The Great Gatsby (the new one)

[pur_sang]

Is everybody as excited as I am about this upcoming film? From watching the trailer, the clothes look promising. Although I always find what they get wrong is that the clothes always look too spanking new.

[bond_and_beyond]

Apparently Brooks Brothers are making the suits, which is interesting as evidently Fitzgerald himself was a customer there.

Doubt that they'll beat the Redford Gatsby for elegance though.

BB

[lxlloyd]

As far as historical accuracty goes the women's clothes are significantly off (they've used late 20s and even 30s styles, when the story is supposed to be set in 1922, see http://omgthatdress.tumblr.com/post/387 ... eat-gatsby) and the costumer has tailored them into a more "now" silhouette" so that's out the window. (I would say that this is the equivalent of seeing the Men in silhouettes akin to Dior Homme by Slimane. Still technically a suit.... not quite the same thing.) This can be put down to artistic license and the more recognisable iconic status of the sillhouettes of late 20s flappers I suppose. Costumers choice.

I think that, given Brooks Brothers has been left to dig through their archives for the men, that should be a little closer... There's even comparison photos with the illustrations of the original catalogue here http://www.artinfo.com/photo-galleries/ ... eat-gatsby

Still, I haven't seen the film and probably won't for a good long while.

[pur_sang]

I just watched the Robert Redford one last week, and I have to say, his (and some other character's) wardrobe has much to lust after.

I think it looks better than the new one in my opinion.

I love that big lapel look, but my tailor dont seem to want to go quite that big, maybe I should show him the pictures from the film. Interestingly, the new film has much smaller lapels on the suits, so I dont know whether the 20s is actually big or small from watching these films.

I guess, everyone knows the Redford film is styled by Ralph Lauren, and incidentally, the Wetherby cut from Tom Ford seems to be close copies of suits worn my Redford in the film.

[hectorm]

As far as historical accuracty goes the women's clothes are significantly off (they've used late 20s and even 30s styles, when the story is supposed to be set in 1922, (I would say that this is the equivalent of seeing the Men in silhouettes akin to Dior Homme by Slimane.)

Thank you Alexandra.
Only you -among the many members of the LL- could have picked up that gaffe regarding women´s fashion. Even if it were men´s fashion it would have passed unnoticed. As you know fashion is a bit of anathema on these pages. We are more concerned here with the serious concept of style, you know So unfortunately, your smart reference about Hedi Slimane surely must have been lost too.
It´s our gain to have you on board in this forum.

[lxlloyd]

As far as historical accuracty goes the women's clothes are significantly off (they've used late 20s and even 30s styles, when the story is supposed to be set in 1922, (I would say that this is the equivalent of seeing the Men in silhouettes akin to Dior Homme by Slimane.)

Thank you Alexandra.
Only you -among the many members of the LL- could have picked up that gaffe regarding women´s fashion. Even if it were men´s fashion it would have passed unnoticed. As you know fashion is a bit of anathema on these pages. We are more concerned here with the serious concept of style, you know So unfortunately, your smart reference about Hedi Slimane surely must have been lost too.
It´s our gain to have you on board in this forum.

Since fashion as a concept only began in the mid to late 19th century, (we date it from Charles Frederick Worth, the study of anything before that is termed as dress or costume), perhaps the importance of this is that it was the first major shift in fashion/women's dress. And definitely the first in so dramatic a fashion. And one of only two cases in our century where this was governed by intellectual/social changes that weren't in some way tied to War. *for academic purposes, fashion since 1960/early 70s is pretty much rehashes. even more so today) From the 1850s until the 1890s the shift was gradual and barely perceptible (much like mens fashion (and i use this to denote changes in style of dress), especially considering that now such changes are expected to occur several times a year. So the sudden ditching of corsets was a shocking change in society.

Thus, in this case it's not so much a case of fashion as seeing my grandmother dressed in a miniskirt (the proportions are so off). The innacuracy is in taking away the very property that drove a massive change in aesthetic. It is not so much that they messed up the female side of things that irks (especially because i'm not a stickler for accuracy in general). I was more pointing out that they made a horrible historical whitewash.

Historically this was the birth of unrestrictive clothing for women (they ditched the corsets) That moment of emancipation led to very grecian, off the body lines, but it was a symbolic gesture of defiance from a new generation and the youth of a new century. It was the first time in.....600 years that it became acceptable to throw away the corset (albeit for a girdle) It was a MAJOR turning point in women's dress *not fashion... it was a change in fashion, but also a change in costume, society, dress, health and restrictions. It is certainly not comparable to the changes for the sake of aesthetic and moneyspinning that occur today, which blur into one ever turning continuum with a lack of original thought. To make the jump straight to 1927's flapper dresses is so incongruous because the act of ditching the corset itself had already been such a scandal in and of itself. There is already a major societel shift taking place in 1922.... the acceleration is just insane. No-one would have accepted that shift from 1918 to 1922 (of belle-epoque to flapper). It took till the end of the decade for hems to rise above the knees... because it took ten years for people to even accept the first part of the evolution(unrestrictive clothing), which was already a massive enough change to be marked in the history books. I suppose it's the equivalent of... not just the gradual acceptance of the suit without the tie into modern society, but having a film set in 2000 in which all the men wore suits with no shirts underneath. It just wouldn't be... believable nor accurate. We forget now how great a shock that initial change was. Even most girls I know would now associate the image of the 20s with that late 20s flapper sillhouette.... but it was a massive change. For the older generation people literally were wandering around in their underwear. So the inaccuracy is Huge for someone who has any extensive knowledge of the early 20th century. But it is to be conceeded that we are now so irreverant with our accuracies that most people wouldn't see a difference, nor even understand why that change was such a massive one. Female "fashion" is characterised by it's extreme changes and the ever accelerating pace of those. But this was, essentially, the starter pistol. (if frederick worth's era was on your marks, get set, and go...)

So for the costumer to tighten the clothing to make it more revealing..... goes against why that movement started in the first place and why that pistol was ever shot. The society for rational dress and the bloomers got themselves arrested just to have that freedom to not have tight clothes.... (they were essentially considered to be wandering around in undergarments, without the corset). So to re-restrict the clothes... It's as inconsistent as.... I can't find too many menswear comparisons because menswear historically hasn't changed so much since the inception of the modern era (it used to change at a much more startling rate than women's. Gradually this swapped around. Historically, men were the peacocks with the ornateness and bright colours).

I suppose given the different pace of change with female to male fashion (fashion again meaning the change in the hegemonous mode of dress) it would be like someone throwing in the pastel blue shiny tuxedo of 80s prom films into Gatsby.

Note: Hedi slimane is the populiserand origin of of that super skinny look (of boys/men looking like they jumped into their school uniform sized suits) with the super skinny ties. That still leaves a leaning towards skinny suits among the young. which is an aesthetic that any llounger with eyes may have noticed (or found themselves thinking that that chap has grown a bit and put on a few too many pounds for that suit). That man is responsible for the shift from the oversize of the 80s to... well what we have now. ie. derivitives of that.

A side note: I would argue that the debate on this forum is rather more on the cultivation of taste, than style. Style is simply a mode of comporting/wearing something, fashion is the evolution of style across society. Where menswear is in a slowly evolving cycle of fashion, comparitively, the cultivation of taste (or innate creation of it by the tastemakers (those who we would say had a high style quotient, i suppose) is the rareification that elevates Men's dressm and a man's individual style. Whereas, unfortunately in most women's cases, we can get away with just outpacing the cycle for that rareification and elevation (in some cases because the woman has that same innate quality of taste creation; natural style. Sometimes we use the words interchangeably; we say "he had a great style". But that is somewhat akin to me saying... that fabric is a lovely blue. the loveliness is the intriguing quality.

Anyone can have a style. What we look at is the something *that je-ne-sais-quoi* that elevates it into a quality of that individual that we desire. It can be learned... to a certain extent... through trial and error, excellent teachers... but ultimately there is something else that separated the fabulous dressers from the merely well turned out.

Incedentally, becaus of pur_sang's comments i am looking up photos from christmas in which my father is wearing a 20s bespoke dinner jacket (having lent his own standard one to my cousin in order to make sure that everyone had one). The photos are too candlelit for me to see properly what size of lapel was on that.

[pur_sang]

Incedentally, becaus of pur_sang's comments i am looking up photos from christmas in which my father is wearing a 20s bespoke dinner jacket (having lent his own standard one to my cousin in order to make sure that everyone had one). The photos are too candlelit for me to see properly what size of lapel was on that.

Will love to see that picture, and know the answer to that!

You are obviously a bag of knowledge on the topic of fashion history.

Interestingly, the Dior Homme ad picture that you posted is one of my favourites, it is a very nice look on the right person.

[Luca]

Just saw the movie at the weekend. Although it is only broadly inspired by Fitzgerald's novel and chock-full of minor as well as whopping anchronisms I found it a TREMENDOUS spectacle. I think it conveyed the FEEL of that period in a way that an accurate portrayal never could (I mean, we've changed so much...).

Re. the clothes. Again, I'm sure that an eagle-eyed apparel hsitorian will easily spot howlers. However, some details were quite good, I thought and the sense of elegance, brashness, etc. was well conveyed. There were also not a few outfits that frankly I lusted after (not including the infamous pink suit).

The more conservative suits Nick and Tom sport (or should I say, "old sport"; that got a bit irritating after a while) were good as was the black / white tie.