Mad Hatter
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007
And then there were those who centered their whole collections around a variety of hats…those who did it terribly (Luella)…even her poor models wanted to be incognito in her clothes…
…and those who, of course, did it well. In fact, Marc Jacobs somehow mixed his headgear and “mom purse” shoulder bags with a certain level of sophistication both from the music during his show to the broad sweeping curtain and the almost mannequin-esque display of his models before they slinked down the black and white checked runway. All without making a very “out-of-date” appearance to the whole spectacle seem just that. Instead, it seemed something a bit more modern and ubercool, and if you didn’t get it, that you obviously were not.
And then there were those designers whose clothes weren’t half bad–not great or poetic or inspired, but…present. Designers who somehow thought their collection could be aided by an accessory. I see Nicole Miller and Temperley London’s respective work and I have to wonder what made them think the dress wasn’t enough, that it needed something more? Something like a….a….HAT.
Maybe someone whispered in their ears and told them it was what all the cool kids would be doing that season. Which brings me to my last thought on this madhatting. Just as not every article of clothing calls for a hat, neither does every head. Now, Jackie Kennedy had a particular gift at pulling them off, but we all cannot be, however much we may dream, to be like her. Some of us, like Diana, who I believe detested hats, should stay true to ourselves and our bone structure and let a passing fancy be someone else’s. I for one will not be able to embrace the look whether it is a sunhat, a ski hat, or a fedora. Sigh.
Leave a Reply