![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Movie Rec: "The September Issue"
Sunday, September 13th, 2009 03:50 pmFashion, in all of its expensive, inscrutable glory is at the heart of the wonderful and insightful documentary "The September Issue" which chronicles the amount of effort, time, and money that went into producing the September 2007 issue of Vogue magazine. (The issue which went on to sell 14 million copies, weighed about 5 pounds, and was 840 pages long.) The film also attempts to let the viewers into the lives and motivations of some of the principle people involved in the magazine, notably Features editor Grace Coddington (who opens up and has a very interesting life story) and the notorious editor-in-chief Anna Wintour (who is so controlled, it's impossible to tell what she's thinking at any given moment, with only a few exceptions.) Wintour was rumored to be the inspiration for the boss from hell in The Devil Wears Prada, and it was impossible not to watch this film and wonder how true the novel was. The overall impression of the film is of a collective of people, who are passionate about what they do, but all of whom are somewhat cowed by their commander-in-chief, no matter how much they insist that it's not true.
Since Wintour's character is at the center of the film, it's fair to start with her as the basis of the entire story. I've seldom seen such an outward presentation of tatemae (public face, as opposed to one's true feelings/demeanor, honne) in a U.S. citizen, but Wintour has polished her tatemae until it fits and shines and sparkles and she never lets it come off. The moments when it slips (commenting on a gorgeous orange Oscar de la Renta evening dress, or when she admits that her children are her weakness) are so rare that's a little unnerving to remember to see them and think, "oh, she's a person under there." Is she the boss from hell? It's tough to say: it's clear that she's got a bigger picture in mind than just the issue of the magazine, and when she makes cuts to photo shoots or demands further work, it's difficult not to admire her decisiveness and certainty. But it's also clear that she expects the world of her workers, and a great many of them live somewhat in fear of her judgments because there's no going back from what she says.
In some ways, it's the unnamed workers in this film who are the most interesting--they're the ones who bear the brunt of the organizational work for the clothes in the magazine, and they work feverishly at it throughout the film, in little cut-away scenes. (Wrapping up hats in tissue paper here, maneuvering racks of amazing clothes down a hall there, etc. etc.) The flamboyant personalities of the fashion world are definitely in this movie as well; the most sympathetic is the new designer Thakoon, who confesses how nervous he was the first time he met Wintour to show her his collection. (His hands shook the entire time, he says sheepishly, he couldn't make them stop.)
And the FASHION. So many gorgeous clothes, and so many truly awful, hideous pieces that make me wonder what drugs the designers were on. Everything comes and goes on the runway, on and off racks, so dizzyingly. There's a funny moment at the beginning of the film where Editor-at-Large Andre bemoans that there's "lack of beauty in America" this fall! (He pauses for a high-five with Vera Wang.) There's no lack of beauty in this movie, but it's all so fast, rushing by too quickly to assess its true value or worth. For example, there's a cutaway shot of an amazing dress by Jean Paul Gautier--he points at the model and says "wrought iron" and that's what the dress looks like, the most stunningly detailed, form-fitting artistic thing you've ever seen, except that it's on screen for less than 30 seconds and that's it. So frustrating! The other frustrating thing about this myriad frenzy of clothing is my usual problem with the fashion world: there's the "high art" end of things which are great to look at, but I can't imagine any person in their right mind wearing on a regular basis; and then there's the clothing that Wintour calls "more wearable". It's clear that there's a dichotomy between these two categories, and the fashion world is going to have come down on one side or the other of high art or commerce. (Interestingly enough, the L.A. Times posits the same questions in today's feature story.) It's a dichotomy that I experienced yet again this year, as I paged through the September issue of both Vogue and In Style. With In Style, I folded down quite a few pages of interesting clothes that matched my body type and weren't so expensive as to be insane. But in this year's Vogue, everything was too dark-looking, did not favor my body type, and, in general, was just so crazy-expensive that I marked no pages whatsoever. In the battle of expensive/ugly/Brand Name vs. figure-flattering/bright-colored/reasonably-priced, I know which side I'm on every time.
All in all, this is an incredibly engrossing movie, about an industry that may see some dramatic shifts in the next generation or so. Anyone with an interest in fashion or publishing should definitely check this out. There's also some great advice from Grace Coddington, about the nature of creativity: never close your eyes in the car, always look out the window, always look around. You never know what you'll see that will inspire you.
Since Wintour's character is at the center of the film, it's fair to start with her as the basis of the entire story. I've seldom seen such an outward presentation of tatemae (public face, as opposed to one's true feelings/demeanor, honne) in a U.S. citizen, but Wintour has polished her tatemae until it fits and shines and sparkles and she never lets it come off. The moments when it slips (commenting on a gorgeous orange Oscar de la Renta evening dress, or when she admits that her children are her weakness) are so rare that's a little unnerving to remember to see them and think, "oh, she's a person under there." Is she the boss from hell? It's tough to say: it's clear that she's got a bigger picture in mind than just the issue of the magazine, and when she makes cuts to photo shoots or demands further work, it's difficult not to admire her decisiveness and certainty. But it's also clear that she expects the world of her workers, and a great many of them live somewhat in fear of her judgments because there's no going back from what she says.
In some ways, it's the unnamed workers in this film who are the most interesting--they're the ones who bear the brunt of the organizational work for the clothes in the magazine, and they work feverishly at it throughout the film, in little cut-away scenes. (Wrapping up hats in tissue paper here, maneuvering racks of amazing clothes down a hall there, etc. etc.) The flamboyant personalities of the fashion world are definitely in this movie as well; the most sympathetic is the new designer Thakoon, who confesses how nervous he was the first time he met Wintour to show her his collection. (His hands shook the entire time, he says sheepishly, he couldn't make them stop.)
And the FASHION. So many gorgeous clothes, and so many truly awful, hideous pieces that make me wonder what drugs the designers were on. Everything comes and goes on the runway, on and off racks, so dizzyingly. There's a funny moment at the beginning of the film where Editor-at-Large Andre bemoans that there's "lack of beauty in America" this fall! (He pauses for a high-five with Vera Wang.) There's no lack of beauty in this movie, but it's all so fast, rushing by too quickly to assess its true value or worth. For example, there's a cutaway shot of an amazing dress by Jean Paul Gautier--he points at the model and says "wrought iron" and that's what the dress looks like, the most stunningly detailed, form-fitting artistic thing you've ever seen, except that it's on screen for less than 30 seconds and that's it. So frustrating! The other frustrating thing about this myriad frenzy of clothing is my usual problem with the fashion world: there's the "high art" end of things which are great to look at, but I can't imagine any person in their right mind wearing on a regular basis; and then there's the clothing that Wintour calls "more wearable". It's clear that there's a dichotomy between these two categories, and the fashion world is going to have come down on one side or the other of high art or commerce. (Interestingly enough, the L.A. Times posits the same questions in today's feature story.) It's a dichotomy that I experienced yet again this year, as I paged through the September issue of both Vogue and In Style. With In Style, I folded down quite a few pages of interesting clothes that matched my body type and weren't so expensive as to be insane. But in this year's Vogue, everything was too dark-looking, did not favor my body type, and, in general, was just so crazy-expensive that I marked no pages whatsoever. In the battle of expensive/ugly/Brand Name vs. figure-flattering/bright-colored/reasonably-priced, I know which side I'm on every time.
All in all, this is an incredibly engrossing movie, about an industry that may see some dramatic shifts in the next generation or so. Anyone with an interest in fashion or publishing should definitely check this out. There's also some great advice from Grace Coddington, about the nature of creativity: never close your eyes in the car, always look out the window, always look around. You never know what you'll see that will inspire you.
