At the Met Gala
[NOTE: I consider it personally therapeutic to indulge in frivolous posts about fashion. Today’s a good day for it, don’t you think? So come along with me to the Met Gala. You’ll be so glad you did.]
The idea at this function is to shock and stun, but I would have thought it also would be to wear something at least a mite flattering, too. But perhaps not.
So let’s begin the viewing.
It’s not only In Flanders Fields that the poppies grow. They’ve sprung up out of nowhere on this dress, where they clash with and dominate every other part of it. Of course, minus the poppies, it would just be a sweet retro prom-ish thing with what used to be known as spaghetti straps (haven’t seen them in ages):
Now for a change of pace. From soft and flowery to hard, angular, and metallic. Somewhere in there is a human body, but this would be excellent camo if you needed to hide in the metal scrap pile at the dump. At least she looks like she’s enjoying herself:
This was definitely one of the prettier ones, but there’s something schizophrenic about it, with the heavy metallic bodice and gauzy romantic bottom. I suppose the contrast is the point, but she looks so stiff and uncomfortable, standing at sharp attention and with hair severely slicked-back and bright red lips, that the whole is much less than the sum of its disparate parts:
I am a waif. I am a child who’s not a child. I am very thin, and proud of it. These boots are not made for walking. I’ve got zippers and I’ve got pockets and they do what zippers and pockets do:
Here at last is someone I actually know something about. It’s Misty Copeland, the American ballet dancer I wrote about in this post. Her unusually chesty (for a ballerina) body is done no favors at all by this schlumpy dress in an unflattering color. Why, Misty? Why? You’re a beautiful woman:
Then again, there’s always the barely-bare back and the butt brooch:
The same bareback look, but with some old-fashioned Hollywood 50s-type (or maybe it’s 30s-type) glam:
Lost her way, wandered in from Vegas. As for the person behind her—well, we’ve all had our share of unfortunate photos:
This person’s shoulder wandered in from Vegas, her belt from one of the kiosks at the mall that sell sparkly Asian-made hair ornaments and pins, and her collar from—from—well, I’m not sure where it wandered in from, but something vaguely native American. I would say the dress is a recycled bridesmaid’s dress except that it’s white. And what is that at the dress’s bottom, on the right side of the photo. Is it a fallen tail? Some shaggy slippers? Not…not…a tribble?:
In a moment we’ll get to the only other person I know of in the bunch, actress Sarah Jessica Parker. Oh Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, Jessica, Jessica, Jessica, Parker, Parker, Parker, what were you thinking? Was it Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz?:
Steven Tyler? Pirate Johnny Depp? Or some strange amalgam of them all?:
Ah, but a little bit of Googling solves the mystery. It’s “Hamilton,” the Broadway musical about Alexander Hamilton. And that black thingee hanging in back of her is not a sword, as I had speculated, but one of two ribbons that hangs down the back. The back of the jacket, by the way, is non-existent, as you can see if you scroll down at the link I just gave and watch the short Instagram video.
We are in an era where women make themselves look foolish with eye makeup. I suppose we’re always in an era of makeup excess – I seem to remember RED lips a few years back. Sarah looks truly awful in this picture. She’s maybe not the most attractive woman to start with, and then piling on the eye makeup looks worse, and it’s made sadder by the fact that she’s trying to hide her age, and even sadder by her trying to hide her age by being trendy. Whatever mistakes you might make in attire pale in comparison to messing up your face.
I can do better things with my money, even investing in zero interest bank accounts.
Great post, Neo — thank you!
I actually think of all the dresses/outfits, I’d prefer wearing Sarah Jessica Parker’s, simply because it looks the most comfortable.
Neo,
No mention of Beyonce’s latex number? The Beyhive would be appalled that you missed it!
http://www.thefader.com/2016/05/02/beyonce-met-gala-dress-becky
I haven’t seen the front of the “old fashioned” dress, but the back does have a touch of elegance and class to it.
I will also say that I do like Beyonce’s dress. It’s the “good” type of loud dress that I can stand.
The young woman before Jessica Parker is Saoirse Ronan. I remember perusing pictures of the red carpet after parties for the Golden Globes last year, seeing the dresses and the tuxes of the celebrities, at which Ronan wore a peacock theme dress. I guess it’s her red carpet style when it comes to such events.
Also, if not for the poppies and the leaf art, the first dress would probably be really nice. I like how it drapes of her body, from top-down with the bottom (I can only imagine how the bottom flows when she walks), and the color gives a nice touch to her skin tone, not actually blending in.
I dunno. I’m a lay person when it comes to fashion with no direct experience or any talent when it comes to dress.
I would like the poppy dress if the poppies were printed in the fabric, not stuck on.
The last time I perused the Met gala “fashion” it struck me how few of the women probably could probably name an opera.
It used to be that the Met gala was attended by opera aficionados with better fashion sense.
Now. Ugh.
Only the first one looks good, since the dress color blends with the skin color. And flowers are a nice decoration, although there are other ways to use them, such as on hair pins.
Okay, i waded through all 144 photos.
You didn’t even pick any near the worst! Too many AWFUL ones to list, but Madonna has to be *THE* worst. (Lady Gaga’s was certainly, uh, interesting, but you expect that from her. Madonna seems freaked out that she’ll get upstaged by Lady Gaga and had to find the most tasteless S&M fashion.)
The best were: Clare Danes, Mindy Kaling, and Gugu Mbatha-Raw (I have no idea who that last person is, but her dress was gorgeous.)
The scrap metal one reminds me of that video, “Somebody that I Used tp Know.”
Oops! Sorry!! I didn’t actually READ the thing. Back on my younger days, “Met” referred to the “Metropolitan Opera” and the social event of the News York season was a gala to raise money for the Met. But I guess now “Met” refers to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the “Met Gala” is the social event of the pretentious…
BYW…
Another nadir in “fashion” was the yellow explosion sorted by Solange Knowles. Blech.
Hideous. But it did get my mind off the election results. So mission accomplished, Neo. 🙂
Is that Very Wang, the one in the “unfortunate” photo?
Sorry, Vera.
Parker ‘s shoes are mismatched too. Was she drunk ?
If you put your hand over the bottom part of Misty Copeland’s dress it actually looks like it should look pretty good. The part you’re missing really throws it off when revealed.
A bigger munch of “schnook” fashion victims I’ve never seen! And Sarah Jessica Parker is maybe the worst serial victim ever!
(Having worked in the industry most of my adult life, I know whereof (what of?) I speak)
Neo, excellent fashion critique.
There wasn’t a single attractive “look” in the bunch yet I guarantee there was a fortune invested in achieving that collection of misfires.
Note: Though it is one of the most sought after social events in NYC and probably the zenith of “See and Be Seen” it also cost some $25,000/plate to attend.
Although there are a number of “celebrities” that get appearance fees (ie to be mannequins, basically, and wear whatever they’re told to that will heighten interest and maximize publicity. (SJP, Beyonce, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Kim K., the starlets du jour, etc.)
For the money at least you get good people watching…
And as mentioned above by Philip, a very welcome diversion from the current (and very depressing) state of American politics.
There was a time when the Beautiful People, female variety, weren’t afraid to be feminine and beautiful, and to wear clothes that were beautiful and that fit.
I’ve always wished I could find a full-figure photo of Grace Kelly in this dress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Kelly#/media/File:Grace_Kelly_MGM_photo.jpg
Julie near Chicago: Clare Danes’s dress reminded me of Grace Kelly. Go to the link; fortuitously, Clare Danes is near the beginning so you don’t have to wade through a gross of grotesquerie.
These outfits remind me so strongly of the costumes worn by the Capitol denizens in Suzanne Collins’ “Hunger Games” series of books and later, movies. In the series, the wealthy central district ran the country of Panem, a dystopian future US, while the poverty-stricken residents of the surrounding districts were victimized, oppressed and forced to do the hardscrabble labor that fed the wealth of the Capitol. The elite of Panem, in their feathers and sequins and over-the-top hairstyles, led frivolous, dissolute lives of entertainment, comfort and wealth, until they could no longer prevent the districts from rebelling.
Hmmm. Even when you try to give us a break from politics, Neo, the overtones are there!
Dorothy, Tin Man, Glinda, Cowardly Lion, and Scarecrow.
Julie near Chicago:
See this, this, this, and this.
Lee, migosh! Miss Danes seems to be wearing an actual dress! And a lovely one, too. Thank you for the link. :>)
Neo, Miss Kelly’s / Princess Grace’s (not sure what is the proper etiquette for the form of address here *g*) lace dress in the last two photos is quite beautiful — thanks. Unfortunately WP informs me that since I’m not an admin at the first site, it can’t let me view the photo. Yes, I understand. But I tried just going to the site’s home page, and it seems to be directed to the attention of Indians-from-India. Oh well.
Thank you both for taking the time. :>)
Each of these dresses probably cost more than the median annual income in the US. If anyone was actually serious about revolution, the Met Gala should be ground zero. (The Oscars after that.) This wealth is the result of crony capitalism and corruption, not enterprise (as is the Met, for that matter, which needs to take another piece of Central Park for each painting it acquires.) Even conservatives should find this conspicuous consumption objectionable.
Your
Continuing, your musings are a pleasure to read.