Schiaparelli vs Chanel

In Judith Thur worldly concerns article for The rising Yorker, Mother of Invention in Fashion she tells of the life and mien influence of hu earthly concern bodyer Elsa Schiapargonlli. The name may not be familiar to fashion outsiders b atomic number 18ly the Italian designer emerged around the same time termination as the better-known Coco Chanel. While Chanel is most known for her easy cut clothing and classic designs, Schiaparelli is known for her courageous use of eclectic patterns and shot zippers.In a world of fashion where firsts are a rarity, Schiaparelli is recognized for innovations such as the overall, the power suit, colored hosiery and the wedge, a shoe that has yet to go out of style just to name a few. She had the boldness to design scarf dresses in bright fuchsia and mix and match sportswear in an aline of knits. She was there for party during a time of adventure and outspokenness and through her daring designs she gave women an outlet to express themselves.D uring World War II Schiaparelli put aim on the backburner due to the political situation and instead used her popular influence to help raise funds for various French relief charities. She refused to design clothes at such a time of suffering and terror and through this act she showed her solidarity and absolute ethics. Her rival, Gabrielle Coco Chanel was shacked up with a Nazi ships officer at the fancy Ritz while women were wearing her opaque designs to funerals for the many that were dying throughout the country.As the war came to an end Chanel came back strong with her original designs as simple and as black as ever just what society affected- nitwitted outfits. This society who was once willing to run for and try to stand out, now just treasured to blend into the sorrowful world that the war had turned life into, they didnt want to think at all. In the time of pre World War II, society was willing to go out of their way for fashion, to strive to stand out and be bold, t o try and to work for it. Schaparelli was a poet of couture as Thurman calls her, she designed clothes for an hearten and unbeholden New Woman.(Thurman, 1) Postwar the world was in a conservative state, the demand for fuchsia and graphic knitwear was not high, and her work was out of tune with the tastes of a conservative postwar public. (Thurman, 3) The innovative work of Schaparelli was recognized and at a time useful to the general public but its uniqueness was not good enough to stay in societys minds and unlike Chanel, it did not become a household name. Women no longer cherished to be outspoken, they instead wanted their clothing to speak for them.The little black dress practically invented by Chanel did just that-it spoke for itself. Throughout decades Chanel has created a following strong enough that in a sense it is its own category of style and has kept its affluent name throughout depressions and economic plights. The highest forms of royalty, the greatest icons and eve n the get-go Ladies of America clad themselves in the classic tweed of Chanel. The mindlessness of being able to rely on the classic cut, the clean lines and the dependent mix of grays and blacks are what makes Chanel a go-to for recognized and upper class women.Chanel represents the adaptation of fashion, postwar women did not want to try, they did not want to think too hard or work for fashion. Chanel doesnt want you to work at all, her clothing is meant to be worn and say enough for you, unrivaled of her classics, the little black dress symbolizes a womanhood putting on a dress that speaks for itself, it screams classy and timeless. Thurman writes, in reference to monumental breakthroughs such as monotheism, penicillin, the little black dress, history tends to remember those who live one big idea. (1) Chanel had big ideas, even if they were adapted from what was already invented, and those ideas were timeless. When one is wearing Chanel that is what is seen, it is not the wom en in Chanel that stands out but the Chanel on the woman. The little black dress which is casually referred to by todays designers as the LBD has become such a staple that rarely will a womans closet be lacking at least one. A little black dress is hardly as exciting and conversational as a hot pink pantsuit or as daring as sportswear with animal shaped buttons, but its black simplicity is mindless.It was exactly how society wanted its women to behave at the end of the 1940s the little black dress spoke for them because nobody wanted them to speak for themselves. A woman standing in the corner at a dinner party wearing Chanel does not need to be attended to, the fact that she is donning Chanel says just enough. She is wealthy, she is taken care of and anything she feels the need to say is being said by her Chanel outfit. One of the best known images of the little black dress is in Blake Edwards assume adaptation of Truman capotes breakfast at Tiffanys.Audrey Hepburn plays the naiv e yet eccentric temperament of Holly Golightly and her look has become legendary. Her hair pulled tightly into a bun and a never completion strand of pearls wrapped around her neck all of which accessorize her classic little black dress and a long stemmed cigarette that she has, without fail, for good in hand. Hepburn, frequently clad in Chanel, prances around the city as if it is her playground, nonchalantly yet tragically running with a different gentleman all(prenominal) evening.It would seem that she enjoys their company but she refers to them as rats during her daily rants to her new companion and neighbor. This character remains unnamed in the book but through the take away we learn that his name is Paul, although Holly finds him uncannily familiar to his brother and insists on calling him Fred. Holly Golightlys behavior is eccentric and sometimes unprompted and in both the mental picture and the novel the audience and readers are able to grasp this unpredictable aspect of her personality.Edwards and Capotes depiction of Holly is incredibly different in their respective portrayals of this screwball character. Although the storylines differ each of their portrayals successfully convey Holly as the entertaining woman that she is. Capotes interpreting makes readers push themselves and question Holly as a character is she a phony? Is her behavior literally past her? Does Holly not see what is going on? Readers are delving deep and thinking hard to understand the Holly Golightly in the text. We are looking deep into her character and trying to see her for who she is, to understand this seemingly complex woman.But then there is something about the Holly Golightly that Blake Edwards has created, a facade that appears in part due to her memorable ensemble. The movies Holly Golightly is easier for the audience to understand and empathize with. There is no thinking involved, just a beautiful demo and a simple little black dress. The Chanel-clad Holly all ows us to look at her without really looking into her, we are satisfied with what we see and our judgment is left at that. The Chanel little black dress is speaking for Holly and it is giving off an impression that leaves the audience excusing her for her petty actions.One of the most notable differences between the movie and the book is the ending that Paramount pictures completely changed from how Truman Capote first wrote it. Hollys main eccentricity is that she is constantly traveling, never being able to settle in one place that she finds herself leisurely in. I dont want to own anything until I find a place where me and things go together. Im not sure where that is(Capote,) At the end of the novel Holly remains her original nomadic and the last readers hear of her is through a postcard sent from Brazil to the narrator, like expected she has not settled down.Then there is the film version of Holly, a character who we choose to take for what she is, whatever that may be. In th e film the narrator Paul/Fred, is able to convince Holly to stay in New York, as he departs from a taxicab ride with her the audience thinks this is the last time they will ever see each other and the narrator, a man who is clearly head over heels for Holly, gives her a peace of his mind, and a glimpse into his broken heart You know whats wrong with you, Miss Whoever-You-Are?Youre chicken youve got no guts. Youre alarmed to stick out your chin and say, Okay, lifes a fact, people do chance on in love, people do belong to each other, because thats the only chance anybodys got for real happiness. You call yourself a free spirit, a wild thing, and youre terrified somebodys going to stick you in a cage. Well, baby, youre already in that cage. You built it yourselfits wherever you go. Because no matter where you run, you just end up running into yourself.(Breakfast at Tiffanys) Then to readers surprise but to audiences content Holly returns the narrators gestures The Holly in the book w ould have never settled for love and given in to one man Holly was a traveler never settling for one man or one address. The Holly in the movie has just been put in her place and audiences expect this of her and they accept it. Of course the lady in Chanel will fall in love in this fairytale-like rainy scene.For a Schiaparelli wearing character we expect more, we dont expect her to take such confrontation and to be told where she stands in the world, but the Chanel wearing woman will be swept off her feet and won over by her neighborly suitor. How is it that courtesy is given to the Holly Golightly in the film but yet the novels version of Holly would never be excused like this? Society, being the funny unpredictable way it is has the efficacy to turn its head at certain events or times.In Thurmans article we see that Schiaparelli and Chanel started off on equal ground but it is only one designer that is still around today Coco Chanel and Elsa Schiaparelli launched their fashion ho uses in the first decades of the last century like two rockets with equal payloads of ambition. Chanel settled into the discredit and brighter-more visible-orbit, which the gravity of convention begins to erode. Schiaparelli exerts her influence like a distant celestial body on women and designers who may see hot pink when they free-associate her name, but who otherwise have no small image of her work.(Thurman, 1) For such originality, Schiaparelli was merely lost in the times and is only a memory with no precise image attached to her name. Was she who we should have remembered? While Schiaparelli was working for a good cause during the war and using her resources to raise money for French charities, Chanel was holed up decadently with a Nazi officer living a lifestyle totally oblivious to the worlds events. Yet society turns its head and excuses Chanels actions just as quickly as they forget Schiaparellis heroic ones.Schiaparelli might not have been lost in the times had she made it simpler on us, had she tended to societys needs. We give Chanel the courtesy that we give Edwards version of Holly Golightly and we give Schiaparelli no courtesy at all. Edwards Holly Golightly makes it easy to fall for her quirky little expressions and slight towards the real world, the fairytale ending we are left with is simple and does not leave the audience wondering and digging deeper and for that we love the simplicity and mindlessness of the films Holly Golightly.It is the Holly Golightly in the film adaptation of Breakfast at Tiffanys that has become illustrious throughout the years her timelessness has stuck around like Chanels while the original novellas fame has fizzled out like Schiaparellis. Like Chanel, the film version of Holly Golightly is one that the audience does not have to work to understand. Readers are sick of working to understand Truman Capotes original Breakfast at Tiffanys like women were sick of working to understand Schiaparelli.Sometimes it is the easy and the mindless that society not only wants but needs, and they are willing to throw all originality out the window for it. Works Cited Breakfast at Tiffanys. Dir. Blake Edwards. Paramount Pictures, 1961. DVD. Capote, Truman. Breakfast At Tiffanys. New York Vintage Books, 1993. Thurman, Judith. Mother of Invention in Fashion. The New Yorker 27 Oct. 2003 1-3. Print.