Foundation Garments

Horror of horrors, in a recent premiere Emma Watson’s slit dress (quite lovely if a little bridal) malfunctioned and gave the paparazzi a view of the edge of her shapewear. Like so:

Yes, if you look closely at her thigh you will notice the edge of what looks like spanx. Surely, news worth many a headline!

It got me thinking though – we really should talk about foundation garments.

Here’s the thing – it is not about weight, the weight you are or the weight you think you ought or want to be. Rather, it is about uneven distribution of fat (yeah, lets call a spade a spade) and the appearance of lumps. Most of us who are out of our twenties, after a kid, or two, or three have said lumps. In the spirit of sharing that this blog is all about I will list mine in descending order of magnitude: belly; love handles, upper thigh.  I hate them all. I go to the gym in an effort to eradicate them but reality keeps oozing itself out in an unsightly muffin top.

What to do, you ask? Buying a size larger helps up to a point, but only just. Being strategic with the cut (longer hems on your Tshirts, looser blouson tops, higher waist jeans) helps, but again only up to a point. What delivers the most bang for your lumps? FOUNDATION GARMENTS.

No, I’m not urging you to commit to anything as binding as this:

But I do believe that a good foundation garment will smooth out ye lumps. What makes a good foundation garment?

Spanx has long been a favorite of many, with Beyonce supposedly pulling on two pairs  at once (this is before her recent slimmer version). Personally, however, I’m not a spanx fan. I find the fabric both too tight and yet not sturdy enough, hard to wrangle. Recently I’ve discovered Flexees (put out by Maidenform). Why did I convert? Lets review.

What are the requirements of a foundation garment?

1) suck in everything from below the bra line (assuming you are wearing one, and not opting for an all-in-one shape-wear, of course)

2) avoid a VPL (visible panty line) – ideally by running to mid thigh

3) avoid the redistribution or reappearance of displaced fat elsewhere, based on that ancient Pythagorian theorem.

4) occupy a sweet price point of around $30

Flexees delivered on three out of four. I got this:

• Price is fantastic (between $18-$24).
• No fat spillage from under bra to mid thigh, at which point fat realizes it has no choice but to be contained.
• Lumps were smoothed out. I cannot say that my belly magically disappeared (nothing but lipo would make it go away), but it at least did not jut out in some areas more than others.

VPL? The Flexees has an unfortunate seam between top and lower portions of the garment and if you happen to be wearing a really tight dress a hint of it might show.

Try it.  

Onesies – or Fashion Dogma Reversed

MW’s grown up, very NY, daughter wore a jumpsuit to her mom’s bday party. It was black, and strapless , if memory serves, and pleated around the waistline. A onesie with pleats. Should have been a disaster but looked fantastically chic.  

Until that moment my opinion of jumpsuits was eminently negative. Overwhelmingly negative. And just like that it was reversed. I remember feeling that way about leggings. And then one day I broke down and wore them.

Do I – do we – go back on our fashion dogmas that easily?

I promise to consider this at some length and report. Meanwhile lets address jumpsuits.

Jumpsuits have been popping up on runways for about two years now, creeping into the evening attire sections of department stores, worn by celebs.

Here are a few recent sightings, all mostly positive:

Margot Robbie in Paper London: Slightly too shiny, but not bad overall.

Naomi Watts in Elie Saab – the lace panels I don’t love (and I actually do like some lace) but lovely color and good fit:

Charlize Theron in Jason Wu: ok fine, you will all scream that Theron here will look good in anything. Sure. But this 80s vibe getup is all kinds of funky.

Kristin Bell in Jenny Peckham: I think Bell is too petite to support such a strong shoulder but I actually think she’s rocking this.

And now for the NO, SHILED YOUR EYES section of our post:

Rosasrio Dawson in DVF: all kinds of no. Such a deliberately on point interpretation of the late 70s early 80s look reads almost costume.

Lizzie Caplan in Houghton: I love Lizzie Caplan’s look. I can’t say that “Masters of Sex” rocked my boat in any way (in fact I thought the show succeeded in making sex sleep-inducing) but I love how she looks in the show, her hair, her costuming. This, however, is NOT working for me – the lace over all too obvious nude, the narrow pant leg:

Naomie Harris in Monique Lhullier: Naomie Harris can pull off tricky looks but this is just too much lace and cheap stretch fabric:

And, to crown things – Julia Roberts in Valentino. Where to start? The woman with exaggerated features wearing an outfit with exaggerated features, in an exaggerated color, making my eyes hurt.

So why, you may ask, do some jumpsuits work and other don’t?

1) the sensitive crotch area – the garment has to be constructed flawlessly, avoiding making your ladyparts an awkward target area.

2) ratio of pant leg to top part: jumpsuits do not work when too narrow (see: L. Caplan) because they start looking suspiciously like adult onesies. But pantsuits with too wide a leg run the risk of making the crotch area look weird (see: J. Roberts) – because the excess fabric has to go somewhere.

Bottom line: I think this is one garment that hippy girls should avoid. Height is not key here, you can be short and trim through the hips and pull it off beautifully. But if you got hips – girl, stay away! 

Turn That Smile Down

An awesome example of musical education: how do you turn a song in major into minor?

Sad piano chords do the trick.

Below is a YouTube link to Yoann Lemoine's, aka Woodkid's remix of Pharrell's ubiquitous "Happy" (girl child, the wise ass that she has become, rolls her eyes every time the tune comes up on the radio. Apparently it ain't cool for 4th graders).

Check it out:

Dresses of Unusual Ugliness:

I’ve been pondering ugly event dresses. 

Ugly – as in over the top blinged-out, cheap fabric (either shiny or see through, or both), hyperbolic dimensions. Ugly – as in maladjusted to the glamour or lack thereof of the event, the economic condition of the subjects, or any of the above. The kind of dresses that we associate with that untranslatable Hebrew concept of פרחיות (as in פרחה).

Happened to share this pressing issue with LP. And she – thank you lord! – had the best suggestion. Well, not suggestion so much as a bit of information to share. Turns out I am not the only one who watches really, really bad reality television. Her particular indulgence seems to be something called “My Big Far American Gypsy Wedding”. 

Who knew it (any part of it) even existed? But it does, and it is glorious.

Here take a look at some of the blushing, chaste, and modest brides:

These, ladies, came up in the first three rows of Google search. Imagine what would turn up if I did more research!

Apparently the designer to these stars is Boston-based. Boston Pride, people!

Yeees! These put all the dress stores in Tel-Aviv’s shuk ha-Carmel ­ (market) to shame, and definitely readjust my views on what constitutes over the top chav.

Its all about perspective, ladies. 

And Now for Some Culture, or: Museums in Numbers

The husband, who loves when subjects in the humanities are analyzed in numbers, read to me the following piece from his favorite econ blog, “The Marginal Revolution” (the blog is quoting NYTimes’ piece by Robert H. Frank):

Fortunately, costs are easier to estimate, and those for displaying a painting derive largely from its market value. Consider “The Wedding Dance,” a 16th-century work by the Flemish painter Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Detroit museum visitors have enjoyed this painting since 1930. How much would it cost to preserve that privilege for future generations?

A tidy sum, as it turns out. According to Christie’s, this canvas alone could fetch up to $200 million. Once interest rates return to normal levels — say, 6 percent — the forgone interest on that amount would be approximately $12 million a year.

If we assume that the museum would be open 2,000 hours a year, and ignore the cost of gallery space and other indirect expenses, the cost of keeping the painting on display would be more than $6,000 an hour. Assuming that an average of five people would view it per hour, all year long, it would still cost more than $1,200 an hour to provide the experience for each visitor.

What do I think about it, you may ask?

Weeel. Unlike the husband, I dislike it when we think about culture in numbers. Almost every time culture turns out to be economically NOT viable. And yet, somehow, invaluable.

In this case, a couple of issues are implicitly implied in this little citation, but not explored:

1) Detroit, once a successful paragon of an American metropolis and an American industry, is a dying city where packs of wild dogs rule the streets, houses sell for single digits, and whole street blocks are empty of people. Description that frankly reads like the zombie apocalypse.

2) The numbers for the upkeep of an artwork is calculated based on an ‘average’ – but the average of visitors in museums differs radically from museum to museum, and city to city. The world’s major museums average many more visitors than a smaller museum in a non destination city, let alone a city like Detroit which no one wants to visit.

This two issues (or, maybe one, since they are related) make me ask the following:

Are museums in provincial cities ever profitable?

What if the Bruegel was moved to a bigger city, to a major museum, say my favorite museum, the MET? Surely many more people would see it. Hell, I’d take a trip right away. But is that a justified move? It smacks of the good ole imperialist strategy of looting your provinces (say, Egypt) of its culture and moving it, lock, stock, and temples. Then again, the removal of artifacts and architecture from Egypt saved great parts of it from ruin. If only the antiquities on the bottom of the Aswan Dam were light enough to be moved before they were flooded into eternity… no?

I don’t have a good answer.  

The Wealthy Housewife Look:

I will put it out there, ladies.

I hate almost everything ‘bout this look by she of the pointy chin, Reese Witherspoon:

Lets break it down:

The jacket: a take on a classic Chanel

The bag: a kinda, sorta, classic Chanel

Why would I hate them? Well, updating the classic Chanel jacket was done by the house itself under Karl Lagerfeld, done every year, in fact, and done well. We do not need Tory Burch for it. Same goes for the bag, although I personally have zero fondness for the classic Chanel bag. I find it tacky and boring.

Let us continue our break down:

The shoes: booooooring. I can’t say I expected Sarah Jessica Parker to design well just because her character in Sex and the City sometimes (repeat – sometimes) wore good clothes (by and large the clothes were actually abysmal). But I thought she’d hire someone who would. Instead her recently revealed shoe collection was a yawn. This show, with nothing to show for it that hasn’t been seen in exactly the same fashion before, is a perfect case in point.

The jeans: ah. Too tight, too faded. They are like a bad cross breeding of the craze for acid-washed, whiskered faded denim and the craze for much-too-skinny jeans. Just taaaacky. I think a post on jeans will be in order sometime soon.. 

The overall effect is one of a bored, wealthy LA housewife, with too blond too straight hair and accessories that are too expensive for a mere school run. Which is not that far from reality, I suppose. And seems to be the preferred client of Tory Burch’s brand, with its oversized gold insignia and utterly uninteresting, uninventive designs. 

Amendment: there is one item in this look i love and would steal - the sunglasses. I think, judging by the arrow on the side, they are by one of my favorites, Karen Walker. 

What happened to Posh Spice and how come I love her designs?

Posh Spice. Remember her?

She was the Spice Girl who could not really sign OR dance:

Who married David Beckham in this:

And who was so thoroughly ‘chav’ that she used to look like this:

Well, one day she took out her breast implants, took off her French manicure, and decided to become a fashion designer. Yes, she attempted that twice, but the first foray, a denim collaboration with Rock&Republic was blingy at best:

The second attempt, under her own name, Victoria Beckham, was a whole different story.  You see. the funny thing is that she is not bad. In fact, she is more than that, she is terrific. She’s been at it for a few seasons now, and the stuff is fantastic – sharp cuts, cool color combinations. The rumor is that she does not design for herself, and the line does look suspiciously similar to Roland Mouret in the cut and overall design. 

But still. Check out this look, worn just now by Cameron Diaz (click on image to enlarge):

Perfect, no? Kicky little skirt, awesome color combo. 

I would kill for this. And the legs to wear it.