Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
The Red-Carpet Review
A look at hits and misses of the 2012 Academy Awards.

By Bradley Scott


Archive Latest RSS Send
Text  

This year’s Academy Awards was another display of the finest fashion designers on the globe, and stars clamored to wear the latest and greatest. As with all award ceremonies, there are hits, misses, oddities, and irregularities.

I normally don’t inject any form of politics into my fashion review, but I did find one brilliant moment so on target that it is worth mentioning: When Billy Crystal pointed out the irony that “nothing can take the sting out of the world’s economic problems like watching millionaires present gold statues to each other,” I couldn’t help but chuckle. That said, let’s look at my examination of everyone’s favorite section of the National Review: fashion, of course!

Advertisement

My first selection must go to my favorite, and that, undeniably would be Michelle Williams. I don’t know a single editor so far that said she looked anything but stunning in her coral, strapless Louis Vuitton dress. As with my previous reviews on the National Review, I like to focus my compliments not only on the dress itself, but the details which make the dress, in one word, spectacular. This masterpiece — a coral, strapless, peplum, tiered number by Louis Vuitton — was shockingly perfect. Sometimes dresses can look corky when there are a lot of details, but here it’s just perfect. Pairing it with a necklace in lieu of earrings was the right move, especially with short hair. Looking back at her previous selection of Jason Wu for the Golden Globes, this is just more evidence of someone who knows her style and who dresses to bring out the best in her, not for the tabloid’s gossip section.

A close second is occupied by Emma Stone, who looked really chic in her Giambatista Valli dress, fabricated of a Red/Fuscia silk with what seems to be a trademark of Valli as of late — the giant bow. Even if it is a love-it-or-hate-it detail, I personally found it to be just right, because the designer used silk georgette, a drapey soft fabric, instead of a stiffer organza or taffeta, which would have absolutely overwhelmed Emma. The designer, fresh off his recognition at Fashion Group International (like your humble correspondent) knows how to elongate women with his beautiful silhouettes. It also helps that Emma wears red so incredibly well and therefore it just seems so perfect for her.

On a side note, since fashion always emerges from the past, and recollections of previous Academy Awards ceremonies remain in my mind, I found Emma’s dress to bear a striking resemblance to Nicole Kidman’s 2007 attire. What do you think? Too close for comfort, or am I totally off base?

         

1   2   3   Next >
Text  

You Might Also Like...

Auslin: Where Did the Land Go?

Birzer: A Different Kind of Progressive

Patterson: The Marvelous Avengers

Geraghty: Some ‘Change’

Geraghty: Act of Accuracy

Hibbs: Oscar Surprises



COMMENTS   10

EXPAND  

   02/27/12 17:19

Miss Williams' dress is nicer than some, but there's still something missing to really suit her. This dress is drawing more attention to Louis Vuitton than Miss Williams herself. First, I think the color is not very original: red is too commonly thought of as attractive. Something bright but pinker would be better with her hair color and skin tone and would look better. Also, I think there is something missing: her shoulders and arms are too bare in relation to the bottom part -- another characteristic decision of these current fashion designers who really don't think much of women. My favorite designers were for the Hollywood movies in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Good examples would be Edith Head for Grace Kelly in "To Catch a Thief" and Helen Rose for Sandra Dee in "The Reluctant Debutante."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/27/12 22:10

The accessory missing from Tiny Fey's ensemble was a beanie with a propeller on top.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/27/12 23:13

Bud Light Presents Real Men of Genius, Academy Awards Version. External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/28/12 00:56

Bradley, you're so innocent--Lopez hounds publicity. She dresses to get it. She got it.

Case closed.

https://twitter.com/#!/ASEVIDEO/status/173952377655795714/photo/1

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/28/12 05:32

Mr. Scott, What exactly do you mean when you describe Meryl Streep's gold dress as showing "definition of character"? Yes, they play characters, but do actresses nowadays have much character? Isn't an actress's character largely defined by the roles she chooses to play? If we look at the roles Miss Streep has played over the years, Miss Streep doesn't have much character left to define. For her latest role, she picked a good one in Margaret Thatcher, although I'm not sure she portrays much of Mrs. Thatcher's true character in that particular role as written and directed, etc. Maybe actresses should be a little more discriminating in the roles they choose...oh, wait..that would mean they couldn't be actresses because there aren't any good roles being written! Doris Day is known to have rejected the role of Mrs. Robinson in "The Graduate"for character reasons...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/28/12 10:45

"Isn't an actress's character largely defined by the roles she chooses to play?"

I highly doubt that only actors of bad character pick villainous roles and only actors of good character choose to wear the "white hat." While some like to keep their "screen image" a certain way, it doesn't necessarily translate completely (or even at all) to their real lives.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/28/12 12:23

What they do in their real lives doesn't interest me, I'd just rather see a production of Shakespeare that is faithful to the original text, or a play such as Richard Brinsley Sheridan's "The School for Scandal" done in the period style -- that is, without the invasion of modern interpretation. Things written in a particular time period are better presented that way. Theatre is supposed to point us towards the truth, not a particular writer's bitter and skewed version of life. When people watch that, they begin to think that's the truth. And there we have the danger of the theatre, the ability to manipulate people who don't know any better.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/28/12 11:42

"The" National Review? Editors where art thou?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/28/12 13:36

So even National Review fiddles at the feet of Hollywood royalty as the nation burns.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
glorybee5
   02/29/12 16:09

You should pay attention when 7+ women tell you a dress is hideous. Meryl Streep's frock was an over-draped, ill-fitting, cheap 80's lame monstrosity that was even worse than her Golden Globes ersatz cowboy ensemble. Rooney Mara and Octavia Spencer were by leaps and bounds the most fabulous & completely styled looks from head to toe - especially considering that Mara is still shooting Girl3 and has to keep Those Bangs. Cameron Diaz (I don't do Fox News) and J-Lo (Do not look at me directly, peon) can keep their butts to themselves, their looks were mediocre at best. And for the love of all that's holy and good someone needs to get Angelina Jolie to eat. I thought heroin chic was passe. Speaking of passe, it seems the scruffy look for gentlemen is beginning to phase out & it can't come too soon for me. What, no mention of Plummer's deep jewel toned tuxedo? He made it work. Oh and Nina Garcia? It's the Oscars - Comb Your Hair!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact