Influences in fashion: Film

Fashion and film have had on ongoing dialogue since it’s early inception. Both reflect society’s culture, economic climate and views on society. Both rely on each others contributions to society to provide the creative energy to move the dialogue forward.

Clothes are never a frivolity: they always mean something. James Laver

“Filmmakers aspire to seduce.” They want to tell a story. Clothing helps convey the story (Slipper & the Rose). It helps with the development of the film’s character (Charlie Chaplin’s Tramp). It can provide motivation and inspiration for story, plot and momentum in movie narrative forward (Devil Wears Prada). The audience is there to be receptive to that story with hopes of being enmeshed in the visual experience as well as entertained or informed. They want to escape their present environment to learn, laugh, feel an emotion or find a new understanding in the dark, quiet, and safe walls of the theater.

Film making dialogue with costume and fashion had it’s origins in New York. Adolph Zukor (founder of Paramount) bought the rights to La Reine Elizabeth (1912). This early film starred Sarah Bernhardt – a stage legend. To convey the story, Zukor hired couture designer Paul Poirot to convey the story of the English Queen. Poirot, designer that he was, presented the audience with an ultra lavish, exotic Italian Renaissance costume epic. Americans made the discovery that films were no longer a cheap nickelodeon pastime. They were and could be considered, in fact, an art.

Clothes, clothes, clothes — everybody knows, you can’t get on in the pictures game — without clothes, clothes, clothes. Nance Mode, 1918, Motion Picture Magazine

The US at this time was primarily agricultural and rural. Besides entertain, film was a means to really enlighten and inform in illiterate population. The stars of these films became America’s royalty. The film industry embraced this as a method to promote the film. The star’s wardrobe was a means to market the film, elevate the star’s status & and promote this whole experience thus ensuring a good return on the investment and provide a momentum for the next film. Besides promoting the grandness, films used costumes and clothing to legitimize the film experience. One can’t forget that prior to the GI Bill after WWII most of America was illiterate, rural, and somewhat back ward. When this changed, so did movies (more on this later). This was a new media and viewed with much skepicism regarding it’s relevance. It was, and by some still is, corrupting society.

Designers such Lucile (Lady Duff Gordon) helped legitimized this media as she herself was a multi-pronged media machine. Lucile, as she was known, was a frequent contributor to Hearst Publications, and regular columns in Good Housekeeping and Harper’s Bazaar. She helped make movie fashion and styles acceptable dialogue as she herself was a household personality much like Oprah. Other costume designers included artists like Erte. Many early costume designers like Howard Greer (who worked for Lucile) and Travis Banton came from the couture industry. Adrian would later come from the movie industry and build a successful couture business because of his film involvement.

While costumes could elevate the movie, censorship caused by the condemnation of a costume deemed too revealing virtually guananteed the movie to be a success. An early example of this was Theda Bara filing a lawsuit for $100,000 against the Chicago censorship committee Better Films Committee of the Women’s Club of Omaha for refusing to give the movie (Cleopatra - 1917) a permit. The film, of course, booked solidly and grossed over a million dollars.

Film makers knew costumes helped to promote a sexual dialog between the stars and their adoring fans. This continued for years and still does. Women drooled at a bare chested Rudolph Valentino in The Sheik (1921) or Clark Gable in In Happened One Night.(1934) and at Brad Pitt in Troy (2004) The Gable film caused a drop of 30% in the men’s underwear market when he undressed and was not wearing an undershirt.

“We clearly found the formula for success in these romantic comidies of marrage and entrigue laced with a series of handsome leading men and a never-ending parade of fabulous gowns.” Gloria Swanson

“I want clothes that will make people gasp when they see them. Don’t design anyting that anyone could buy in a store.” Cecil B. DeMille.

As society has changed (particularly after WWII), movies have changed. With each decade, society has found itself examined in film and as fodder for stories in film. As stories in society have changed and evolved, characters are more dynamic and three-dimensional. Beside the need to be entertaining, films have needed to be more real whether the story is biographical or fictitious. Plot and plot structure has become more complex and strategic. The requirements placed for the costume, physical or emotional, are more demanding than in early films. As film viewser, there is a need to see the upside of a character as well as the dark, complex human frailties that make up the character. There are levels of sub-text that need to be conveyed in a costume that give depth and meaning to the characters as well as propel the storyline. A costume, and at times lack of one, gives a film an tension that heightens the anxiety of the watcher. The audience too can also be part of the film… in the sense that the character becomes easily identified with. The viewer feels that they know instinctively the motivation of character just by viewing what he/she is wearing. They become to identify with the character and at times, the viewer is one with the character. Traveling the film journey together.

“I really prefer not to play glamorous women in movies because my heroes in film, for the most part, are usually people that you wouldn’t know unless someone like me brought them to the screen, like everyday people… It’s about the reality of people’s lives and getting inside them, and letting you see what’s going on and how much the character is like the person’s that watching.” Cher

As our movies have changed, fashion and how we act as consumers have changed. The film viewer sees him/herself in the movie’s characters attempt to try to. So in turn, they act out by taking the lead or suggestion of the costume designer by following a style presented on a character in a film. That may include running to the shoe store to buy a pair of Manolos (Sex in the City) or cutting the neck ribbing off a sweatshirt like Jennifer Beal’s character in Flashdance.

The audience looks at the fashion in movies and the character arc and development and decides to take a risk. Many times the risk is successful as the fashion is what society is waiting… primed for a new fashion experience. The trend of men wear band collars after the movie The Sting or the rush of white suits after Saturday Night Fever are just a couple examples. Whatever the case may be, film shapes our society. The costumer applies his/her skill and craft can either reflect or challenge society’s views of fashion in their critique of it on the screen.

Deborah Nadoolman Ladis. Dressed. A Century of Hollywood Costume Design. 2007. Collins Design. Harper Collins Publishers NY

W. Robert LaVine. In a Glamorous Fashion. 1980. Charles Scribneer’s Sons. NY.

Maureen Reilly Hollywood Costume Design by Travilla Schiffer Publishing Co. Atglen, PA

Dale McConathy Diana Freeland. Hollywood Costume. Glamour! Glitter! Romance! Harry N Abram, Inc. Publishers Art NY

God and the Christian movie industry.http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=7765255&page=1

One final thought: Growing up in rural Michigan. Movies and fashion were really a wonderful escape. One of my fondest memories was watching movies and also that of my dad taking me to the city library (the library was an hour away.) They had the most splendid book called Hollywood Costume. Glamour! Glitter! Romance! It had a gold brocade cover and lots of beautiful color photos. Everytime I went to the library I checked out that book. I had the book out so many times, the librarian would just laugh as my dad would roll his eyes. I think I was about 8 or 10 at the time. About 30 years later, I was in the library and looked the book up. It turned out there were only two people who ever had a chance to check out this book for four years … me and someone else.