Met Costume Fug


So, last night was the Met’s annual benefit gala, which is always a TREAT for me, because it’s basically a shitload of models and socialites, with a sprinkling of selected actresses, dressing to the nines — no, not even the nines. Like the tens. — doing the whole W magazine “W Eye” society party thing, which I just find fascinating. And every year, this particular event is a gold mine of fashion, from the utterly sublime to the completely absurd. For example:

Sublime:

Of course, it helps that she’s incredibly beautiful to begin with, and this certainly isn’t particularly risky. But as we always say here at GFY  HQ: there’s nothing wrong with deciding to just look pretty. And, MAN, Thandie Newton is pretty.

Absurd:

Marcia Gay Harden is many things, including “a good actress” and what my grandmother would call, “a handsome woman,” but as such, she should not be dressing like a Barbie. Ever.

Sublime:

I suspect some people may disagree with me on this, but — as in the case of Michelle Williams’s Oscar dress — I love the unusual color choice. I also think the cut is an interesting way to handle satin, which can be sort of unforgiving. It’s very Glamourous Nightgown Chic, in a way that I think works beautifully — it’s interesting and unusual, while still being very wearable. It’s also alarming how much Michelle Monaghan looks like Katie — excuse me, KATE — Holmes.  Do you think she and Thandie Newton chatted about Crazy Tom Cruise over their cocktails? I like to think they exchanged their best tips on avoiding brainwashing.

Alarming:

Um, no. Like, I get that the theme of the ball is “anglomania,” but….there’s such a thing as being too on point, and of all people, I would think that someone like SJP, who is generally extremely sharp about such things, would know better. There’s cleverly referencing something, and then there’s ACTUALLY WEARING A COSTUME. And actually, this just reminds me of the episode of Sex and the City where Charlotte and Trey have to gussy themselves up in the MacDougal tartan to go to the Scottish Fling, and Bunny McDougal is very mean to Charlotte about her infertility, and I suspect that wasn’t really the point of this get-up. Also, I hate the shoes.

Next! Should be absurd, and would be ridiculous on ANYONE else, but is sublime because the color is amazing and Linda Evangelista — and probably ONLY Linda Evangelista — has the charisma (and the height) to carry off all the crazy ruffles. This is what is known as “getting away with anything because you are a motherf’ing supermodel, and there’s a reason you didn’t get out of bed for under ten grand a day”:

She’s so fierce, even when she’s wearing something that would make a lesser woman look like a toilet paper cozy. I hope Christy Turlington is taking notes, because Linda is WORKING HER OVER right now.

But what is wrong with her?:

Dear Emmy Rossum: YOU’RE NOT FIFTY-FIVE YEARS OLD. The truth is that the dress underneath this matronly bandleader get-up is lovely — albeit boring in the typical Emmy Rossum Only Wears Virginal White Ralph Lauren way — but the jacket? Looks like she bought it at the Junior League White Elephant Sale in White Plains, 1993. Try something new, Emmy. Like COLOR.

Sublime:

I’m not a fan of the Huge Seed-Like Bead Necklaces, and I don’t like this one particularly, either — I think this necklace, plus the neckline of the dress, plus her hair, makes her neck look short — but I covet this dress. The cut, the color, the beading — fab. FAB. I long for it.

Absurd:

SHUT UP SIENNA.

In all honesty, there is a part of me that loves this — because it’s short and shiny and very Viva Las Vegas, and that’s fun. I don’t even mind the tights. But I hate her hair, and I hate that she seems to think she’s actually Edie Sedgwick, and I hate the way everyone from Teen Vogue to Vogue  Vogue has shoved Sienna Miller in all of our faces for reasons I still can’t comprehend. She’s just taking what Kate Moss does every day a million times better and sticking a headband on it.  And you know what? I know she’s an actress, but I haven’t seen a single movie she’s ever been in. All she’s REALLY known for in the United States is a) banging Jude Law and b) dressing like a fruitcake. Aside from that, she doesn’t seem particularly interesting or clever or intriguing. In fact, she doesn’t seem like ANYTHING. There’s nothing there to aspire to. So why does Vogue think we care about her? Seriously, Anna Wintour, I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU PUT HER ON THE COVER THAT TIME. Look up at Linda Evangelista and now look back at Sienna. One of these woman has presence, and IT’S NOT THE ONE DRESSED LIKE A DISCO BALL. Now, I’m certainly not one of those Why Are There Only Actresses On Magazine Covers All The Time, I Long For the Past And Hate These Starlets sort of readers — I don’t mind a beautiful, interesting actress on the cover of Vogue.  But Sienna Miller doesn’t fit that description.  And, frankly, I can’t believe that someone like Anna Wintour really gives two shits about Sienna Miller to begin with, not to mention the fact that I suspect that if Sienna Miller WORKED for Anna Wintour, Anna “Nuclear” Wintour would destroy her with two well-placed put-downs and then eat her for breakfast and that, my readers, is why I secretly love Anna Wintour. When I was reading her [very poorly written] unauthorized biography-cum-hack job last year, I closed it and decided that I rather felt for poor Anna, who came off, to me, as somewhat misunderstood. She really just wants people to do their damn jobs properly without a lot of whinging.  Anyway, I really feel that there is NO WAY that she could possibly REALLY endorse Sienna Miller, and I WOULD JUST REALLY LIKE TO KNOW WHY EVERY CONDE NAST PUBLICATION IN EXISTENCE IS TRYING TO MAKE US BUY HER AS THE MOST STYLISH STARLET OF THE NEW MILLENNIUM. Seriously. Why, Anna? WHY?

Okay, I feel better now. I’ve been carrying that around for a while. But I mean it, Sienna. Shut up.

react: