Friday, January 20, 2012

Just feel those Golden Globes!

Chapter 50
Most people don't understand the intricate machinations that underlie the Golden Globes and the Hollywood  Foreign Press, the red-headed stepchild of The Academy and their awards shows. Most people don't care, actually; they just want to stare at the pretty stars for a few hours. Actually, the Hollywood Foreign Press is a small group of southern-California based journalists over the world, who after WWII, thought it would be nice to boost morale by sharing what they thought were the best movies made that year. This, of course, led to giving out awards, which naturally led to televising those awards. At their heart the HFP is a philanthropic organization that doles out money to film-related charities. In a brilliantly circular scheme of self-funding, the organization gets its cash from selling the broadcast rights to its own awards show. It is a perpetual hype machine, running in an ouroboric endless cycle, feeding off of itself while producing nothing of substance. So, it's sort of a model system for Hollywood itself.

The year's first awards gala kicked off this year just as you might have expected. Red carpets, forests of elegant dames in acres of shimmery drapey stuff, and mobs of gabbling correspondents drooling all over their microphones and trampling each other to be the first to ask The Question to any random actress who has been reduced for the moment to a posturing mannequin: "Who are you wearing?"

The men, as usual, were for the most part, black-clad, slightly bewildered, and looked uncomfortably out of place -- a stark contrast to the gals, who, dressed well or not, have all somehow learned to compose themselves. Who stands to the task of directing the spotlight on the men? Who cares enough to demand accountability for the sartorial choices of the species? Who will point the finger of judgement at insanely wealthy, entitled actors and bellow at them, "JUSTIFY YOUR TUXEDO!"

Me, that's who. 

Let's turn our resolute gaze toward the good, the bad, and the ugly, see if we can find some trends, perhaps some bad habits, and certainly some bad decisions. As is our tradition here at Dress Like A Grownup!, we'll inspect the fellas on the red carpet upon their arrival, so (theoretically!) we're seeing them at their freshest and best. We'll play around with contrast, exposure and such to give the clearest views of the details, if needed.

We will start, as we should, with the man everyone was forced to stare at (and listen to) all night, hostbot Ricky Gervais. As you can see, Ricky went open-collar, but otherwise quite tasteful, with bespoke three-piece peaked lapel evening wear. The waistcoat has a generous collar, in contrast with the rather stingy coat collar. The coat itself is well-shaped, with sporty slashed hacking pockets. The trousers are traditionally striped, and the perfect length, just breaking over the instep of the shoe. Except for his choice of chest fur instead of a bow tie, very well-done. 

Oh, except for one small detail. It's not actually black, it's THIS color. What a difference a hue makes! As nice as this would have been in black, the poor color choice make him quantum leap into a cross between a Prom date and a circus ringleader. A shame too, because it's otherwise a well-made suit. But then again, Gervais isn't exactly known for his taste. Which is why he was chosen to host.


Let's continue along the Walk of Shame with some other bad choices. Here's Zachary Levi, also dressed as a prom date. This is just ...so wrong. The skinny little lapels, tight chest, and short length is a disturbing enough trend, without adding the flapped hacking pockets and the close set double buttons. At least his pants aren't too long. And sadly, that's really saying something.


Ben Kingsley, a man who should know better, in a long tie. His trousers are pooling around his ankles. Let's face it, he's in a black suit, not a tux. That's fine for the Press guy standing behind him; but the man actually attending should be dressed a cut above the staff.


Viggo Mortensen, your press badge is at the check-in table. Oh, wait, you're not with the press? Then why are you dressed like that??


Here's David Duchovny, who apparently thinks he really is with the CIA. This sort of Man-in-Black minimalism just isn't appropriate for an honest-to-goodness black tie event.


Michael Fassbender: leather? Really? What part of this ensemble did you think was a good idea? 


Chris Colfer, you are a fashion tool. An egregious mistake of this caliber once, maybe twice, I can see. But every time, tiny narrow shiny little-boy jackets with low-rise, too-long, skinny pants? You look like an underfed bobble-head with big feet. There, I said it.


Seacrest, you may be in a bow tie, but the same rules apply. Narrow tuxedos are not flattering. They are awkward.


Fortunately, Indiana Jones is here to give a demonstration of the other end of the fit spectrum. The under-the-belly button point and long, shapeless lapels are a wee bit dated. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 30-year old tuxedo...as long as it was classically styled to begin with. But then again, Harrison Ford, at 70, has earned the right to wear whatever the hell he wants to. 


Steve Buscemi. Poor Steve can't seem to find a tux that fits him, ever. I almost feel bad for constantly beriding him at these awards ceremonies. (Almost.) This is one of his best attempts in a while, but if you've been following The Island of Misfit Clothes series, you can instantly see the problem is a too-long front balance. The long tie doesn't help, but I still contend that tall, thin Buscemi could have a smashing bespoke tuxedo made for his size and posture...if he wanted to.


Rob Lowe: Decent tuxedo, but the tie kills it. Owen Wilson: Ditto. Keith Urban. Same. And Kidman looks like your freakin' mother. Did she dress you too? 

Come on, people, what about black tie is confusing to you? Bow tie. Bow. Tie. 

Lest we get too depressed by this miserable turn-out, let's turn our attention to some attendees that actually put some thought into their attire. 


Adam Levine comes close to greatness. First, notice what a difference a white shirt and proper bow tie makes! Maroon 5 bandmate James Valentine wears nearly the same thing, but with a blue shirt, and the effect is ruined. But Levine's dinner jacket is almost perfect. Look at the tailoring! the curve of the sleeves, the shape of the fronts! The lapel is sublime: perfect width, perfect length, perfect shape, perfect grosgrain sheen. If I had to nitpick, I'd call the total length in the arms and skirts a scant inch too short. But those trousers! Notice how the clean, tailored effect is ruined by the low-rise, wrinkly pants, and the triangle of shirt showing under the jacket button. Swing and a miss, Adam.


Judd Apatow, similarly, missed out on a key detail. Yes, his trousers are wrinkled. But it's the expanse of shirtfront that offends black-tie sensibility. Any black-tie outfit needs a strong horizontal cut just above the natural waist, whether that be high-waisted trousers, a cummerbund, or a waistcoat. Without it, the torso is lengthened and legs are shortened -- exactly the opposite of the elegant effect black-tie strives for. 


See what a difference a simple cummerbund would have made?





















 It's all about illusion. Let's take Peter Dinklage as an example.


 Now before you cry foul on me, Dinklage has become fabulously famous and wealthy on account of his height, makes no aspersions about it, and plays comedic roles that poke direct fun at his stature. He also, of necessity, needs his clothes bespoke or semi-bespoke. The rules of black tie apply to him as well, and he could benefit from them as well as anyone. His jacket is well-cut and the lapel shape suits him. The extra length in the sleeves and trousers unfortunately makes him look shorter, as does, paradoxically, the long tie.


Contrary to belief, long ties do not automatically add height. 


Simply wearing classic black tie would have done much more for him, as seen here.








While we're on the subject of dismorphism, there were several fellows at the 'Globes whose large frames were done no favors by their choice of dinner jacket. Cory Monteith and Jonah Hill, no featherweights, were made to look even larger, merely by the size of their lapels. 

Monteith isn't overly large, but his jacket makes him look more big than athletic. The problem is primarily in the lapels. They are too short, too narrow, and too shapeless to harmonize with his broad chest. 

Here is one possible solution to the problem. A lower button point and higher lapel notch would emphasize his height, and a well shaped, broad, peaked lapel would give shape to his chest, definition across his pectorals, and proportionately minimize the waist compared to the shoulders. Increasing the cutaway at the front further reduces the bulk at the waist. A small design change, but one that completely changes the look of the jacket.

Jonah Hill is another matter. More stout than athletic, this choice of tuxedo results in a look akin to a barrel balanced on chopsticks -- entirely the opposite effect that formal wear is intended to do. The fault is enitirely that of trendy fashions: the skimpy lapels and skinny legs of the minisuit is to blame.

The solution is a simple design change. Traditional peaked lapels, broad enough to cover half the ample real estate from neck to shoulder, do the trick. Lowering the lapel notch to below the collarbone gives more visual interest to the upper chest, minimizing its girth. Wider trouser legs are required to visually balance his top and bottom halves.











Now let's start climbing up the sartorial asymptotic curve. The further we go, the more nitpicky and disparaging we'll get. There's no winning here, just approaching an unreachable ideal.


Mark Wahlberg misses on the low trousers, although their length is good, and his lapels are a good shape for him.


Matthew Morrison, by simply adding a waistcoat and pocket watch, jumps light-years ahead of his skinny-suit wearing compatriots...but we cannot turn a blind eye to those insignificant lapels, or the cheap construction of that button-four waistcoat itself.

Why am I so against the modern trend to short tux jackets and teeny tiny lapels? It goes to the very purpose of the dinner jacket itself. It is leisure wear -- it's supposed to be comfortable, langorous, easy to move and dance and lounge in. It is, simply, party clothes. It's not a bindingly stiff, uncomfortable strait-jacket.


To show this, let's compare Colin Firth and Ricky Gervais side-by-side. Gervais is in his odd-colored suit, Firth in black tie with self-faced lapels. (Ideally, those lapels would be grosgrain silk.) But look at the difference the width of the lapels make! The cut of their coats is actually very similar...but Gervais' coat looks tight, narrow, constricted, stingy, small, and high-strung. Firth's looks broad, welcoming, generous, elegant, natural, and comforable. Firth looks more athletic and broad shouldered, as well. 


Brad Pitt illustrates an interesting point. He is doing nothing wrong, sartorially speaking. Bow tie, waistcoat, even a walking stick. (Okay, it's a cane, but it will do just as well as an accessory.) His tux is, in fact, just okay. But compare "just okay" to Angelina Jolie, whose dress is definately not "just okay." In simple proximity to such exacting and perfect fit, he by comparison looks sloppy and mismatched. Tuxedos are not an afterthought, they are a complement to the accompanying dress. The lesson: If you are going to stand beside an eighty- thousand dollar dress with Angelina Jolie inside it, you'd better be prepared to at least fly to Savile Row for a bespoke ten-thousand dollar dinner suit. Anything less will simply not work.


Compare this to The Clooney, who provides an evenly-matched complement to Stacy Keibler, primarily through sheer force of will. While his outfit is very nice, it's not a blockbuster.


Leo DiCaprio certainly looks, at first glance, well put-together. The trouser legs are a bit long, but the jacket seems to fit.


Or does it? Look at what happens when he moves his arms very slightly rearward -- the lapels pull out, and the strain is seen all along the front. A tux that looks good at rest but can't handle any motion isn't a tux at all...just a badly executed concept. Can you imagine dancing in this?


Surpringly, one of the best-dressed gents there was not over 50, knew how to bend the rules, and pulled it off without losing his way. Ryan Kwanten, in an inky-black velvet smoking jacket, hit the right notes, but where most of his age group fell short, Ryan followed through. Patent leather balmorals and trousers that actually fit put him in the top ranks. The jacket was cut well, but the matching velvet bow tie pushed him near the top.










But the real rarified air, where reside those who truly know what black tie is, demands perfection. And there was one man who hit it closer than any other.


Gerard Butler was that man. It didn't get more correct than this. Patent-leather balmorals, of course. Trousers that just break over the instep, with grosgrain stripe at the side seam. Five-button scoop-neck lapelled waistcoat. Grosgrain-faced peak lapel one-button jacket with jetted pockets. Shirt studs, fold collar and bow tie. All in midnight blue, and all tailored to fit. And worn correctly -- jacket open, and not looking like he's attending a funeral. This is party wear, worn to a party.

So what did we learn from the festivities? First, that although there's still no shortage of trendy minisuits among the young, waistcoats are making a comeback, and more men are wearing their trousers at their shoes instead of on the floor. Let's hope that trend continues. No one stood out as remarkably brilliant in their interpretation of Black Tie, which may just be a sad commentary on how low we've set the bar for ourselves. We are reminded that how you wear what you wear is still important. But perhaps most importantly, that men do not live in a vacuum. Black tie carries with it a responsibility to put in just as much care, attention, and money into your evening wear as the women do, or the purpose of spending all that money on her gowns and fittings is lost, and the effect is ruined. And men, after all, have it easier in the end -- for even the most expensive tuxedo is a practical, wearable item of clothing; while the most expensive couture gown is good for little more than standing in.

There are plenty more extravaganzas in the offing for 2012, and not all of them are in Hollywood, if you know what I mean. It will be quite a trip to see who dresses like a grownup this year.

Stay tuned.

Click here to go to the next essay chronologically.

Click here to go back to the previous essay chronologically.

Click here to go back to the beginning.




Friday, January 13, 2012

The 2011 Year in Posts

 Chapter 49
A lot happened in 2011. Dress Like A Grownup!'s first year was packed brimful with tender nuggets of sartorial snark, garnished with delicate notes of historical reference, and sauteéd in a hearty sauce of erudite admonition. 

Detail of Interior of a Tailor's Shop,
painted ~1655 by Quiringh Van Brekelenkam.
It may be daunting for first-timers to wade through all this disparate information scattered throughout the year, so here is an easy-to-use cross-linkable summary index for the entire year. 

I started out in February, with a brief introduction that sets the stage for what would become Dress Like A Grownup! as it exists today. 

If you are truly new to the concept of dressing well, then my series on the basics, called Dressing The Average Guy, starts with the premise of knowing absolutely nothing. After you take a good look at yourself, I introduce the concept of insouciance as the yardstick for how you wear what you wear. After a thorough description of grownup attire, and the history of wearing it, we look at the science behind what makes a stylish suit, and then how to go about finding one.

The Dressing The Average Guy series continues with "Phase II," which is a little more advanced. Once you are familiar with the basics of proper clothing, I take you through rediscovering the happiness of your youth, and the influences of your youthful interests, to incorporate into your personal style, "fine tuning" your sartorial choices after having become comfortable with the broad strokes. Finding the right suit is made easier by learning to take proper measures on yourself, and then I show you how to use those measures to nab a perfectly-fitting suit right off the rack in fifteen minutes.

Preparation for advanced clothing and tailoring concepts starts with a tailor's form, that you can make yourself as an exact body-duplicate.

The Island of Misfit Clothes is the advanced series that builds upon the Average Guy series. The goal here is continued refinement of the exactness of the fit of your clothes by working on them yourself. I demonstrate how little changes can make a big difference by changing the button-stance of a jacket, and discussing all the equipment and supplies you'll need. We tackle a quick and easy way to alter a trouser waist, as well as a more involved way. We went through the theory of altering a jacket's chest size, and introduced a grossly outsized three-piece suit for our nefarious purposes. After taking it apart, and pinning it to shape, we stitch-marked it, in preparation for final stitching. And that's where that series left off at the end of 2011.

If you're unfamiliar with what constitutes a good pair of shoes, I have a good overview of styles, construction, and proper fitting, and a peek at the shoe closet of the well-heeled gentleman.

There wasn't a lot of hat-talk in 2011, although I did discuss choosing a hat for the summer heat, and a short observation of everyday hattery-foolery. My April Fool's topic on building your top hat collection, even in jest, has some good information on top hat construction, and where to buy a topper.

More importantly, I have laid out the intricacies of just when to wear a hat, and when not to, in plain language. 

Ties have gotten short-shrift this year, which was somewhat intentional. As I make bespoke ties, I didn't want the blog to devolve into a shill for my own product. I did discuss the different sorts of ties with which you should be familiar, and illustrated two different ways to tie a bow tie.

An overview of tropical summer shirts, and how to properly put them away in the off-season through starching, ironing, and wrapping, demonstrates that dressing well is not always about suits.


Scattered throughout the year are topical tips on dressing for special occassions, such as spring break, the prom, and autumn sports and recreation, 

There has been no shortage of sartorial history lessons this year: how schoolchildren of old learned how to dress, the origin of the Easter Parade, and the evolution of what is considered well-dressed through the ages. 

The Tony awards and the Emmy awards were fertile fields on which to cast a particularly perspicuous perspective on popular personages' panoply -- the formalwear decisions, both wise and oh-so-foolish, of rich and famous men. The wedding of Prince William to Catherine was well-covered, with emphasis on what the men wore, as well as the cautionary tale of the wedding of Prince Georg to Princess Sophie.

The story of the fighting yank illustrates the tragic consequences of poor attire on society.

In addition to the April Fool's week mentioned previously, Halloween week debuted the scariest thing I've seen this year, Thanksgiving week debuted the Bow Tie Man of the Year, and Christmas week should have been the Razor Square Man of the Year, if the Computer Crash of 2011 hadn't intervened. 

Said crash resulted in three mini-posts, the aforementioned hat observation, an exhortation to never cut corners, and not to take the path of least resistance. 

And thus we rang out the year of 2011. 2012 promises much more of the same: awards coverage, commentary, history, the continuation of The Island of Misfit Clothes, and ever more! Stay tuned.

Click here to go to the next essay chronologically.

Click here to go to the 2012 Year in Posts.

Click here to go back to the previous essay chronologically.

Click here to go back to the beginning.

Friday, January 6, 2012

The TT&S Razor Square Man of the Year

Chapter 48
One of the most memorable moments in television happened on The Tonight Show in 1960. Jack Paar, infuriated by the NBC censors' decision to cut a joke, (and a tame and rather funny one at that,) abruptly and without any warning walked right off the set. He stayed off for nearly a month, as NBC scrambled for hosts to cover his absence. Rumors and supposition suffused the public as Parr dropped completely out of sight. Then, one night, out of nowhere, he strolled on set, paused for a moment, then said, "As I was saying, before I was interrupted..." to an uproarious response from the audience.

Yes, the TT&S difference engine is back online, and all is well in the Sartorial Empire. All my data and files are intact, so we'll jump right back in where we left off, with what was to be the start of a yearly tradition on Christmas week. So, "as I was saying," Dress Like A Grown-Up! in cooperation with Mr Thompson's Ties & Squares, is pleased to present the annual

2011 Razor Square Man of the Year!

The criterion for this fine and noble distinction is to be (1) a man who has the public's eye and attention, (2) who consistently wears pocket squares publicly, (3) who shows a fine or unique sensibility in their pocket square choices, and (4) through whose example other men may be encouraged to do the same.

After much deliberation, we have 2011's three finalists.

The Second Runner-up is known for his work on the AMC series Mad Men. That entire franchise is a showcase for all things Mid-Century Wonderful, from the smallest details of furniture and architecture to a very good study of the basics of men's Classic Style in clothing. It's not a perfect show: it can certainly be a parodial pastiche of the era at times, but it is a tutorial in the Right Way to dress, notable in the pocket squares of the characters.

John Slattery, who plays Roger Sterling on the show, wears a variety of crisp starchy squares. Jon Hamm's Don Draper limits himself primarily to TV folds, but Sterling's squares are a bit showier, more elegant, and just as wearable today. Slattery didn't place higher through any fault of his own -- Mad Men itself, as a "time capsule" show, is the limiting factor here. As with any program set in the past, the fashions are by definition inaccessible and costume to modern eyes. Slattery's squares may catch the attention of the viewer, but may not encourage emulation in modern dress.

The First Runner-up, by contrast, is very much in the modern world. He is a man in front of the camera, but not an actor, whose sartorial choices are clearly his own. And he is a true connoisseur of the pocket square.

Bret Baier, Fox news reporter, former bureau chief, Pentagon and White House correspondent, and current anchor of Special Report on Fox News, is rarely seen on-camera without a pocket square. There has been much on-air good natured ribbing among the correspondents on the subject, and Baier's squares are an indispensable part of his wardrobe. He wears many differing styles, from the ubiquitous TV fold, to linen folds and silk poufs; all in perfect harmony with his tie, his suits, and even the overall tone of his broadcasts. He wears them naturally, and they don't call attention to themselves, but at the same time they complete the overall look of his suits with elegance and panache. The co-ordination of tie and square, a delicate balancing act of color and pattern, is accomplished so well by Baier that it should be required study for any man wanting to see how to do it right. 

This year's winner edges out Baier by a whisker. A television entertainment personality, he is more universally known, but more importantly, he demonstrates a side of the pocket squares that is very seldom used, and that unique take on the art earns him this year's top position.

Dr. Phil McGraw, an experimental and clinical psychologist, was hired by The Oprah for her 1995 trial. She was so impressed, she invited him on her show. This led to a weekly spot, then vaulted him to the vaunted position of a satellite orbiting Oprah's gravity well, and his daily "Dr. Phil" show. Dr. McGraw's wardrobe is supplied by the Italian designer Mabro, his on-set costume coordinator plays a part in what he wears, and he has a salary befitting an Oprahite, so it stands to reason that he looks good on-air.

Dr. Phil doesn't always wear pocket squares with his suits, but does often enough; and it is always a Mabro silk pouf. He doesn't always wear a tie: depending on the tone of the show, he is sometimes attired in a suit coat over an open-collared polo-style golf shirt, or in a dress shirt sans tie. What's so notable about this that warrants the Big Prize to the good Doctor? His no-tie informality is nearly always balanced with a pocket square that coordinates with the shirt. The square thus takes the place of the tie in the formal hierarchy. Pocket square as replacement for tie is a subtle but revolutionary note that shifts the balance of what's dressed-up and what's not. Shifting that small splash of silk and color from around the neck to in the pocket probably won't become become the new twenty-first century formal -- however, it does point the way to what may be a vital step in forestalling the inevitable slip into universal slovenliness. 

So congratulations, Dr Philip Calvin McGraw, PhD, 
you are the Mr Thompson's Ties & Squares