fantasy, but it also influences how they will dress (color is a big thing). Moderate to low end designers look to it for inspiration and clues as to what their customers are going to want to wear the next season. I've designed for both Michael Kors ready to wear line and even companies that sold to Wal-Mart and Kohls. This clothing is designed a good year in advance of when it gets to you, so we had to know what you'd be wanting to wear months and months from the moment we sat in front of our computers and started sketching and going through fabric and color books. Knowing whether or not people are going to want low-waisted skinny jeans or high-waisted wide leg trousers pays a lot of salaries. Frankly put if Anna was just okay at her job she wouldn't be there.
And if you think comic books don't "contribute anything enduring to society", pick up Maus, Inconegro, V for Vendetta, Girls or any number of amazingly well written stories that also feature amazing art. Hell Superman and Batman have had pretty enduring effects on society as a whole. -
MydnightRose — 14 years ago(December 08, 2011 10:46 PM)
I'm not that into fashion, I don't have the patience for that kind of life. But even Im not as dumb as to think that fashion does not contribute to society. What we wear sends a statement to those around us; which is why we dress our best when going on a job interview. If fashion and attire didn't matter, you could get a bank job by wearing sweat pants and a ratty tshirt.
What society wears also signifies changes within it; for example the changing of woman's attire during the Edwardian era and the 1920's. Shorter skirts, visible ankles, short hair etc. signifying a change in how women are viewed.
Lois
&
Clark
4EVER!!!
DC can SUCK IT!!!! -
a13815 — 11 years ago(June 01, 2014 08:24 PM)
I don't "get" it either. Anna is a good business person, but so are thousands of others. She's not unique or particularly special, and there are many good business people who also manage to be warm the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Vogue is just a bunch of photos of models wearing garish costumes that are inaccessible and irrelevant to the majority of the population. Really, can they blame people for not taking them seriously?
I mean, there's nothing wrong with it, no more than there is anything wrong with comic books, but I don't think either of them contributes anything enduring to society. Poor Anna, whose family finds her career "amusing" well that's more charitable than I would be.
My thoughts exactly. Well said. -
loveDetroit — 16 years ago(March 30, 2010 07:56 AM)
Nitekat01and everyone else
I get what you are sayingI love to look at magazines, at the unbeleivable creative forces in fashion, and just marvel at the vision of the people who make these fashions, do the hair/makeup, photograph them, etc. I also dream about what it would be like to actually wear something like that, or even to be in a store where couture is sold. But that's exactly what it is for many, many of us: a dream. Most of us cant, and never will be able to have fashion like that, so it always makes me wonder WHO exactly is Vogue's real audience? It seems to be an inner-circle clique of celebrities, wealthy people, socialites, and models who really get what's going on in these magazines.
But, I do think in all the fur, crazy feathers, bizarre wigs, gaudy accessories there does lie some hint and truth as to what the fashion will be for -for all of us- next season. For example, in "The September Issue" a lady said in the very beginning "it's all about jackets, not coats" which, of course always rings true in the fall. This issue came out in 2007 and now that it's 2010 I can look back and say "Hmm bright bold colors (like those in the tights) did make a comeback around then" and feathers seemed to be a big fall thing accessory around that time. I guess what I am trying to say is there are teeny bits of normal fashion we can pull out of the crazy couture fashions of Vougue and use in our every day lives. Doesn't have to be a $10,000 ostrich feather jacket by Oscar De La Renta, it could be a $5.00 fake feather hair clip from Forever 21.
Another thing that clicked with me while watching this movie..every single aspect of the fashion industry seems to revolve aruond total bitchiness. From the expressions on the models faces as they go down the runway, to the photographer, to Grace having to defend her photos at ever turn, down to Anna herself. It seems like a very dog-eat-dog world, which again, most of us are not that way. Makes it seem like high-fashion and beauty is only attainable for people who are completely mean and shrewd. I think that's another reason why many people feel so disconnected from the fashion industry.