What are some fashion don'ts that you've seen pulled off with aplomb?
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
Joined
·
8,584 Posts
This is Roger Moore between takes, not James Bond wearing a Fila jacket for black tie. I'm assuming they removed his silk dinner jacket to press it, and they put this jacket on him to keep him warm. So I don't count this as breaking the rules because it's not any different than someone who hasn't finished getting dressed.
But James Bond often breaks the rules of black tie as far as this board is concerned, since before the 1989 James Bond only wears a proper waist-covering with black tie on one occasion.
But James Bond often breaks the rules of black tie as far as this board is concerned, since before the 1989 James Bond only wears a proper waist-covering with black tie on one occasion.
I'm not an advocate of the position that he's somehow not James Bond in that moment simply because it's between takes, but every person is entitled to their own interpretation of identity, or so I would argue elsewhere.
I'm of the belief that if you're going to be seen wearing it (and by coworkers no less), then that's how you're dressed, for better or worse.
While it may have been erroneous for me to say he was wearing it with or to black tie and thus formally breaking rules, he is in effect standing around in an otherwise complete black tie ensemble and a windbreaker, which is a prescient idea in these casual and increasingly post-modern times.
My main purpose was to find casual 'fits like this that people might think look alright.
I'd also really like some pics plz
Joined
·
8,584 Posts
I don't think it's fair to judge clothes when people are not fully dressed. He's not breaking rules for staying warm on a film set. Here is the full outfit when he is fully dressed:
![]()
Some would argue that he is breaking rules with notched lapels and no waist-covering, so that should please you.
Some would argue that he is breaking rules with notched lapels and no waist-covering, so that should please you.
I mean, sure, but I don't think it's fair to judge costumes for films like they're really clothes meant to be worn in actual situations, anyways. And at that point you could say he's fully dressed for staying warm on a film set, so...does he pull off the fashion don't with aplomb or not? Experts have yet to reach a consensus.
I think Roger Moore pulls off that particular fashion don't with aplomb, but I have reservations attributing any of the "Bond" looks to Bond himself or aspiring to emulate them in any real situation..
Sorta like how everyone says Bond's dinner suit was bad in License to Kill, but in the story you understand he just bought it that afternoon from an unfamiliar tailor speaking a different language and for the purposes of looking like a jerk about to throw his money around: it might not be a great suit but for that role it was quite fashionable, not really a "don't" even though now it's full of exactly those...
I mean, we could pontificate about it all day long. I'd actually really enjoy that, and I thank you for indulging me thus far.
Joined
·
8,584 Posts
I think the intention of the look counts for something. Clothes need always be judged in context. If someone (whether Roger Moore himself or a costumed-designed character in a film) wore a Fila jacket with black tie accessories to either a black tie event or as casualwear, then it means something different than something that the costume department threw on him while preparing his dinner jacket for the next shot.
You may find the outfit appealing, though you can't judge it in the context of breaking the rules. Nobody is trying to break rules or make any fashion statement in that photo.
I have a difficult judging that dinner suit as something Bond had just bought in that context because it's clearly from the same tailor as the one who made the suit he brought with him from London to Key West earlier in the film. The horrible suit is meant to be like that because it was fashionable in America at that time, not because Bond just picked up the suit at a shop that day.
I'm glad you're enjoying this debate.
Joined
·
13,646 Posts
Sorry for, once again, bringing out these pics (I have an empty life, so living vicarious through a film star's 40+ year-old wardrobe is a big part of it), but at the time, jeans with sport coats were not common, meaning Redford, in 1975's "Three Days of the Condor," broke that "rule" with aplomb.
![Dress shirt Eyewear Sleeve Gesture Waist]()
![Face Outerwear Photograph Shoulder Leg]()
Joined
·
37,118 Posts
^^
Indeed, none have done better in any efforts to break that rule! Though I think tweeds and perhaps corduroy jackets perform better with jeans than perhaps those more refined sport coats that some are won't to wear.
Indeed, none have done better in any efforts to break that rule! Though I think tweeds and perhaps corduroy jackets perform better with jeans than perhaps those more refined sport coats that some are won't to wear.
Whew! I'm going to number my responses according to the original paragraph to which they respond because I'm terrible at formatting and the like.
1) I don't really think the intention of an outfit matters, but perhaps that's because I'm not interested in judging them as anything beyond "worn with aplomb." Pretty much every piece of erstwhile clothing has become divorced from any real intentional function; though many members of this forum understandably take issue with this, I am not here to fight the flow of time (there's a reason the part of the Bible which forbade blending fabrics was in the Old Testament, after all).
2) You can absolutely judge the wearing of a dress shirt and silk tie with a windbreaker regardless of who is or isn't trying to make a statement about either of them. In fact, I think you should; I can't imagine why anyone would feel otherwise, let alone prescribe as much to others.
3) I don't think the possibility that the same tailor made both suits in the real world precludes the notion that Bond bought the suit in universe for the moment he was in, and to that effect I don't think this is a debate because I don't think your position and my position meaningfully contradict one another.
You seem to be saying that we simply can't comment on how Moore looks in the picture above because he's not intending to look any particular way at that moment, which doesn't make any sense to me (and is obviously untrue: people will judge how he looks regardless of what he intends, no debate is necessary).
So, I mean, yeah, I am enjoying the pontificating, but I don't really see it as a debate. Debates are formal and have goals and typically reasonably approach truth.
This is literally semantics, which I also love.
He also buttons both buttons on that jacket! Can anyone comment as to whether or not that is a broken rule in this context?
Joined
·
3,713 Posts
Between takes, the actor Roger Moore was Roger Moore, not "James Bond" (unless he was a "method actor," which Moore certainly was not).
The thread topic is a promising and juicy one. Perhaps, though, using a behind-the-scenes photo of an actor between takes wasn't the best option.
It can take hours for a film crew to set up the next scene. Actors generally don't wear their full screen-worn outfits while waiting and waiting. They might put on a bathrobe and/or remove their shoes. Yes, they will be seen by the cast and crew--and they might look odd--but that's life on the movie set.
OK, then let's get rid of the emotionally-charged terms "fair" and "judge." Let's replace them with neutral words and put the above statement in the form of a question:
Will it advance our sartorial knowledge if we dispassionately critique the outfits that movie characters wear (provided those characters are playing it straight by wearing clothes that are meant to be worn in actual situations)?
The answer is "yes, such a discussion will greatly benefit our knowledge of proper dressing."
If you don't like the idea of judging, then don't judge. Instead, do what Matt does: observe closely, then comment objectively.
I generally agree, however....
I make an exception for actors on movie shoots. I believe that when it comes to what actors wear between takes, there are neither "fashion do's" nor "fashion don'ts." There is only that which is practical. Yes, wearing a ratty old bathrobe wouldn't look as good as donning a new Fila jacket, but it would not be a no-no. Whatever gets you through that tedious on-set downtime.
Joined
·
3,713 Posts
No rule-breaking is going on in my opinion. Redford's character is fastening what can be fastened (and turning up the jacket's lapels and collar) in order to stay warm.
Which is a bad decision on the character's part. It's better to observe those inviolate rules and freeze rather than to flout them and be warm. Priorities, priorities. Appearance over comfort at all costs.
"Fair" and "judge" were Matt's words, I was just echoing his train of thinking when I used them; I too think it's not fair to judge the look according to sartorial rules but I didn't set out to do that beyond, again, "worn with aplomb."
I am pretty much in agreement with you about everything else, except that I don't think sartorial objectivity is possible, and so I don't really request it from people.
Oh, and I don't think Moore and Bond are discrete entities; I'm willing to entertain that parts of one seep into the other and vice-versa.
Interesting. Would you say the latter is true because he's trying to blend in as a spy, or just in general?
Joined
·
13,646 Posts
⇧ I agree with all this plus, for decades, the number of buttons buttoned on a man's jacket has varied at different times. Depending on the decade and setting, you'll see, on two-button jackets, both buttons buttoned or only one and on true three-button jackets (not 3/2s), you'll see one, two or three buttons employed at various times.
But that aside, I'm with CD, it looks cold and he was trying to stay as warm as he could, which means buttoning up what you can. Using your clothes practically is a very Trad/Ivy thing to do.
Joined
·
8,584 Posts
The rules as to what buttons can be fastened exist because of how jackets are normally cut. The typical two-button or three-button jacket today is cut in a way that the bottom button and buttonhole don't match up, though early lounge jackets were often cut in a way for all buttons to fasten. Redford's jacket is slightly distorted when his fastens the bottom button because it was not designed to fasten that way. It doesn't look that awful, and if it keeps him warmer that's a good reason to fasten it. But without that purpose I'd say that he would be breaking a rule by buttoning it because of the slight distortion it causes.
Joined
·
3,713 Posts
I agree. I'll just tweak the "vice-versa" part by saying that Roger Moore put a lot more of his own nature into "James Bond" than the other way around. The traffic was two-way, but it was a lot heavier on the way from Moore to "Bond."
Joined
·
3,713 Posts
The latter is decidedly not true at all. The second paragraph of my previous post was tongue-in-cheek.
(This is the second time in just a few days I've had to explain I was only kidding. That does it: from now on, I'm gonna wear a red round clown nose when I type a joke. That should prevent any misunderstanding.)
Oh, ha, well, that was also my mistake then; it's a law that someone on the internet will always do and take something that someone says cheekily as something serious so I guess it's only reasonable I should be one such person eventually...
But it is worth considering all these things, IMO. Like you wanna pop your jacket's collar sometimes so you check to see if there's a precedent....
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
