I think part of the problem is that 'frippery' on men is a way of designating strength - take martial dress, where all those colorful ribbons and metals are supposed to represent the potency and virtue of the bearer. Nazi officers were also pretty snappy dressers, after all. And that's just it - we are, in a sense, culturally embarrassed by female style of the past, but not as much with men's (at least the men's style of class - style that differentiates by power. People are probably embarrassed about bell bottoms). After all, in the grand scheme of things, the clothing of wealth - martial dress, tuxedos, three piece suits - is certainly different from what it was 120 years ago. But not THAT different. I can look at an Edwardian banker's suit and recognize them today. I can see photos of General Pershing, and he doesn't look that dated. Women's fashion on the other hand? We look at Victorian women's fashion and we all roll our eyes. And even if you wore an evening gown from, say, the 1980's to a formal occasion now, you'd look dated, in a way that a tux from that time would take a far more practiced eye (a nice tux, that is - again, this applies only to class-differentiator fashion). Even in casual wear, sort of the upper middle to upper class style of daywear - khaki slacks, polo shirts, rugby sweaters, etc - looks at home today or 50 years ago. I hadn't thought of it before in connection with Hunger Games, but it is interesting. I can IMAGINE someone dressing like mister flames-in-the-sideburn today. It'd be a daring choice, but they might be considered 'cool', you know? But if you dressed like Effie, that'd be... well, just weird. Unacceptable. In a sense, men's fashion is simply a way to signify class. Women's fashion is connected in our mind with pretense.
I do agree, though, that the representation of fashion as a sign of weakness (as opposed to, in Gaga's case, conscious declarative strength) is a dangerous, usually misogynistic, idea that does concern me in the film. This is somewhat ameliorated by the gold eyeliner, like you mention, but that was pretty understated, in comparison to much of what was around the social class that the character inhabits (he is not, after all, at the social strata of the games maker or the president). And even with him, his understatement, I think, is part of what separates him from the other stylists in our eyes, makes him seem reliable and 'good' - the others come as addled ditzes, as it were, and their fashion extremes are part of that. Oddities of personal fashion are usually just presented as eye-rollingly silly, at best just a sort of lovable quirk, where in reality, fashion is a powerful means for challenging the social norms around you. To take another example, when some women in the 90's began shaving their heads, this was in many ways a challenge to our society. But then in film, you saw it presented in (and I'm ashamed to admit to this being where I remember it) The Brady Bunch movie, as just a throw away stupidly full-of-themselves artsy hairstylist character. Fashion choice in this sense was transformed with 'I think that our obsession with 'prettiness' is wrong, and I intend on finding my own way of being beautiful' to 'I am so dark and mysterious, that I shaw my head to make sure you know it'. Showing non-heteronormative fashion behavior becomes as often as not, simply a way of reinforcing the norm that the character is bucking, by putting them in a position where they appear weak, deluded, evil, or self-serving. This is ALL one Hunger Games.
In a sense, this is a difficult thing to deal with though, not to excuse the authors. After all, in some sense the challenge of societal norms has historically been the privilege of those with wealth and influence to do so. In District 13, it is somewhat acceptable tot he locals for Katniss to act 'male' by going out hunting, simply because thats part of the survival behaviors of the group (in other words, in such a society, I think that being a hunter would be connected with youth and fitness, rather than gender). But imagine the opposite, imagine if either of the two 'hunks' Katniss was in love with wanted to, say, wear skirts, or even imagine if they were physically weak and enjoyed traditionally female activities like sewing and child-care. I'm not sure that the residents of Districct 13 would accept that. A society that is under great stress often enforces societal norms more strictly, because those norms are the basis of the tradition that keeps the society united in spite of its problems. So it would be difficult to show someone genderqueered in District 13 because a society under that much duress might not have the luxury to doubt itself? But then, I think we also tend to underestimate the ability of the proletariat (as it were in this situation) to be openminded. Intellectuals work under the assumption that poverty=ignorance and intolerance. This CAN be true (our society, I think sometimes, works hard to MAKE it true), but it isn't always. Poverty simply cause one to focus on needs, and we assume from the outside that those needs are easily understood and categorized. In a sense, I think we think of the poor sometimes much like the Capitol does - as a herd of animals that is incapable of conscious choice.
Your point on Dickensianness (I hope thats really a word! It should be!) was really interesting too. In a movie, particularly, I Think its just so easy to take this shorthand. The gentle playing that a movie like, say, Breakfast at Tiffany's does with this expectation is part of why i find that movie so interesting (in spit of some its other cringeworthy aspects). Fashion is so interesting, how it is this interplay between masking one's self, fulfilling expectations, presenting information, and rebellion, all at once, and in very odd combinations. Film OUGHT to be a good medium to examine that MORE closely - the way that someone's clothing is a conversation, in itself, the way people can cry for help with a blouse, or hide behind a necklace. Its a shame the movie couldn't grapple with something so thorny at a more nuanced level.
no subject
I do agree, though, that the representation of fashion as a sign of weakness (as opposed to, in Gaga's case, conscious declarative strength) is a dangerous, usually misogynistic, idea that does concern me in the film. This is somewhat ameliorated by the gold eyeliner, like you mention, but that was pretty understated, in comparison to much of what was around the social class that the character inhabits (he is not, after all, at the social strata of the games maker or the president). And even with him, his understatement, I think, is part of what separates him from the other stylists in our eyes, makes him seem reliable and 'good' - the others come as addled ditzes, as it were, and their fashion extremes are part of that. Oddities of personal fashion are usually just presented as eye-rollingly silly, at best just a sort of lovable quirk, where in reality, fashion is a powerful means for challenging the social norms around you. To take another example, when some women in the 90's began shaving their heads, this was in many ways a challenge to our society. But then in film, you saw it presented in (and I'm ashamed to admit to this being where I remember it) The Brady Bunch movie, as just a throw away stupidly full-of-themselves artsy hairstylist character. Fashion choice in this sense was transformed with 'I think that our obsession with 'prettiness' is wrong, and I intend on finding my own way of being beautiful' to 'I am so dark and mysterious, that I shaw my head to make sure you know it'. Showing non-heteronormative fashion behavior becomes as often as not, simply a way of reinforcing the norm that the character is bucking, by putting them in a position where they appear weak, deluded, evil, or self-serving. This is ALL one Hunger Games.
In a sense, this is a difficult thing to deal with though, not to excuse the authors. After all, in some sense the challenge of societal norms has historically been the privilege of those with wealth and influence to do so. In District 13, it is somewhat acceptable tot he locals for Katniss to act 'male' by going out hunting, simply because thats part of the survival behaviors of the group (in other words, in such a society, I think that being a hunter would be connected with youth and fitness, rather than gender). But imagine the opposite, imagine if either of the two 'hunks' Katniss was in love with wanted to, say, wear skirts, or even imagine if they were physically weak and enjoyed traditionally female activities like sewing and child-care. I'm not sure that the residents of Districct 13 would accept that. A society that is under great stress often enforces societal norms more strictly, because those norms are the basis of the tradition that keeps the society united in spite of its problems. So it would be difficult to show someone genderqueered in District 13 because a society under that much duress might not have the luxury to doubt itself? But then, I think we also tend to underestimate the ability of the proletariat (as it were in this situation) to be openminded. Intellectuals work under the assumption that poverty=ignorance and intolerance. This CAN be true (our society, I think sometimes, works hard to MAKE it true), but it isn't always. Poverty simply cause one to focus on needs, and we assume from the outside that those needs are easily understood and categorized. In a sense, I think we think of the poor sometimes much like the Capitol does - as a herd of animals that is incapable of conscious choice.
Your point on Dickensianness (I hope thats really a word! It should be!) was really interesting too. In a movie, particularly, I Think its just so easy to take this shorthand. The gentle playing that a movie like, say, Breakfast at Tiffany's does with this expectation is part of why i find that movie so interesting (in spit of some its other cringeworthy aspects). Fashion is so interesting, how it is this interplay between masking one's self, fulfilling expectations, presenting information, and rebellion, all at once, and in very odd combinations. Film OUGHT to be a good medium to examine that MORE closely - the way that someone's clothing is a conversation, in itself, the way people can cry for help with a blouse, or hide behind a necklace. Its a shame the movie couldn't grapple with something so thorny at a more nuanced level.