Saturday, October 16, 2010

The Price Of Things


This is, palpably, a beautiful scarf. The price attached to it is irrelevant to its beauty.

And yet people care about price. There are normal reasons for that: (1) to evaluate whether the scarf is "worth" its cost (meaning whether, compared to other goods, the scarf is fairly-priced, overly-expensive, or a bargain), and (2) to decide whether you individually can or should purchase it depending on your financial and personal circumstances.

There is another reason people often care about price and that is to express surprise and even outraged condemnation at the high cost of luxury items.

The price for this scarf is $995.00. How does that knowledge make you feel?

The scarf is made by Yves Saint Laurent and is cashmere. It can be purchased at:
www.net-a-porter.com/product/96101

I heard about this scarf on Isabel's blog (http://www.walkoffashion.com/). Her reaction to its cost amused me: she wrote, "I saw the price and my mouth dropped open. $995 for a scarf?! ...I can buy a bag for that much money!"

Friday, October 15, 2010

Language

I'm preparing for a big photo-shoot tomorrow and hope to show you the results over the weekend. In the meantime, can I vent?

I'm not really a pedant but there's one language error I see people make every day and it annoys the crap outta me. I just saw one of my favoritest bloggers do it and I'm sure she didn't know it was mistake.

When referring to a thing you mentioned earlier, it is okay to use the word "that." For example, you can write: "the car that I hit."

When referring to a person, however, you cannot use "that" -- it's wrong and sounds bad. The correct word to use when referring to a person you mentioned earlier is "who". As in, "the girl who dresses funny." Do not say, "the girl that dresses funny" because she is a person, not a thing.

Here's what I just read: "she is one of the few people that get my humor." Doesn't it sound better to say, "she is one of the few people who get my humor"?

I'm not mentioning any names...

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Halloween Animal Costumes

Okay, these are shameless, but they did make me smile!





Classic: "Saturday Night Fever" (1977)

It's a sure sign you're getting old when people don't get your cultural references.

I was surprised when some commentors to my last post didn't know about "The Honeymooners." To be fair, that show has been off the air for a while and, if you're young, there's no reason you would know about it. I have many friends in their 20's and I have to remind myself that many events I lived through happened before they were born.

Rather than rue this situation, I'm going to use this situation. As a new blog-feature, I'm going to dig into the past and alert you to gems of art that, because of their age, might have overlooked your notice. This will give you the chance to enjoy things worthy of attention.

I lived through the 1970's and that's my primary period of cultural reference. There was much to forget about that time, but there were also nuggets of excellence. If you weren't there, you might not know which are which.

Last weekend, close friends of mine told me about a bad experience they had watching a touted film from that era -- which I would have warned them against -- and their assumption that another movie -- which is fabulous -- might not be worth viewing. While I couldn't go back in time and stop them from seeing the bad film, I could recommend the good one. And that's the film I'm going to praise to you now:





"Saturday Night Fever" is a rare example of great art that becomes insanely popular. It hit at just the right moment in society where it captured the zeitgeist and entertained the heck out of people. I saw it in the theater on its release and recently re-watched it. The film holds up.

The movie is most commonly known for having the best and most exciting dance-sequence in the history of film. That scene alone makes is worth watching -- but there's more! Much, much more.

The film is a gripping drama, with multiple subplots, that work as a sociological study of life among the working-class in urban America. The story takes place in Brooklyn, where a young, talented dancer tries to overcome his environment and make something out of his life. It's a classic American story.

What really knocks you out is the verisimilitude of the depiction of that place. The script grew out of a non-fiction magazine article on working-class youth in Brooklyn called "Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night." If it wasn't so incredibly entertaining, you might believe the movie is a documentary; it's that realistic.

Also, it's raw. Surprisingly so. The movie contains rough language and scenes that wouldn't be shown in the theater today. The atmosphere of that world is toxic and the depictions of bigotry and misogny are as extreme as they are depressing. Cruelty and idiotic behavior are shown in their unvarnished form.

And yet amid the ruins are flowers struggling to grew through the cracks: individuals striving to transcend the neighborhood of their birth. They are able to see Manhattan from their perch and it functions as a fantasyland where their dreams of a better life might exist. These people are the "bridge-and-tunnel" crowd whom cultured New Yorkers disdain as ignorant and uninvited.

The movie launched two careers: John Travolta and The Bee Gees. Both soared into the stratosphere on the fame of SNF.

Travolta, two years earlier, had acquired a little attention for his work as class-clown Vinnie Barbarino in an awful TV comedy, "Welcome Back, Kotter." His work in SNF, as vain but admirable Tony Manero was entirely unexpected by everyone. His performance was so amazing that he was nominated for an Oscar in 1978 as Best Actor. After SNF, Travolta had his pick of Hollywood roles (and has made 60 films since).

The soundtrack is full of Bee Gees songs which closely-entwined in the story. With the movie's success, The Bee Gees became popular music stars.

Travolta was relatively unknown at the time of SNF and the rest of the cast was completely unknown -- a fact which makes the film work better, because you believe you're seeing actual characters and not actors playing roles. The characters are so engrossing that, even when you hate them, you can't help but be mesmerized by them.

I highly recommend SNF, but with the caveat that it has some rough drama in it. That isn't reason to avoid the film and, in fact, those scenes are highly engaging. And that dance scene!

The famous dance scene was shot in full-body because, after months of training, Travolta wanted everyone to believe it was him actually dancing and not a double. There's no editing or closeups which makes the dancing all the more impressive. And some of the dance-moves created for the film are still being used at parties today!




Have you seen the film? Do you want to?

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

"You're A Riot, Alice!"

I love Halloween. My partner Robin isn't fond of it so I have to coax her into joining the fun. When I pick the right costume for her, she gets in the mood and enjoys herself.

I just found great characters for the two of us. (I love complementary couple-costumes.)

This year, we're going to be Ralph and Alice Kramden! From "The Honeymooners," of course. It's a classic 1950's TV show with Jackie Gleason as blustery blowhard Ralph Kramden and Audrey Meadows as his saner, smarter wife Alice. They're visually recognizeable, so people will immediately grasp who we are.

Now I just have to fight with Robin over who gets to wear which costume... :)



Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Loungewear

I used to wear thick, bulky pajamas to bed. Then, a few years ago, I tried wearing a silky nightgown. (Actually, it was polyester but it felt silky.)

Wow! What a revelation and delight! I loved the feel of the smooth, light material on my body and I especially loved how the nightie floated around me without the binding that pajama-bottoms cause. I felt free and comfortable.

Now, I own four nightgowns and wear one every evening. I still have the silky one (eggplant-colored with white lace trim), along with a long pink flannel nightie for cold winter nights. I also have two short, light cotton nighties in pretty pastel colors for normal wear.

You probably take it for granted but nightgowns hug the body in a radically different way than pajamas: they connect to you up top near your shoulders and bust and then fall freely beneath that. I love the feeling that structure provides.

I had an interesting insight recently. I observed that, with normal clothes, I like to wear outfits that look different from what others wear, to express my individual style. And yet, with loungewear, I cherish wearing the same kind of nighties that I see on other women in pictures and catalogs. I don't care about style with nightgowns; instead, I want to look like other women to feel a kinship with them.

If it's not too personal, what do you guys wear to bed?





Monday, October 11, 2010

French Cuffs

Early in life, I exhausted the sartorial possibilities available in menswear. I recently showed you my neckties which are my primary area for creative expression. http://shybiker.livejournal.com/29150.html

Here is a second area where men can play a little: shirt-cuffs. I love cufflinks and they come in all kinds. I even have one imitating a speedometer! (They are the blue ones shown below.) I got those cufflinks when I started riding motorcycles.

To wear cufflinks, you need to get shirts with French cuffs. They're not easy to find these days since most men don't wear them. Regular cuffs have a button and hole; French cuffs have just holes into which you insert the cufflinks. (They fold over so there are actually four holes for the cufflinks to go through.)

I've never seen a woman wear French cuffs but I don't see why one couldn't -- if you're wearing a men's shirt, what's to stop you? Would you wear one?