Fugger: Rosamund Pike
Nothing against Rosamund Pike, but this dress feels SO off-base for this event that I assume she got invited at the last minute because someone remembered she’s in Gone Girl, and/or Louis Vuitton forgot to get anyone besides Michelle Williams signed up for this thing and so just started calling people from back issues of Entertainment Weekly.
And, much like Michelle Williams before her, this Vuitton would make sense if she were going on Jimmy Fallon, but not to the Met Gala. (Did someone say “Met Gala” and Nicolas Ghesquière heard “Seth Meyers”?)
I actually LIKE most of it except for her midsection. She looks like a tennis superfan who caught Nadal’s sweatband and vowed NEVER TO PART WITH IT. …. Except, no. I’m sorry. That was not my first thought. My VERY FIRST thought was rude, and juvenile. Because at a passing glance, my eyes keep getting tricked into seeing something naughty. And thus my TRUE first reaction was: This dress is what would happen if someone used a makeshift cummerbund to strap a rubber sex toy to their midriff, simply because they wanted something in common with Benedict Cumberbatch and GRIEVOUSLY misremembered what his name actually is. I do not approve that message. (And if anyone thinks I’m poking any kind of fun at Benedict Cumberbatch’s name, I invite you to Google what mine is.)
I think… I’m glad there at least IS netting.
Without it, this might just look like various punctuation marks attempting to suture themselves together. With it, though, it still kind of looks like punctuation mark surgery, just on a slightly filthier table. Does this make it cool and unusual, or cruel and unusual?
Y’all know I love a pattern on a formal gown:
I’m just not entirely convinced this pattern is the key to my heart. I’m pretty sure I spied it most recently on a Barbie doll.
Can’t a dress please just be a dress sometimes? Not everything needs a belt nor a whistle nor aggressively unflattering cut-outs.