For those who missed it (understandably, considering the major twist that turned the tables on the Oscars last night): last week, designer Karl Lagerfeld suggested to Women's Wear Daily that Streep was “cheap” for supposedly pulling out of wearing a Chanel dress after discovering they wouldn’t be paying her for the publicity. Lagerfeld claimed Chanel initially planned to dress Streep for the big night, but after sketching a gown and beginning production, he was told "Don't continue the dress. We found somebody who will pay us." Streep's team quickly denied that this was the case, and Lagerfeld issued a statement that he had “misunderstood” why Meryl had opted for another designer. Lagerfeld's response clearly did not suffice for the star, who on Saturday called for a genuine apology from Lagerfeld and WWD.
An excerpt from her statement reads: In reference to Mr. Lagerfeld’s ‘statement,’ there is no ‘controversy’: Karl Lagerfeld, a prominent designer, defamed me, my stylist, and the illustrious designer whose dress I chose to wear, in an important industry publication. [...] I do not take this lightly, and Mr. Lagerfeld’s generic ‘statement’ of regret for this ‘controversy’ was not an apology. He lied, they printed the lie, and I am still waiting.
In my view, this public feud stood out from the typical awards show fashion discussion that accompanies the Oscars festivities. The seriousness with which Meryl Streep treated Lagerfeld's allegations as an attack on her morals reminded me of the Charles Eckert's elaboration on the symbiosis between Hollywood and the fashion industry throughout the 1930s and 40s—when "hundreds of women stars and starlets [were made] available to the studio publicity, sales tie-in departments as—to use the favoured phrase—merchandising assets" (Eckert 38). Fashion, jewelry houses, and most stylists prefer to preserve the illusion that celebrities' big night fashion choices are completely organic. But when it comes to highly covered red carpet moments like the Oscars, the publicity of having your dress on a star's body can be more valuable than any traditional advertisement, and some actresses have gotten over $250,000 for wearing a single dress. Occasionally actresses will sign contracts with specific labels for several years in a pay-for-play arrangement. For instance, Charlize Theron enjoyed arrangements with Cartier, Montblanc and Chopard in 2008, which had each negotiated a $200,000 fee for the actress to wear its jewels to the Academy Awards. However, these negotiations often emerge amidst whispers of scandal and accusations of selling out, as they did this year in Meryl Streep's case. In order to preserve their "moral" images, actresses must maintain an aura of authenticity at all times, glazing over the commercialism inherent in the Hollywood-fashion industry collaboration.
Ultimately, does it matter if actresses are paid to wear one designer’s gown or one house’s jewels on the Academy Awards red carpet?
This is a really cool post! I ended up thinking all day long about your question, if it matters if actresses are paid to wear a designer’s gown or not.
ReplyDeleteI think I can understand why a celebrity would want to get paid for doing that (even though that wasn’t Meryl Streep’s case), as it is a modeling job. If you think about it, these actors aren’t just casually walking by photographers on the red carpet; they are selling clothes! So if professional models get paid for doing that, why shouldn’t they?
On the other hand, one could argue that they shouldn’t get paid because the designers are doing them a favor of loaning these extremely expensive clothes only to set them apart from others. Yes, an actress’s brand could get damaged from wearing the “wrong” dress, but the fashion houses also have something to lose. I watched a documentary about haute couture a few years ago that featured interviews with high society individuals that really buy couture clothes. Regularly! In their interviews, they talked about how if they saw a celebrity wearing a dress from a current couture show, they wouldn’t buy it because it instantly became associated with that stars’ image, denigrating the fashion brand. In this way, the designers are taking a risk by loaning their dresses to actresses. So does that mean that the actresses should pay them?
I don’t know! And because I couldn’t answer these questions, I still don’t know if it matters if they are paid to wear a dress or not. To some extent it might matter because we don’t want to think of our celebrities as greedy or desperate for money, but does that really change how we look at our favorite celebrities?