Mailbag for May 10, 2024
Vogue's coverage of the Met Gala, fashion ahead of its time, 'why is' Lana Del Rey, Johnny Depp's maybe flop, and why is everyone sepia?
Dear Squawkers,
Now that we’ve mostly exhausted the conversation about the fashion at the Met Gala, can we talk about Vogue’s livestream? It was really, really good the year Keke Palmer did it, but since then, it doesn’t seem like they’ve been able to figure it out. In one of the chat threads posted here this week, Myra commented that:
“I watched the Met Gala livestream and noticed there wasn’t anyone I was holding my breath for, that they’d interview.”
Myra was ultimately making a point about the guest list this year but the note about not holding their breath for anyone for an interview gave me the opportunity to ask…do we care about interviews at the Met Gala?! When Keke is doing the interview, yes, I care. But, like, do we watch the livestream for the Met Gala to hear what people are saying or to look at what people are wearing and how they navigate up those steps and also who’s posing at the same time? This is one of the best parts of the Met Gala: the collision of celebrities as they make their way through the photo gauntlet. Like when Doja Cat and Kylie Jenner were both vamping at the same time the other night – me personally I’d rather watch hours and hours of that instead of Gwendoline Christie and Ashley Graham, no disrespect.
But also, if it were me, if I was in the control room cutting between the interviews, I would have taken more of Emma Chamberlain’s. Vogue’s social media strategy here was probably to save her bits for YouTube later instead of taking her camera live but, like, the pop culture news cycle moves so fast, holding that kind of content for a day later… I’m not sure about the payoff.
Mostly though, unless you have a host like Keke, I still go back to my idea of just switching between multiple feeds from the bottom of the carpet, with a camera mid-carpet, and a camera top of carpet and simply running audio commentary over it. Like a sporting event play-by-play. Using that analogy, the carpet is like the playing field, or the court, or the pitch, and you want to keep your cameras on the field as much as possible – this is where the action is! Interviews can come later which makes more sense for subsequent added value content but when it’s happening, in real time, what could possibly be the downside of keeping it as pure to livestream as possible?! This is basically the one event where the main character is the clothes. Just let me see the clothes!
There are more questions about the clothes and the Met Gala in today’s mailbag:
Question from Jill: I just finished listening to an episode of Articles of Interest on the emergence of stylists. They detail the shift from studio costumers dressing stars in their regular lives, to the period from about 60s-80s when stars were basically dressing themselves, to the rise of stylists. It got me thinking about two questions. First, can you think of examples of fashion choices that were widely panned at the time but you think are much better on reflection? In honor of the Met Gala perhaps you could think of examples from that event. Second, one of the points the hosts make about the turn to stylists is that celebrities are also just people that don’t necessarily have innate style, and a good stylist can help them find/develop their style. Are there any stars these days not working with stylists that you think have great style?
Lainey’s Answer:
I’ll give you the one that came to mind immediately and sorry, it’s not from the Met Gala but I’m not sure if there’s a better example from any event ever. You can’t see her face, but I know you know exactly who this is, and I know you all know this fit.
Oscars 1999. And, conveniently, given what we just saw at the Met Gala, Celine Dion was wearing John Galliano. In combination with that hat, how extra it was, and the backwardness of the suit, and the fact that back then a woman wearing pants to the Oscars was NOT the thing, it was widely criticised. People did not get it. This seems crazy now, but I promise you, at the time, there was no gagging, no wigs were coming off, nobody was dead ass and snapping their fingers. They mocked her, they laughed, she topped all the worst dressed lists.
And now?
It’s ICONIC.
Like in the true sense of the word and without any hyperbole… ICONIC.
Because that is one of the outfits that really represented a change in how people came to talk about fashion and appreciate it. In the years that followed, it gradually became less and less avant-garde to disregard prescribed fashion rules at events like the Oscars, allowing for a wider range of expression and style performance. I often think about Elliot Page and how he talks about going to the Oscars for Juno and how uncomfortable he was because so many people were weighing in about what he should wear and dresses were not for him, he hated the feeling of having to put on a piece of clothing that did not suit who he really was. And that was 2007, almost a decade after Celine’s Galliano suit. So when I say “gradual”, I mean graaaaaaduuuuuallll. I mean that Celine, again, was way, way, way, ahead of the time.
As for the second part of your question and stars who don’t have stylists and have great style – Diane Keaton and Kate Moss. But, seriously, this is rare. And this is where I have to talk about Blake Lively. Blake Lively does not use a stylist and for the last few years, before the Met Gala, Blake Lively is always trending. This year she was trending on Met Gala day because people on the internet consider her to be one of the best performers at the Met Gala after Rihanna, it makes me insane. Seriously?
Sorry, I don’t get it. I can remember exactly one Blake Lively Met Gala outfit, the Statue of Liberty, and not because I was into it, because I wasn’t, but because people wouldn’t shut the fuck up about a look that wasn’t all that interesting to me. Honestly, how are we putting Blake Lively in the same conversation as Rihanna?!
Could Blake Lively’s style potentially be more exciting? Yes, of course. If she used a stylist. I’d be so interested to see what Wayman + Micah or Andrew Mukamal or Erin Walsh could do with Blake Lively.
Sarah’s answer:
CHER. Her 1986 Oscars dress with feathered headpiece by Bob Mackie, specifically, but it could also be her 1974 “naked” dress at that year’s Met Gala (also by Bob Mackie). People HATED the way Cher dressed back in the day, if you can unearth any of the articles from the 1986 Oscars, she was EXCORIATED for that outfit but like…name a more iconic Oscar look! Maybe Celine, which, as Lainey says, people also HATED. In the evolution of Oscars fashion, it is a direct line from Cher to Celine to Gwyneth Paltrow’s pink Ralph Lauren princess dress to today’s mega-hyped red carpet coverage, all controversial looks that have outlasted the haters.
Question from Ruth: Random question and I guess not totally out of the blue because she was recently mentioned at the met gala. Would someone be willing to educate me on why is lana del rey??? I don't get it. And I ask this in my head every time I see her. There are some people you instantly dislike but you get the why. With her something seems off-putting AND I don't get the why. It's like seeing an ick you couldn't get past. But I genuinely am curious and want to understand the why for people who do get it.
Lainey’s Answer:
I didn’t really fuck with Lana Del Rey until Norman Fucking Rockwell. I fucking LOVE that album, top to bottom, no skips. “Goddamn man-child, you fucked me so good that I almost said, “I love you”, is one of the most hilarious and ferocious opening lyrics to an album, ever. And Norman Fucking Rockwell is full of lines like that – spare, funny, mean, pathetic, exhausting…
And I’ll never not enjoy the way she stutters her “T’s” on “Bartender”.
Since Norman Fucking Rockwell, I’ve grown to appreciate some, not all, of Lana’s music. But I will always rate that album, and that’s my personal answer to Why Is Lana Del Rey.
But I get it, I get why you’re asking, because despite my enduring appreciation for NFR, I do see how she’s off-putting to people, I can see the ick. Part of the ick, for some people, is that think she glamourises abuse in her songwriting. She has pushed back against this, but those who perceive it that way feel like she almost… yearns for toxicity in her relationships? Or at least sings about toxicity with an infatuation about them that blurs the line between trauma and kink. That is not my view of her music and her performance of it, but enough people have tried to make the case.
Lana’s vibe, however, has seemed different lately. Before she was always giving “I am Melancholy”. These days, like at the Met Gala, her energy is much more… whimsical? Even peppy? Lana often looks like she has a hard time having fun. At the Met Gala she looked like she was having a GREAT time. I wonder if that might change the way people perceive her.
Question from Ketri: Hoping Sarah might have some industry insight on this one… Seeing the news that the Jean du Barry film starring Johnny Depp has been pulled from theatres in LA—how significant is this? Is it as embarrassing for him as it seems or is there more context we should be considering? Can we hope that this means whatever resurgence he’s hoping to have is less likely?
Sarah’s answer:
I wish I had a fun answer for this but it’s boring business stuff. Jeanne du Barry starring Johnny Depp as Louis XV premiered at Cannes last year and was released in North America this past weekend by Fathom Events. If you’ve been to a movie theater in the last few years, you might have seen ads for Fathom’s broadcasts of operas from the Met. Fathom is a boutique distributor that specializes in (very) limited theatrical releases, usually of live theater/music and classic film titles. They picked up JDB a couple months ago and announced the May 2 release date.
Now, none of the press materials mention that the theatrical run would be less than a week, and “sources” are telling TMZ that the film was definitely not pulled from theaters due to lackluster ticket sales, so we can make it a coincidence or a conspiracy, but given that Fathom specializes in one-off screenings, I’m not shocked they only put the movie into theaters for a few days. Nor am I shocked that a French-language film about a French king Americans haven’t heard of except MAYBE as a type of furniture made by a French actress American audiences don’t know (Maïwenn) and starring Johnny Depp whom half of American audiences no longer like flopped. Fathom may well have intended to only run the film for one weekend all along, knowing they did not have a winning lottery ticket. It would be in line with both their business model and any reasonable person’s idea of how this movie would perform.
Question from Emily G: I absolutely loved Shogun—everything divine: costumes, sets, acting—and also the makeup! Mariko’s makeup was flawless, all the women’s was. And the makeup on the men was also great because I didn’t notice they were wearing any! My question is: Why is so much TV makeup terrible these days, specifically white people’s makeup? Like, why does everyone wear foundation with orange/yellow undertones? It’s especially egregious on reality TV, but I sort of give it a pass there because it feels like part of the costume those people are wearing when they film, like the complete disconnect between face and neck coloring is part of their whole schtick. But on TV shows, sometimes prestigious TV shows, where people are supposed to look realistic, what the heck is going on? Why is everyone sepia? Or am I living in la la land and it’s always been this way and has not, in fact, gotten worse? Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Lainey’s Answer:
My opinion on makeup, in general, is that people, not just on TV but everywhere, in real life, walking around, even going to the gym, wear too much of it. That might just be me being an old lady and not up on the youth trends but, like, I work in television and there are days when I leave work after being on camera for hours and the high school kid standing next to me on the subway has three times more makeup on than I do.
And this also has to do with personal taste. My personal taste is that I don’t like foundation, I don’t like contouring, so the most I’ll do is bb cream and a bit of concealer under the eyes if I haven’t slept. This doesn’t align with the trends. We often hear the term “building” in makeup – it’s layers and layers of product built one on top of the next and on reality television, I wonder if this is an issue of poor technique. I talk about this non-stop when I’m watching Love Island because on every episode, they film the women getting ready and it’s several minutes of them sitting in front of their vanities beating their faces. By the end of it, sometimes the results are horrifying. Cheeks aren’t blended properly, the colour is all wrong, and remember it’s not like they can light the shit properly on those kinds of shows because they don’t want the audience to be able to see the cables and wires and gear and whatever tech is involved in shooting. Bad lighting can turn a great makeup job into a disaster. But also, good lighting can camouflage a bad makeup job. And it’s one thing to light yourself properly when you’re filming content for Instagram on your phone but as soon as you exit that generous lighting setup, it exposes all the problems.
On scripted television, however, in theory we should be dealing with experts, and proper lighting and set up, and professional artists doing the makeup. To your point, that’s what we got with Shōgun – as Sarah wrote in her review, they lit the shit out of that show. The hair and makeup artists for that show did award-winning work, and if you haven’t already, read this piece about how the hair and makeup designers on that series researched and practised and sometimes invented products to suit their purpose. Shōgun was flawless because those artists are the best in the business. And they had the budget.
Sorry to be boring but some of this comes down to money. I am hearing more and more from people in the industry that hair and makeup budgets are being slashed. They may be hiring only one artist to do what three artists used to. Or they’re only giving artists half the amount of time they used to get. Or they’re using artists who are just starting their careers because they can’t pay the fees of more experienced artists.
It could also be budgets related to set up and shoot times. I talked about lighting earlier, for example. Our techs on a fixed set futz with the lighting all the time. And television interview shoots are not complicated compared to location shoots, and other places where series and movies are filmed. Set up is a meticulous process that should be respected. But with shrinking budgets, I’ve heard of situations where they’ve cut down on times for crews to be able to properly set up or reposition. And when people are rushed for time, with fewer resources, it’s just not going to look as good.
Sarah has written about VFX artists and how the cuts in the VFX industry had lead to lower pay and shorter amounts of time to get things done – and the impact of that on the quality of the effects we’re seeing on screen. Every department is getting slashed right now, so this decrease in quality is happening across the board, from visual effects to makeup.
Thanks so much for your questions! Thanks for another great week! Thanks for all the squawking during the Met Gala live chat and on all the threads!
Keep squawking, keep gossiping,
Lainey and Sarah
I just wanted to say: I subscribed only recently but I love the weekly mailbag. You teach us so much and give us plenty to think about.
honestly, I'll defend Björk's swan dress forever. How many other looks from two decades ago stick in the mind like that? And laying an egg on the red carpet? Glorious