The "Mermaid" gown - oui ou non?

Greeting, friends!  We're in rest mode here at MPB this weekend -- and cleaning mode.  As you might imagine, after a visit from Cathy, the place is an absolute mess, with the living room looking like backstage at "La Cage Aux Folles."

But just because we're resting doesn't mean we're not planning.  Look what I just picked up on Etsy!



The seller is in Canada, so it should definitely get here by Christmas.  Of course, what interests me is Version 1, the red mermaid gown on the left.  What do you think?

Here's a similar gown, a genuine vintage Vogue pattern. 



And here's model Lisa Fonssagrives in a famous Irving Penn photo:



To be honest, I didn't even know what this silhouette was called until I did a little online research.  I found a whole website devoted to the mermaid gown, with lots of wonderful pics.

Remember that I Love Lucy episode where Lucy thinks Ricky is paying too much attention to her cousin Diana (played by a very young Barbara Eden), so Lucy dolls herself to look like Jayne Mansfield to win him back?  Sure enough, she wears a mermaid gown (and I think the joke was that she couldn't sit down in it); it was definitely THE va va voom look of the period.   It's basically just a long sheath with a big flounce at the bottom, but it was the sexiest silhouette of the Fifties, and it didn't last much beyond it.

Here's Jayne (getting married) in one, and Marilyn in another:





Too many curves and you risk riding this look right off the road, do you know what I mean?

Spanish couturier Cristóbal Balenciaga designed quite a few mermaid-style gowns, many of which show a strong Flamenco dance costume influence.







The mermaid gown came back in the Eighties, primarily as bridal wear, and it hasn't really gone away, though it lost the poofy sleeves.









With the mania for old-time red carpet glamour today, it's no surprise that the mermaid gown is popular again.

Here's Nicole Kidman at the Grammys, looking a little "meh" if you ask me:



Rihanna's could use an underlining, but I'm old fashioned that way.



Fashion-forward friends, what do you think?  Is the mermaid gown just plain tacky, a parody of Fifties Hollywood cheesecake, and simply too over-the-top costume-y?

Do you think someone like my demure cousin could make this work without looking like a stripper?



Would you ever be caught dead -- or alive -- in this silhouette?  Have you ever?

The mermaid gown -- oui ou non? (yea or nay)

Cathy models the strapless 50's cocktail dress!

Friends, at long last, the cocktail dress photo shoot.

I know there was some drama involved in this project and undeniable differences of opinion with many of you, beloved readers, but I like to think that, in the end, it only brought us closer. 

As always, my talented cousin proved herself a true pro, handling yards of tulle, a boned bodice, and multiple layers of crinoline with aplomb, and even submitting to the indignities of a Maidenform "Control It!" Waistnipper brief.  The summer evening couldn't have been more lovely, gentle breezes blowing through Cathy's soft hair and carrying her tulle wrap aloft.  It was all very dreamlike.

I hope you'll enjoy this slideshow, which includes a special guest appearance from my wonderful photographer, Michael, as well as a number of other unexpected cameos.

As always, to see these photos full-size, please click on any image and in Picasa, choose the album name, and then, in the upper left hand corner, "Slideshow."



I'll admit that I wasn't quite sure athletic Cathy could pull off the strapless look, but I think she does this dress justice, don't you?

Is there a strapless cocktail dress in your future?  

Have a great day, everybody!

P.S.  Remember how it all started?

Let's Take a Trip!

Friends, we're traveling today, so pack you bags.  We're climbing into our trusty time machine -- safety belts, please! -- and traveling back exactly sixty years, to 1951.

Our focus is fashion, but we're going to see much, much more.  Our guide is the October 1951 issue of Woman's Home Companion, a popular magazine aimed at the American homemaker.  Like so many women's magazines of this era, Woman's Home Companion combined articles on fashion, decorating, health, politics, as well as (gorgeously illustrated) contemporary fiction.





I love to read books about fashion history, but searching out primary sources is even more fun, and it's not hard. Vintage women's magazines -- and there were so many -- are easy to find, especially at flea markets, usually for just a few dollars.  Unlike vintage patterns or store catalogs, there's very little interest in old general interest magazines like Woman's Home Companion (which folded in the late Fifties).  Yet they are a treasure trove of information about what life was like back then, particularly for (white, middle class, MARRIED) women.

They are also bursting with unintentionally hilarious ads  -- postwar consumerism was taking off -- classic period graphic design (think, cluttered) and sumptuous color photography.

This October issue is also chock full of fashion.  Let's take a look...



Waists were nipped and skirts were often full, but not as big as they were later to get.  Heightened femininity was the look of the day, with an emphasis on perfect grooming and elegance.



I must make Cathy a lounging ensemble like this...







A great article about separates.  Do you know how to mix and match?





Women were expected to know how to sew, and this 1951 Woman's Home Companion has many sewing machine ads and sewing-related articles...









Fifties advertising is exuberant -- there was so much to buy, so many new appliances and products to make life easier!
 







The operative word here is exciting -- Americans had never had it so good and life seemed to be getting better and better. 

Many more photos from this issue of Woman's Home Companion are viewable here.

Readers, do you like to look through old magazines or collect them?  Which are some of your favorites?  Which do you enjoy more -- the articles or the ads?

Vintage fashion magazines are wonderful, but I honestly think these general interest homemaker magazines are much more fun.

Lemon Cheese Cake Pie, anybody?

Have a great day, folks!

Models Then and Models Now

Friends, I'm back and ready to take on the world.  Of modeling.

Suzy Parker.  Dovima.  Jean Patchett.  Lisa Fonssagrives.

These are just a few of the most famous models of the 1950s and early 60s.  Like today's models, they were beautiful.  They were young.  And they were ballerina-skinny.





In those days, models modeled and that's about it.  They didn't star in reality shows (though Suzy Parker did have a role in The Best of Everything and a few other films) and they weren't seen much outside of magazine layouts and ads.  But they were recognizable and certainly embodied a standard of beauty and glamour (maybe more the latter than the former) few non-models could ever match.

Readers, what's different about models then and now?  Why do so many people focus on models today and critique their (genetically) tall, thin bodies? 



Haven't models always merely represented a highly art-directed ideal, human clothes hangers that showed off a dress to its best effect?



When I was looking at photos of models then and models now, the greatest difference I noticed was the amount of skin models are expected to display today.  Skimpy underwear, bikinis, nude shots -- almost nothing is left to the imagination.

Though Fifties models appeared in swimsuits, these tended to be modest one-piece numbers, as was the style back then, and the images were never sexually provocative, but rather, wholesome.

Direct sexuality was the stuff of pin-ups and other "adult" material (think Betty Page).  Today there's very little difference, aesthetically.  And this isn't just true of female models -- men are also expected to pose provocatively in underwear or nothing at all.

In the Fifties, women's clothes may have been restrictive and demanded corsets and cinchers, but the models bodies were covered.  Nudity was rare.



It's as if today, when so much of fashion is standardized, we're more interested in the hanger than the clothes.

Wise readers, your thoughts.

Just so we're on the same page, I'm operating under the assumptions that 1) models are more visible today, thanks to television and the Internet; 2) modeling itself is much more mainstream and often seen as a springboard to an acting or business career; 3) models -- their weight and how they are represented -- are more a focus of women than they were in generations past.  You may or may not agree with these.

Does the increase in nudity reflect our more body-conscious, sexually liberated times?  Does the constant exposure to models' (photoshopped always) bodies create more self-image problems for women than the more covered-up, highly stylized models of generations ago?

I'll have more to say about this later in the week, but why do these Banana Republic ads look like children playing dress-up...



...compared to the real thing?





Is it the makeup, or is it a life spent wearing corsets, heels, and gloves, that make the original models look mature and comfortable and the 2011 models look synthetic, derivative, and awkward?

Jump in!