Fashion Board 3-5-04 to 4-6-04

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
What a snooze. Hardly worth the 15-month wait or the cost of HBO.

I have not watched regularly in the past, so I may be missing something, but I found it dull and predictable. Maybe they're saving their best ideas for the movie. That's what I thought they were doing the past 2 seasons of SATC, but I was wrong (mark your calendars).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...and_the_city_2

Originally posted by robustpuppy
What a snooze. Hardly worth the 15-month wait or the cost of HBO.



**Spoiler**













Tony's expressing his romantic interest in Jennifer was mildly interesting, but not surprising, and both of their responses were predictable.

A.J. wailing like a baby and calling for his mommy was a funny moment, though. Too bad nobody who would use it to humiliate him in the future was there to see it, though. I hate that kid.

And I could have done without the waiter scene. It's not as if we don't already know that brutality is so mundane for Christopher and Paulie that murdering a guy with kids to support because he dared complain about his tip doesn't even trigger remorse; rather, it brought those two lovebirds closer together. The coming attractions suggest there's some worry about their getting caught, so the scene might end up having some value, and it might be interesting if Paulie's or Christopher's downfall comes not from some high stakes, ultra dramatic mob related killing, but rather from Christopher's temper getting out of hand.

I haven't read the reviews and don't know whether critics have seen more than one episode, but it doesn't look like a compelling season.

1) THe wait was so long that the only thing I remembered from last season was that Carmela wanted out.

2) I think the waitier brutaility was in there to remind us not to feel that these guys are mean brutes and not sympathetic. If they dont throw that in every now and then, we might think Christopher is a nice underling who is getting scrwed by Paulie Walnuts when he is really an evil fuck. And his nose doesnt look as gigantic as it used to. Was the end snipped?

3) I agree it wasnt that great and if I never saw Peter Bogdanovich or whatever his perverted ass name is, I could live.

[evenodds]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Why do people wear foundation? I bought it once a year or two ago, tyhe Fresh stuff, which is relatively light. Its a pain in the ass to apply, time comsuming, and is just a coating of glop on your face. If you need to even out your complexion, why not just use a little powder? Or better yet, take the money and invest it in a good skin care line so none of tha glop is necessary? Its just yuck. and isnt it bad for your skin? ciovering it up like that?

Sometimes, it's like I don't know you anymore.

I wear either Stila's tinted moisturizer or Vincent Longo Water Canvas liquid or creme to powder, depending on what the event is, how long I expect to be out, if I will be outdoors, etc.

The best products block pollution damage and protect from the sun, while giving you a sheer fresh, but not too dewy, glow. No matter how good your skin care regimen (and you know how seriously I take skin care), skin loses the underlying markers of youth as we age. The right foundation gives you back that hint of evenness and glow you had at 25.

As for mascara, I have switched to Remy Adversity. No flaking, caking, or other weirdness. It doesn't do anything special, but it goes on like a dream and stays put. I am still using a stila gel eye-liner. It doesn't migrate after five hours of dancing.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Well, if I don't use it, my five-o'clock-shadow is visisble, and that destroys the whole image I am trying to present every Friday at karaoke night at the Dew Drop Inn as "Tempestt LaBelle" (my rendition of "Cabaret" is always a hit).

Also:

Powder doesn't give very good coverage, unless you put enough of it on to cake. And matte doesn't generally look natural. And it greys out. And it emphasizes any lines. And clogs pores, no matter what the packaging says. Powder is good for removing shine (if you want to remove shine - a big "if" given the current fashions), and some of the new mattifiers are better for that, but it is less effective and gives less satisfactory results if you are actually using it for color and/or coverage. And powder looks worse and worse the darker your underlying skin tones.

I agree that making the effort to have good skin in the first place is the best answer, but that often doesn't solve uneven skin tone problems (including congenital discolorations, veins showing through thinner areas, etc.). But I generally agree that foundation should generally be viewed as a necessary evil and avoided except to the extent necessary.

I note, for the record, that I wore it for several weeks this winter which I usually don't (a streak of 16 hour days led me to just paint over my face to keep from frightening children on the street), and was really quite shocked at the number of people who out of the blue commented on how wonderful and healthy I looked - they didn't realize I was wearing makeup for a change.

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Funny that her artwork looks like that on the covers of romance novels. Just a little bit.

Fabio is clearly still in her heart, even though Gil is on her website. If I were Gil, I'd watch her at the breakfast table, and if she didn't eat real butter, I'd be out of there.

Did nobody get the memo that Faboi is a gay man? He hangs around WeHo with his manfriend all the time.

and now I am taking my password back from str8

[cheeky monkey]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Did nobody get the memo that Faboi is a gay man? He hangs around WeHo with his manfriend all the time.

and now I am taking my password back from str8

Right on PP! He also used to haunt the Starfucks on sanvicente in Brentwood and in person is one ugly mutherfuckaa. Sort of like Hank's mom with long bad blonde dyejobbed hair extensions.

Originally posted by evenodds
Sometimes, it's like I don't know you anymore.

I wear either Stila's tinted moisturizer or Vincent Longo Water Canvas liquid or creme to powder, depending on what the event is, how long I expect to be out, if I will be outdoors, etc.

The best products block pollution damage and protect from the sun, while giving you a sheer fresh, but not too dewy, glow. No matter how good your skin care regimen (and you know how seriously I take skin care), skin loses the underlying markers of youth as we age. The right foundation gives you back that hint of evenness and glow you had at 25.

As for mascara, I have switched to Remy Adversity. No flaking, caking, or other weirdness. It doesn't do anything special, but it goes on like a dream and stays put. I am still using a stila gel eye-liner. It doesn't migrate after five hours of dancing.

This must be a north-south thing (southern chicks wear more makeup than northern chicks). Maybe you ahve experienced more skin damage living in warmer, sunnier climes? I would just wear sunblock and nothing and do not agree that aging makes skin uneven in tone. Looser and saggier, yes (not that this has happened to me yet, but if it does, I am armed with Epicuren's Collagen III). Uneven in tone would seem to be more of a sun damage thing than an aging thing. And I get my youthful dew or glow or whatever from moisturizer and a workout. and lots of water. makeup is just glop that covers shit. look at it in the bottle if you dont believe me. yuck, right men?

and eyeliner? and mascara? and powerd and foundatino? and I awssume lipstick and lipliner? you must look very different thatn you do when you wake up inthe morning. I have one eyeliner I bought five years ago that I only wear when I am sick of my face. Just cannot be bothered. A litle mascara, a little blush on cheeks and lips with a lip balm, and some under eye shit, and I am good to go. I assume men prefer that look to the makeup look.

and my current mascara that I love is from T LeClerc. I have fine, lightcolored lashes and the violet really makes them thick and a great color.

[dtb]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I am now, perhaps temporarily, that the most original thing one can do with their hair is absolutely nothing. Shouldnt your natural haircolor be the most flattering in terms of matching your complexion and being healthy anyway?

I have to agree. (Well, I suppose I don't have to... but I do.)

People often ask me where I get my hair colored. I am always nonplussed by this question, as if I were to get my hair colored, it wouldn't be the color it is! (Uh, yes -- I put these random gray ones in on purpose! Isn't is trendy?!?)

But I have to say, I can't think of a color that would look normal on me other than my own.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Is it just me (and my husband) or has Lorraine Bracco really "porked out" (to use my husband's phrase)? And there is absolutely no way that was her ass. If it was, I'll eat my hat (and anyone else's that they throw my way).

No way that was her ass, or her tits. In her dream, she has the body-double's body.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by dtb
But I have to say, I can't think of a color that would look normal
on me other than my own.

I feel exactly the same way.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I feel exactly the same way.

I don't know why. Your hair color looks like a cheap dye job.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I don't know why. Your hair color looks like a cheap dye job.

TM

My bad -- I thought we were discussing skin color.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Anyone interested in joining the LawTalkers NCAA Hoops bracket contest, see here.

[dtb]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Why do people wear foundation? I bought it once a year or two ago, tyhe Fresh stuff, which is relatively light. Its a pain in the ass to apply, time comsuming, and is just a coating of glop on your face. If you need to even out your complexion, why not just use a little powder? Or better yet, take the money and invest it in a good skin care line so none of tha glop is necessary? Its just yuck. and isnt it bad for your skin? ciovering it up like that?

Not only did I never used to wear foundation, I never used to wear makeup because I didn't know how to apply it, and I always thought looked stupid.

INFOMERCIAL TIME

Then randomly, a friend asked me to meet her at the "Awake" counter at a department store, and when I got there, of course, they suckered me into sitting down and going through their skin-care products and makeup.

The skin-care stuff is excellent. The foundation is awesome. It's this stuff that you use with a wet sponge -- so it's not really heavy -- when you apply it with the wet sponge, it goes on very light and you don't need that much of it -- and it works great. It also has SPF 18 (a good reason to use it). A little bit of loose powder over that, and voila!! (or wa-la, as my 5-year-old says...) perfect skin! I don't need to use cover-up anymore, because my skin looks pretty decent after using their skin-care stuff. I get the occasional blemish (I know, hard to believe, right?), and then I'll use the cover-up stuff, but rarely.

After I started wearing makeup, I can't tell you how many people commented on how much better I looked (which, actually, was kind of discouraging), but whatever.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I agree that the bow tie is the only acceptable tux tie. However, tying one is a motherfucker. I was hald up at my own wedding because I could not get the fucking knot right.

I gave up and bought a clip-on, but it looks too perfect.

Solution? I find one of the musicians before the wedding, or a concierge, or some other person who has to wear a bow tie regularly, and ask him for assistance.

Oh for the love of Mike.

The bow tie is vastly easier to tie than just about any other type of tie knot. People just don't learn it. Out of sheer laziness. It is slightly more difficult than shoelaces because the tie has width, but you hardly need a degree in mathematics to figure out the topographical issues. Any gentleman on the board who would like to learn is welcome to pm me, though it is easier to demonstrate in person - it should take 1 minute and two practice tries to get it right every time. (It will also greatly improve your gift-wrapping abilities.)

I, however, am not as horrified by the four-in-hand being worn with a dinner jacket as I feel, on some level, that I should be. So long as it is still, in fact, a black tie, not colored, not silver, not ... whatever. Dunno why - probably because I still cling inflexibly to the idea of black tie as informal wear.

I agree with the statement that "more fashionable = less traditional." Fashion is, in fact, the antithesis of tradition (uh, sort of by definition). However, formal wear is about tradition, not stylishness or fashion. I have no problem with anyone wearing whatever they feel like wearing in the evening, so long as they don't pretend it's formal when its not. What, pray tell, is supposed to be wrong with dressing up for a non-formal evening out, anyway? (More on that below.)

Favorite complete nonsequitor: "A lot of people who see themselves as the guardians of what people should be wearing are horrified," he said, "But everyone makes these suits now — Calvin Klein, Hugo Boss." OK - so what? Matters of etiquette are not subject to change by majority rule - or even to change by edict of multinationals and/or the media. "Everyone" fails to respond to invitations in a timely fashion or send thank you letters, too - and the people who care about what people should do are still horrified, and entirely justifiably so.

Funniest example of the article writer and his sources actually being really unfamiliar with the subject they are addressing: "Among them were Jude Law in a three-piece midnight-blue tuxedo by Dunhill... But these turbo-charged tuxedos also play into the dinner-suit trend, said Marshal Cohen, chief analyst for the NPD Group, a market research company." NB: midnight blue dinner jackets are every bit as traditional as black, and in fact have long been considered the mark of a true, finicky traditionalist. Reason? Midnight blue actually appears darker than black under the artificial light necessary at evening parties (including candle light). (And Law looked amazing, by the by.)

Gritting teeth to avoid outburst... "There is the pleated, ruffled or bibbed shirt, ... and dress shoes" :

Best belly laugh: "The dinner suit, as seen on the Oscars' red carpet, designer runways and countless formal wear Web sites..." Yeah, 'cause THAT's where you want to be getting your clothing tips. hee, hee, heehee heeheehee.

Stating the obvious: "Most often, it is a notch-lapel black or dark blue suit jacket and pants, worn with a dressy solid-color shirt and a lustrous solid necktie (or no tie, in true Tom Ford style). In its dark, graphic simplicity, the dinner suit — some with a grosgrain lapel, some made of velvet —" That sounds just fine as something a guy might wear other than a business suit when going out at night. In fact, in general I approve entirely - people have gotten out of the habit of dressing differently for business and social events, and have gotten out of the lovely habit of going home and changing before going out, which is nice because it marks the time spent out as something special and worth making an effort for. But it isn't formal attire. There is nothing wrong with that - why try to shoehorn fun nightime party clothes into the "formal" category? Just don't wear formal clothing (or go to formal events, or call events formal when you don't actually mean formal). This doesn't seem hard, conceptually. I, for one, would be extremely happy to see men, in particular, take more to dressing like popinjays. Bring in colored, brocated waistcoats! Bring back colorful 3 - piece suit combinations where each piece is a different, but complimentary, color or patten! Why not? But there is no reason to pretend one is reinventing formal-wear to do so.

Stating an idiocy (cont. from above): "-- distinguishes itself from the business suit without the bother of a tux." Exactly how is that less bother than proper black tie? At least with proper black tie you don't need to think about whether the colors & fabrics work together. Just as the article itself acknowledges later: "The upshot is no great savings. One of the assets of the tuxedo is that a man needs only one. With open-ended dinner dress, the options are endless. " Uh, people, that was why strict rules of formal wear emerged in the first place - you could just follow them and know you were dressed properly, without the potential of fucking it up through the expected use of imagination or creativity. Witness the Joan Rivers phenomenon with the women's dresses. Do guys really think subjecting themselves to that is the way to go?

BR(working my way backwards to prove I read forward first)C