« Next entry

People Are Talking Jun 24, 2009 @ 11:37am

Fashionista v. Recessionista

ep93_carrie_ruffledlayerdre[1].jpg Rumor has it that Patricia Field might part ways with the Sex and the City sequel, over creative differences with Sarah Jessica Parker.

SJP wants Carrie’s wardrobe to be reflective of the recession, which Field is apparently not so into. The flame-haired style maven told Grazia, “I don’t use the recession as a reference for my creativity.”

Whose side are you on?

In these times, we have all had to struggle with balancing our lust for fashion and cautious saving, or just outright lack of funds. And it’s nice that SJP is considering realism. But do we, as viewers, actually want Carrie Bradshaw to cut down on her fabulous and outrageous outfits? Is this one of those times when art doesn’t have to imitate life?

Personally, this strikes us as exactly the right time and place for fashion escapism.

—AMANDA JEAN BOYLE

« Next entry

Fashionista Main

OMFG, The Kids Today »

posted by nycshoegal

Jun 24, 2009 11:52AM

i hear both sides of this argument... however i am on team SJP, especially because I don't agree that excessive amounts of $$ = creativity.
SO if Ms. Field is oh so creative maybe she could go without the Dior, Westwood, Gucci, LV and similar brand whoring? Why not put her styling genius towards more modest, less expensive, but equally fabulous outfits? Could it be because it's EASIER to style when you have all the money in the world? oh well. I'm interested to see SJP's vision more.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 11:53AM

I agree! Film flourished in the 30s because people needed a distraction. It's bad enough "reality" has hijacked TV, let film remain fantasy!

xoxo

KateDarling.blogspot.com

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 11:59AM

I think that the movie could have Carrie still look fabulous while mixing more vintage and non-label clothing into her wardrobe it may prove to be even more influential

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 12:13PM

Seriously, dress her in anything you want just don't make what the hell she is wearing a major plot point. Most of the audience of this crap won't be able to identify the item.

posted by Signature9

Jun 24, 2009 12:16PM

Why don't they just slip in something about finding once in a recession sales? While still not affordable for everyone, 60-75% off makes a lot of designer items accessible to many more people than usual. And if they need product placement, I'm sure Gilt would lend themselves well to a fashion catastrophe *sarcasm* of how to maintain a designer wardrobe on a budget.

#1, the only reason I'm not so sure about SJPs vision is because I think it would be more normal than character. I don't think an SJP styled Carrie would look bad, but I don't think she would have the quirkiness and some of the over the top touches that PF includes. And I think a movie needs a bit of that.

http://www.signature9.com

posted by kael

Jun 24, 2009 12:21PM

Hi we have the greatest thing for the recession that people are raving about. They are brazilets. Good luck bracelets that actually help preserve and protect the Amazon Rainforest. Check out the blog and see all the wishes that are coming true and what celebrities are wearing them www.livebrazilian.wordpress.com, www.brazilets.com!

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 12:31PM

For six seasons Sarah Jessica Parker was fine with us pretending that any New York newspaper columnist could afford her wardrobe and lifestyle...

And only NOW, when she's married to Big and could actually afford those kind of clothes with his money, does she want to address the fact that maybe she shouldn't wear so many designer duds?

Give me a break. Team Pat Field!

posted by casey

Jun 24, 2009 12:36PM

Carrie Bradshaw, the character, has always worn things that she wouldn't have been able to afford in real life. I honestly don't see why the recession should play any part in the wardrobe unless, of course, the recession is a huge theme and issue in the movie overall.

http://thoseextra4inches.com

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 12:41PM

Since when has the show ever been realistic about Carrie's lifestyle lol? The show has always required the viewer to 'suspend their disbelief.' An offbeat newspaper columnist lives in a brownstone on the upper west side and can still afford to splurge on manolos and prada, really? I say let Fields do whatever she wants!!

posted by nycshoegal

Jun 24, 2009 12:42PM

#5 by SJP's view I didn't mean that she should style the characters herself, just find another stylist who could incorporate the fabulous into the "recession point". I definitely don't think Carrie needs to start dressing like SJP.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 1:03PM

I thought Big was recession-proof, which would make Carrie, as his wife, equally so. No?

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 1:07PM

The stuff they had in the last movie was not so cool. It was total look after total look and not creative at all. I don't care if it's all expensive or all cheap, as long as the clothes reflect actual style and not just money.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 1:10PM

Those who adore and love fashion and could afford fashion within the fictional world that Carrie lives will not compromise their creativity, parellel to those with similar income in the real world. People I've come across no longer spend on generic pieces but those that are worth investing in.

I think Pat was quick to say she doesn't reference recession for her creativity but it could actually be a good thing where her clients limits their purcahse of smaller pieces and save it up for something like couture or a mcqueen.

Having clothes that reflects the impact of a recession doesn't mean a controlled, diluted wardrobe, but perhaps the total opposite.

modebility.blogspot.com

posted by discogina

Jun 24, 2009 1:11PM

Although it's noble of SJP to want to recognize our current economic status in the movie, who in their right mind would want to be reminded of it? You hit the nail on the head, it's all about escapism. Perhaps SJP should be more concerned with why she can't let the character go. Does it bother anyone else that a second movie is being made? I adored the show, but was underwhelmed by the first movie.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 1:27PM

a) i bet carrie is now regretting her closet cleanout in the painfully bad montage from the film and b) she should be 'shopping her closet' like the rest of us, since she has an amazing wardrobe! Ms. Field is a stylist! go ahead, STYLE!

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 1:33PM

awww I think this is kind of stuck-up reasoning on Pat Field's part. She should be able to be fashionably artistic regardless of the budget. Kinda lame : (

posted by RashomonRebel

Jun 24, 2009 1:50PM

How about we do away with SATC altogether? It's about as square and pointless as that black cube at Astor Place.

posted by RashomonRebel

Jun 24, 2009 2:05PM

but I do like SJP; she gives support to designers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEXInYx6osE

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 2:23PM

I just don't want them to make another movie. The first one slightly ruined the series and a second will kill it for sure.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 2:28PM

NO! Patricia all the way! Nobody watches SATC, especially not the movies, for realsim in fashion.Give us flamboyancy to take our minds off the crappy money times.

posted by savvychic

Jun 24, 2009 2:33PM

Good for SJP!! Her idea is great and since Sex and the City has always been one of the biggest trend setting shows, it would be a great platform to showing everyone how one does not need designer tags to look great!
I don't think the fashion world will agree with me, however.
I expand on the subject on my blog on this post:
http://savvychicblog.wordpress.com/editorials/

posted by grammyweezy

Jun 24, 2009 2:56PM

eek that dress is so beautiful in all it's ruffly goodness. i didn't even see the first movie, but i agree that the show was never realistic so bring on the high-fashion! i have to disagree with no. 4; what carrie was wearing was always, but always, a plot point - sometimes the most important one!

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 3:16PM

I have to agree with SJP...If Fields can't make Carrie looks amazing without designer, then she's not being creative.

We know Carrie still indulges in top of the line, but I think it's okay for her to shop at a sale or make a Target run for a bit.

I don't think the audience will die over that.

I love Carrie because she looks amazing. Not because her outfit cost X amount of money.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 3:22PM

Carrie bradshaw and SATC is all about their fabulous clothes and their look... if you want to be more recession friendly go with some vintage looks, but still include all the designer brands... the reason the movies exist is because most things are just out of this world amazing...
Doing away with one of the most essentially parts of SATC would be like naming the movie the sequel and losing the main star....

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 3:30PM

IF SJP GETS HER WAY, THEN I'M GOING RECESSIONISTA ON HER ASS AND BUYING THE MOVIE ON BOOTLEG.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 3:53PM

I'm actually slightly offended at this point by "recession" wardrobes and totally agree with Patricia Fields.

At first I thought it was great that a magazine like Lucky was mixing in more lower priced clothing, but now it's just annoying. I might not buy an $800 dress, but I still like seeing what is out there so I can model my own wardrobe accordingly.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 4:48PM

Carrie's wardrobe on the show and the wardrobe in the movie were totally different. She mixed in some funkier stuff with the labels and it wasn't all just "Confessions of a Shopaholic" riculousness on the show. The movie was designer looks head to toe with no nod to streetwear. I think I'm with SJP--it would be more creative and funky and Carrie to mix in a few nods to the recession. The movie fashion was boooring--taking looks practically straight off the runway and bringing back the big flower isn't styling.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 5:29PM

I completely agree that SATC is about fashion escapism (i mean seriously both show and movie really lack a plot line). While I agree that the looks don't need to be head to toe designer in order to be fashionable, restricting the amount of high fashion labels used in order to make your audience feel better is complete bullshit. I don't need SJP to feel bad for me because she gets to wear couture while I struggle to find a real job straight out of college. I would much prefer for Pat Fields to use her creativity to create looks that make people forget about our horrid economy.

adventuresinvanityland.blogspot.com

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 8:00PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Sex and the City is our Wizard of Oz!
We can't afford Chanel anymore! Can't we at least have a frivolous and imaginary character through which we can live vicariously?!
I can't bear the thought of PF being off the job. When I can't buy that dress I've wanted for months EVEN WHEN IT'S ON GILT, guess what goes in the DVD player, my friends?
Please, please, PLEASE say it isn't so.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 8:06PM

Plus, didn't any designer who used the recession as a "reference point" (as Pat put it) kind of frowned upon this past season?

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2009 9:00PM

i'm with sjp -- and i don't think the outfits have to be any less fabulous. pump up the creativity and consider unusual materials...just don't pay a mint for them. one thing i like about sitc is the outrageous costume that sometimes seem like something almost no one would wear, but it looks great on sjp!

posted by Peter

Jun 24, 2009 10:11PM

I can't think of anything more glamorous than all four women walking the streets of Manhattan in matching "Fashion Is Not a Luxury" tees.

posted by etoilee8

Jun 25, 2009 12:39AM

I agree with SJP and I applaud her for her sensibility. The first movie was so completely over-the-top wardrobe wise I found myself frowning in distaste. Who walks around wearing that much designer garb all the time? NO ONE (even the starlets know when it's time to tone it down). It wasn't fantasy, it was RIDICULOUS. Yes, we're in a recession. But I could never afford half the items featured on the show anyway. (I've never seen a pair of Manolo's that suited me. It's just not my style, even if SJP looked amazing in them). If Patricia Fields can't work with bargain than why on earth do we all think she's so amazing? True style has no price tag.

posted by etoilee8

Jun 25, 2009 12:51AM

And another thing, the argument about escapism. . . I don't know if working in fashion has ruined it for me, but I just don't really get it. When I watched the Devil Wears Prada and the main character got all those amazing clothes all I could think is "stealing samples is a great way to end up jobless and blacklisted".

posted by guest

Jun 25, 2009 9:33AM

I think that if the recession plays a big part in the storyline then agree with SJP if not Pat Field. It's hard to say without know the plot of the move. Writers are losing thier jobs too so may Carrie gets hit by the recession in the movie. If so a wardrobe that reflects that would be fitting. But when has Sex in the City ever been completely realistic anyway?!

posted by guest

Jun 25, 2009 2:41PM

This is so sad. The reason you watch SATC is the clothes. Take that away and all you're left with is another story about four friends searching for love and successful careers. I lived in New York and I agree it's very unlikely to afford a westside brownstone and a designer wardrobe on a columnists salary. Also, how unrealistic is it to think that just because there's a recession going on this means wealthy women aren't shopping...because they are. Carrie has now married a rich man and she needs to look like it. If anything her wardrobe should be even more spectacular. And like most women, we all mix and match. For some the mixing is haute couture with designer and for others it's designer with Target. It's all a matter of what you can afford and like. Put the egos aside and give the fans what they want...a movie with a great plot and beautiful clothes.

posted by guest

Jun 25, 2009 3:41PM

The nice thing about film is that the recession need not exist at all in the movie. Actors and screenwriters can all pretend that there is no such thing and SJP can carry on like its 2000.

posted by guest

Jun 28, 2009 10:17PM

wtf is sjp talking about her wardrobe has always been ridiculous to belive. even more ridiculous in that there is a sequel after the horror of a first one. so let us at least have something to look at while we sit through the movie.

posted by guest

Jul 17, 2009 6:24AM

pat fields has never let us down before and she wont this time you cant make this movie without her its like trying to make it without NYC or without fashion that is what made us love satc why stop now if they drop PF I'm not going to see it this show has always been about our dizziest fantasies and it should remain so! TEAM PAT FIELDS!!!

posted by guest

Jul 17, 2009 6:26AM

i love you sjp but leave the fashion to the professionals and be happy you had it written into your contract that you get to keep all of the clothes and if you want to make the film economically friendly how about taking a bit out of your BIG FAT PAYCHECK! TEAM PF