Some are cool. Some are bad. And one has taken the phrase, “You are a fashion rock star” to all new levels around here. For the most part, it is the clothes that are the stars of fashion weeks in New York, London, Milan, and Paris. But every once in a while spectacle takes over and the clothes become overshadowed by the show or at least an element of the show. Sometimes that’s wonderful. Other times, not so much. Here are our choices for the most memorable video moments from the autumn/winter 2015 season.
5. Mark & Estel (New York)
We lampoon this duo every season, not for the clothes, which wouldn’t be that bad with some serious refinement, but for their bizarre egocentric antics during the show’s finale. Every. Season. This time, it was Mark’s attempt at rapping and his insistence that YOU are a fashion rock star that still has us laughing. We’re pretty sure those black tails are hiding a brown stain on those white pants.
4. Chanel (Paris)
Karl Lagerfeld spends more on the spectacle than he does on the clothes when it comes to fashion week. Seriously, when was the last time you actually saw anything totally new from this label? To make the endless remakes more palatable, Lagerfeld goes overboard with the most elaborate of sets. This season: a fully functioning, and from what I understand the city’s largest, Parisian bistro. He even tossed in some male models as waiters. Knowing how rough male models have it, my guess is they all had prior experience that qualified them for the job. Take a look.
3. Antonio Marras (Milan)
I’m not sure to what degree Antonio Marras intended to create a sensation for his line in any way other than designing desirable clothes. I wasn’t terribly impressed overall, but his sense of detail is quite impressive. More impressive, though, is who he cast to wear the final piece: 71-year-old iconic Italian model Benedetta Barzini. A woman who graced the cover of Vogue Italia in 1965, Marras described her as, “… an eccentric, limitless woman. She is a living legend of fashion.” Her walk was perhaps the most regal and the most graceful I’ve ever seen. We pick up the video at the point she enters.
2. Dolce & Gabbana (Milan)
This one comes with some built-in controversy. When Dolce & Gabbana dedicated their show to mothers, and proceeded to send both moms and babies down the runway, it was difficult to not join in the collective awww. At the time, I’m not sure too many people realized there was a socio-political statement being made: Dolce & Gabbana are against invitro fertilization, especially where it helps gay couples have children. That would be gay couples such a rock legend Sir Elton John, who has now joined a boycott against the designers. Then, to make matters worse, Stephano Gabbana calls Sir Elton a fascist. OH, and did we mention the designers themselves were a couple for 23 years before breaking up in 2005? Something’s not right here. Superficially, the video is darling but is this an appropriate way to make a political statement? We think not.
https://youtu.be/4Vo7kAXS6FQ
1. Valentino (Paris)
Let’s be brutally honest: this fashion season was a bit of a disappointment. I actually had difficulty finding five videos worth including in any kind of a “best of” list. Valentino came at us with a surprise ending, though, after which they might as well just canceled the remaining shows. No one could top Zoolander hitting the runway at the finale. I sat there watching, not able to actually see the entry point at the top of the runway, as the crowd went from politely bored to excited and even animated. As the two figures neared, I knew who they were supposed to be, but could it actually be them? In the flesh? Yes, it was Ben Still and Owen Wilson, in the flesh. Zoolander 2 comes out the summer of 2016. We hope this scene isn’t left on the cutting room floor.
https://youtu.be/RHg59JR31ho?t=13m18s
Free Information
Freedom of Information (Composite, 2015)
James Madison, the fourth President of the United States and a principal author of the United States Constitution, was born on March 16, 1751 and it is because of his commitment to a balanced government and informed electorate that we celebrate Freedom of Information Day on his birthday. But wait, with such freedom comes responsibility. Are we up to the challenge?
[one_half padding=”2px 6px 0 2px”]Anyone my age or younger has grown up with a concept that government has an obligation to be open and honest with its citizens. President Johnson signed the first Freedom of Information act on July 4, 1966 with some hesitation, but it set forth a standard for the federal government we pretty much take for granted today. We fully expect that our federal government has to tell us, within reason, what it’s doing.
At least, that’s what the history books will tell you. That law was actually repealed by the 89th Congress and replaced with Title 5 of the United States Code, which contains language substantively identical to the Freedom of Information Act, but also contains a great deal of additional regulation over civil service functions and responsibilities.
Hold on, we’re not done yet, though. There have been amendments over the years and they’ve come with some political turmoil. Consider the Privacy Act of 1974, which most importantly gives an individual the right to see what information the government has about them, correct that information if it’s wrong, and sue the government if it is being misused. Opposing the Privacy Act was then federal attorney Antonin Scalia (prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court), President Ford’s Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld, and a deputy named Dick Cheney. They convinced President Ford to veto the bill, but could not stop Congress from overriding the veto.
They weren’t done. In 1976 (same President, slightly different Congress) what was laughably referred to as the Government in the Sunshine Act (it was the 70s, forgive them), added some restrictions to the act. Most notably among them, information regarding matters of national defense and preventing federal agencies from speaking regarding active court cases. Suddenly, that picture of the federal government started having huge holes cut from it.
President Reagan limited the act even further, using Executive Order to allow government to hide pretty much anything it wanted under that “national defense” clause. President Clinton vacated that order in 1995, and went on to issue Executive Orders of his own to allow for the release of documents older than 25 years old that were of “historical interest.” President Clinton also oversaw the Electronic Freedom of Information Act in 1996, requiring federal agencies to make documents available electronically (which is why federal websites are so important).
There were some smaller Executive Orders here and there, but the next major change came as part of the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007. Among other things, the act redefines what qualifies as a member of the news media (includes bloggers not directly associated with a traditional news outlet), and establishes the Office of Government Information Services to mediate claims against federal agencies.
Whew. Being an “open” government isn’t quite so easy, is it?
And therein is the challenge. Not only does government have a responsibility to be open about what it’s doing, what information is being collected and for what purposes (we’ve been arguing about the whole cell phone thing for how long now?), we have a responsibility with regard to what we do with that information.
Specifically this: we have to ask for the information.
Freedom of Information merely means that government agencies have to provide certain information when it is requested. They don’t have to mail it to your door. No one is going to sit down and make you read it. You have to ask.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”2px 2px 0 6px”]In my aged (in an oak barrel) opinion, the need to figure things out for ourselves has never been stronger. Since 2007, there have been a number of politically-motivated websites who have gained some level of prominence by making Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and manipulating that information to serve particular political purposes. There’s no sense blaming one party or another because it happens in abundance on both sides.
And both sides get it wrong more than 60% of the time, according to studies released last year regarding information integrity.
The unintended result of so many people having what is essentially quick and easy access to so much information is that our news and information sources are now flooded with misinformation more than anything that is actually factual and helpful. Even our most trusted news sources have been caught in outright lies, and more frequently are guilty of taking raw information gleaned from federal sources and twisting that in ways never intended.
When we allow others to interpret information for us, it becomes very much like the composite image we choose for today’s PotD: challenging to know exactly what we’re seeing. Was this a single picture from one event? How many people are actually in the picture? Is anything important being omitted in the “redacted” portions of the image? How does one tell what is real and what is reflection? What is that child eating?
Think of information as though it were a basket of fruit. On one side, the government has its basket with a small, carefully lettered sign that says, “Free for the taking.” No one takes the fruit, though, because it hasn’t been peeled or washed and would just be too much trouble to prepare. People on that side of the street complain about being hungry but ignore the basket of fruit completely because it’s just too much trouble.
On the other side of the street are fruit vendors. They take the free fruit from the government basket, wash it, peel it, slice it, and make it look attractive on a plate. As a result, people flock to that side of the street to consume their fruit. There’s just one problem: some of it is poison. [Remember, Maleficent dealt in fruit, also, much to Snow White’s demise.] But even knowing that some of the fruit is poison, people still consume as much of it as possible and consider themselves well fed.
We do exactly the same with information. We consider the raw sources too difficult, so we let someone else do the parsing for us, knowing that a great deal of what we read is “poisoned” with editorial bias, but we consume as much as we can and consider ourselves informed.
I’m fairly certain that if James Madison were alive today, in addition to being totally freaked out by technology and vehicles that move without visible means of propulsion, he would encourage, if not demand, us to take a more active and deliberate role in how we receive critical information from and about our government. We don’t have to take someone else’s word. Proposed legislation is typically available online within hours of it being presented and given a bill number. Verbatim transcripts, and in some cases video, of committee hearings are available online as well.
The information is there, and it’s free. Now, what are you going to do with it?[/one_half_last]
Share this:
Like this: