Style On The Dot posted: " For more than two decades, Victoria's Secret shows were sex-sells' no-secret and it became their undoing. In a widely publicised comeback show, staged just before New York Fashion Week kicked off, the event was a screening of—believe it—parts of a movie " Style on the Dot
For more than two decades, Victoria's Secret shows were sex-sells' no-secret and it became their undoing. In a widely publicised comeback show, staged just before New York Fashion Week kicked off, the event was a screening of—believe it—parts of a movie
And the attendees did not get to sit. All were dressed up to stand and watch what has been said was a preview to the upcoming film, The Victoria's Secret World Tour, available to watch on Amazon Prime from the 26th of this month. It was really a trailer. Perhaps that was not even the important part of the New York event. This was a chance for all the women who support Victoria's Secret (VS), despite past failings, to show up in their scanty best—some just the bra—to suggest that VS still makes the most buyable underwear any woman would want. There were hardly any reports of the show in the press after the event. Even the industry paper WWD wrote about the famous guests (noting that the Barbie-year-appropriate "pink carpet" was rolled out) and their experience with the brand's undies than what VS actually offered in terms of inner-garments.
The brand's once-adored Angels were absent on stage since none was required for the no-runway show, clouded by a patina of pink. Fans were disappointed that there was no Gisele Bündchen. But, a pair of 'wings' was exhibited to remind all that the seraphic, flight-ready forearms were once as much a part of the brand's identity as the impossibly long limbs of those Angels. In the place of those over-styled, earth-based celestial beings are now a group of women—reportedly ten—from different regions (in Asia, Japan represents the pluralistic continent), of different credentials, and, unsurprisingly, different body shapes. Together, they tried to give fans of the Victoria's Secret Show a "new narrative" (oft-used expression in association with their rebrand). Question is, how else can you sell underclothes without trancing on the let's-get-sexy territory?
Question is, how else can you sell underclothes without trancing on the let's-get-sexy territory?
Victoria's Secret has not quite answered that question. But its chief creative director Raul Martinez, former CD at Condé Nast and Anna Wintour long-term right-hand man, told The New York Times that the brand can now shout out: "This is it, this is who we are". He added, "We haven't forgotten our past, but we're also speaking to the present." Looking at the images of the attendees that were shared online, we wondered if anything has truly changed. Doja Cat looked like she wasn't wearing a bra, ditto Emily Ratajkowski, and definitely Lourdes Leon, which was ironic, since they were attending the event of an underwear brand. The early influence of VS has not waned. Naomi Campbell, fresh from presenting her debut collection for PrettyLittleThing, in a mini dress, read a poem on stage. What a highlight.
The brief cinematic experience that VS called "part documentary, part fantasy" (hence the retaining of the wings?) was served as a starter to what the brand hopes to project henceforth, not a palate cleanser. From the snippets that we have seen, the realness and the casting are not entirely different from what Fenty has done. Or, Skims. Except perhaps the medium. Why a movie? So that they could have better control over their image, to edit the end product, cut out the objectional parts? Make it pinkier than necessary? Celebrate women in their skimpiest clothes? Give female filmmakers a job? Make it less men's onanistic companion? We don't know for sure. When the reaction to the full-movie broadcast emerges, perhaps we'll know. Even then, it probably would not matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment