Film, News & Commentary, Screen

Razer on the Oscars Red Carpet: Who are you wearing?

| |

Melissa Rivers may not have inherited her mother’s superb meanness—after all, god gives the gift of such great spite to humankind just once or twice a century. But today in Hollywood, Joan’s best, most democratic lessons will be upheld. Rivers the younger, now a presenter of television’s punishing Fashion Police, has voiced her disdain for the #AskHerMore campaign that urges media employees to ask questions of female celebrities other than “what are you wearing?”
Many ladies attending tonight’s Oscars would like to be taken more seriously. Don’t ask them about the $30,000 sample-size gowns they are wearing! Ask them for their views on international development. They have some advice for the IMF.
Some media organisations began to comply last year when Reese Witherspoon refused to talk about the bespoke Tom Ford column dress and Tiffany diamonds she’d been forced to wear, presumably by Hollywood ISIL. Rivers won’t. “I’m not going to ask you about your feelings on world hunger when in the 30 seconds I have with you on the red carpet, you also have to say who you’re wearing, who is paying you to wear it and get your plug out for your film.”

Supporters for this “representational” movement point out that men are asked more interesting questions on the Oscars red carpet. Perhaps this is because they wear less interesting clothes. Or, perhaps it is because the red carpet broadcast, which emerged as a separate broadcast entity about a decade ago, exists almost entirely to showcase the gowns of famous women. Men just aren’t the stars of this particular show.
A red carpet broadcast that does not secure the answer to “Who are you wearing?” makes about as much sense as a football commentary that will brook no mention of the ball. If you do not wish to be asked about your frock, perhaps you might consider some dungarees. If you are impatient with the way in which visual culture measures a woman’s worth, perhaps you might consider not subjecting yourself to the glare of three-point lighting. It’s not compulsory, Reese. Just go in the back door.
Perhaps you also might consider not spending months in conversation with designers, stylists and assorted estheticians to build a look of such perfect inimitability that the world cannot help but gasp. How are we to ignore a spectacle that has been precisely contrived over time to hold our attention? Are we “victim blaming” if we’re fascinated by the singular beauty that you have worked so hard to attain? And, more to the point, how can your designer continue to provide expertise and garments, and often a fee, without credit?
As Tom Ford, one of the great architects of Hollywood glamour, said in interview last year, it is bad business for a female celebrity to collaborate with a designer, whose gratis work she may reject, and then refuse to namecheck the creation. Designers, “do spend months and make five dresses for them and send them. If you wear one of those dresses and a company has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, or has paid you. Yeah you say who it is, of course.”
Rivers is one of the few remaining red carpet commentators either guileless or cranky enough to point out that a red carpet is unfurled for a very particular reason. It is an event designed, managed and lit to document visual glamour and if you don’t want to endure what I am sure is the very rum posture of a skinny arm, then don’t.
It’s not just the peculiar hypocrisy of a “movement” that demands media continue to document extraordinary glamour without actually mentioning it that rankles Rivers, Ford and others. It’s the fact that celebrities, gifted of so many forums for expression, are demanding one more.
According to Lena Dunham, another advocate for this latest waste of “awareness”, the new Hollywood woman would prefer to be asked about “the causes she supports”—in Dunham’s case, FYI, these would be (a) the criminalisation of sex work and (b) the expulsion of Bernie Sanders from the nomination race. Like any student of gossip, I know the conservative causes that Lena Dunham supports, because she talks about them all the time. She even writes about them in a newsletter. That she should demand another opportunity to bang on about her centrist beliefs just seems selfish.
Actually, reporters would be doing Dunham a great service to focus on her gowns. The more she talks about “the causes she supports”, the less inclined I am to support her art. #AskHerLess
This campaign has been endorsed by a number of eminent women and has as its foundational belief the basic tenet of neoliberalism: if we give privileged people more privilege, then this privilege will become eventually available to everyone.
Yeah. It won’t. Financial capital doesn’t trickle down to us povs and neither does the Glamour Feminism of 2016.
Now, tell me who you’re wearing.
Featured image: Cate Blanchett “calls out” a cameraman for panning down from her face, mid-interview at the 2014 Screen Actors Guild Awards

16 responses to “Razer on the Oscars Red Carpet: Who are you wearing?

  1. Bugger the views of Hollywood gentry on the red carpet. They sell their souls and now complain? The only think that would make the red carpet parade interesting is someone wearing the bear that ate LDiC

  2. Of course they shouldn’t worry about what they wear because after all nobody cares what they look like do they??? Why there’s plenty of opportunities for women who look like Paul Giamatti or Ernest Borgnine aren’t there ? The fact that all Hollywood women starve themselves and fuss about their appearance is just out of vanity, the men all happen not to be vain. What a coincidence! Silly disingenuous article.

    1. I absolutely agree, Alison, that Hollywood ladies must adhere to a visual ideal in order to maintain their value. That is why I said so in the piece.
      I am not questioning this. Rather, I am questioning the proposed response. Which is to go on looking exactly the same but demanding that no one mention it.

  3. Surely if “causes” are that important to our red carpeteers, why not wear the names of them like the sponsors plasetered on footy jumpers on their frock?. Surely that’d be a pretty sincere signal of intentions, no?

  4. I wonder why actors think others are interested in their worldly views? Sports stars, mostly I think, don’t seem to talk about much else other than their sport. I enjoyed watching jenny beavan take the stage, and the behavior of the goons in the aisle seats. Good on her.

  5. I’d rather they talked about their clothes than their political opinions – though it might be better if they discussed the things they’re uniquely qualified to talk about: movies and (in some cases) acting in them..

  6. Watched the Golden Globes this year, and thought most of the women participants were particularly giddy, giggly and girly. The standout exceptions being Lady Gaga and Kate Gyllenhaal The men were, by contrast, serious and direct and even occasionally funny.
    You are right. It’s not the topic of conversation, it’s rather their demeanour that determines whether they are to be taken seriously.

  7. Right on again Helen.
    Funny thing is their hypocrisy only craps on feminism by eroding its already fledgling credibility.
    Their delusional self importance & power for real for change is breathtaking.
    Most satisfying watching them have to laugh & clap Rock after he mocked their faux liberalism.
    Aren’t these people supposed to be ‘sensitive’?

  8. To be honest, I’ve given this some more thought after another 36 hours straight in an underfunded emergency department that is losing services because of ongoing budget cuts.
    I get it. Someone asked me what I was wearing tonight and I just thought, c’mon guys, I’m more than just an object. I have deep thoughts (TM). But it turns out I was wearing some of my own blood from where a drug dependent patient clocked me for having to wait 4 hours in the ED waiting room. Thankfully, I didn’t get subjected to the degradation that is parading $3.2 million in Bulgari diamonds in the 360 degree glam cam whilst promoting my next million dollar movie. But that one’s a mixed bag – maybe two burly security guards keeping an eye on the diamonds probably would’ve saved me a couple of stitches, a nervous blood test wait and going and buying a new shirt and pair of pants (Tom Ford unfortunately doesn’t provide samples to lowly paid public sector doctors).
    And the mani-cam? Look, its line ball but in the end, I’d go for an MRI machine, so our patients don’t have to travel to a different hospital in a marginal electorate or wait two weeks for access.
    But I understand these women have real struggles (TM) too – and its not just the pain of wearing shoes worth more than most people earn in a month. If only people could accept they carry the burden of being really good looking, obscenely wealthy AND they’re denied a platform to talk about their deep thoughts (noting some of those thoughts are about how the earth is really flat, or that our supreme leader is Xenu or that institutionalised racism, incarceration rates and income inequality could be eliminated if Jada Pinkett Smith could just get nominated for a gold statue of some sort).

    1. Ta. I enjoyed reading that just as much as the article (which was rather a lot). You seem to share Helen’s gift for seeing things from a sensible perspective 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *