It was supposed to be her last haute couture presentation. But Virginie Viard was conspicuously missing. Many were wondering if she was given the chance at all to finish the collection. Apparently, she was not
It was a long applause when the show ended; a polite clap of approval throughout the finale. When the last model in a wedding dress appeared, she was not followed by Virginie Viard. The designer who was supposed (or assumed?) to have completed the couture collection was conspicuous by her absence. Some people surmised that her no-show could be a sign of the discordance that let to her resignation. As her resignation was announced early this month and even when there was talk that Ms Viard made the decision hastily, it is possible that she had completed most, if not all, the pieces required for the show. But there is the vivid chatter that the collection was put together by the atelier. Ms Viard apparently did not oversee it. Rather, it was a company division called Fashion Creation Studio, as identified by BOF, that was entirely responsible.
Why take pains to distance the collection from Ms Viard? Because her departure was so cloaked in mystery, people talk. It was, therefore, hard to ignore the conjectures while taking in the couture. Social media has been rife with rumours. Among them was that Mr Viard could not get along with Chanel CEO Leena Nair. While CEOs are generally not involved in the creative decisions made by persons hired to make those decisions, it was tempting to ask if Ms Nair had anything to do with the current collection. Could she have wanted the clothes to be more glittery and more sumptuous, as it were, which was not quite Ms Viard's strength and a total opposite of what was happening at Dior this season? Was a night at the Opéra Garnier (also the Palais Garnier) the prelude to the drama that Chanel had wished the brand to be noted for, next? Even if she had a very small part in its execution, was it not lacking in grace of Chanel not to acknowledge her decades-long contributions and allow Ms Viard to bow out to appreciative applause.
However hard Chanel tried to unseam their former creative head from the picture, the collection, to us, still had a touch of Ms Viard's hand. Many looks might have been worthy of an opening night, but the superfluous tested what would be considered judicious, even if it was all to show off the skills of their storied métiers. Did Chanel need to be this ornamented, this beribboned, this ruffled? To be certain, there were, if one looked hard enough, gems: beautifully proportioned and shaped suits (that Karl Lagerfeld would have approved) and lean evening wear with a whiff of chic (or the more revered definition of it). But, regrettably, for every exquisite look, there were twice, even thrice, more that were odious or could have enjoyed some measure of editing. The jackets with the hip-enhancing peplums, the evening dress with the torso amplifying drapes under the bust, and the off-shoulder cape held up with ribbons were better left untouched in the KIV bin. And there were clichés too. Because it was a show at the opera house, the first look—and several others—had to be a voluminous, floor-sweeping opera coat?
By introducing the lamentably puffy and top-heavy wedding dress to close the show (a rather dated requisite), Chanel illustrated that they can be traditional, and appeal to the bride who is blessed with wealth, but not style. In fact, for a while now, women go to Chanel for the sensible and the dependable (there were 12 tidy boucle suits in the recent show)—clothes with the easy draw of social approval as their classic flap bag. Chanel haute couture is reportedly a viable business entity, a money spinner for the house (they do not reveal figures or how large their customer base). Even if it didn't try this hard. The old thinking was that the haute couture would help augment the sales of the handbags, accessories, shoes, perfume and make-up (lipstick!), but the non-garment merchandise now move with almost no prodding, and in large quantities. Haute couture does not need to be the vehicle. If so, can it be less commerical or less easily digestible? Or would that be asking too much?
Screen shot (top): chanel/YouTube. Photos: Chanel
No comments:
Post a Comment