Gareth Pugh, Spring 2013 Ready-To-Wear.

It's important to remember that no matter how obscure your demographic, the world of fashion will have something tailored specifically to fit you. Gareth Pugh primarily designs for the alien robot market, a small but apparently significant group that's managed to keep him in business for several years. It's so hard to find clothes that flatter one's chitinous exoskeleton, you know?

This show was considerably more relaxed than anything else I've seen by Gareth Pugh. It definitely qualifies as Ready To Wear, but is that really what one wants from this particular designer? I miss the metallic robot outfits and the black-and-white pierrot gowns. And quite apart from that, Pugh just doesn't seem to be all that good at more conservative designs like these. By the previous standards of his own work this show was surprisingly wearable, but not necessarily very interesting.

This leather outfit was the low point of the show. Strapless corsets almost always look cheap, and this one is extremely poorly fitted -- a real surprise, coming from a designer who is usually so adept when it comes to structured clothing. In all, the outfit came across as a Halloween costume of some mid-level character in The Matrix.

The latter half of the show reminded me of Jean Paul Gaultier's costumes for The Fifth Element -- or a pale imitation thereof. The bell-bottom trousers seemed particularly dated, a little too close to the late '90s/early '00s to be considered a retro pastiche as of yet. The styling also seemed like something from an early '00s music video, with the models all having jagged side-partings and exaggerated eyeshadow.

The most noticeable development this season was Pugh's reluctant admission of a single colour to his previously monochromatic palette. The end result did allow for some extra variety, but I found that there was a distinct aura of White Stripes stage costume to some of the outfits, particularly this frilled-collar shirt.

The high point of the collection was undoubtedly these ribbed jersey dresses. Although they're far softer than the designs one usually sees from Gareth Pugh, the fabric choice was excellent and their flowing structure made the otherwise rather conservative silhouette into something far more interesting. Ready-To-Wear, but with enough weirdness to qualify as a worthwhile Gareth Pugh design.

Read More

Skyfall: Bond as a blunt instrument.

When Daniel Craig was first cast in the role of 007, the aim was to revitalise Bond as a more realistic action hero like Jason Bourne. Unfortunately, Casino Royale never quite lived up to that -- and the less that's said of Quantum of Solace, the better. The two main problems with Casino Royale were that it's damn difficult to make an accessible thriller about the unavoidably static environment of a card game, and also that the writers of had the wrong idea of how to make Bond "serious" in the first place. After twenty films of varying levels of quality and ridiculousness, I understand the reasoning behind trying to make a grittier 007, especially since the genre has been parodied so often already. But in the case of Casino Royale, the filmmakers' idea of how to make Bond more realistic was to excise much of the humour of the old-school films, and add more angst. As an origin story for the character we see in Skyfall, it works. As a Bond film, it was slick but not very much fun.
I'm honestly rather surprised by how excellent Skyfall turned out to be. I'd heard good things, but the concept of a well-written Bond film with nuanced characterisation hadn't even occurred to me. The phrase "best Bond ever" comes to mind, although it's probably unfair to compare a lightweight post-war spy movie with a  big-budget thriller made in 2012. Either way, this was a smarter, more modern Bond that still gelled perfectly with the legacy of the series as a whole. Rather than going for the "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic" gadgetry of the Pierce Brosnan era, the cyber-terrorism plot of Skyfall forced Bond back into his original role as a blunt instrument. And yes, Skyfall is a movie that manages to use the term "cyber-terrorism" in a non-embarrassing fashion. Who even knew that was possible?

Low-tech Bond was an inspired idea, with 007 being handed a gun and a radio at the beginning of the movie and resorting to DIY seige warfare by the end. It all fit together impressively well with the cerebral nature of Javier Bardem's Raoul Silva, a villain whose power lies in his ability to hack into spy satellites but who is eventually defeated by the deliciously medieval method of a knife to the back. Not only did this brutal, low-tech theme make for entertaining viewing, but it made the character of James Bond necessary. There's always a certain level of disbelief-suspension required when you're watching a Bond movie, because what the hell is up with a secret agent who walks directly up to the enemy and introduces himself with his real name on every single mission? But in the case of Skyfall, we have a story that's all about the importance of real, ground-level agents -- both in the sense that MI6 is fighting against growing popular opinion that they're an outdated force in a world of ephemeral cyber-terrorism, and in the more specific sense of Bond proving his worth as a field agent.

source

I watch a lot of action thrillers, and it's very rare for a movie to get the balance right between the "OMG technology!" details like real-time GPS tracking (and, uh, invisible cars. Thanks, Die Another Day), and the more viscerally exciting stuff like people kicking each other in the face. In many cases, the kicking-each-other-in-the-face scenes can come across as superfluous because the technology seems so utterly all-powerful when compared to the fallibility of the human body. In Skyfall, however, we got the almost unheard-of combination of well-scripted action sequences and intelligent inclusion of up-to-date technology that isn't presented as a luddite-baiting threat. The 007 I saw in Skyfall seemed infinitely more useful than the character that appeared in any of the other recent Bond movies, because he'd come full circle and arrived back at his Cold War assassin starting point: a weapon to be pointed at the enemy and then let loose.
In many ways, Daniel Craig is the closest we've got to Ian Fleming's Bond since the 1960s. Fleming's Bond was ruthless and very much a product of the Second World War, and I'm fascinated by the way he's changed and evolved over the decades. Sean Connery is the most canonically similar, primarily because his movies were made more or less during the same time-period as the novels. Roger Moore was the silly, lightweight Bond, George Lazenby never really got a chance, and Timothy Dalton was darker and more introspective. Then came Pierce Brosnan, a slick '90s charmer who specialised in industrial espionage and dressed like a businessman. It seems weird to say that Skyfall has given us the "best" characterisation of Bond since the character is so malleable and often superficial, but while watching Skyfall I couldn't help but feel that this was a film that had really thought about who Bond would be in the world we live in today.
If you've been reading this blog for any length of time you've probably noticed that my #1 goal in life is to ruin everyone's fun by complaining about poor female representation in movies. Well, James Bond is the one instance where you'll ever hear me express a desire to restrict the role of female characters. More specifically, I don't want a Bond Girl to come within ten miles of making 007 "fall in love". The Bond franchise is notorious for its treatment of women as disposable sex-objects, but Casino Royale's solution to this problem never really sat right with me. As a semi-reboot of the series, Casino Royale began with a softer Bond, allowing him to develop deeper feelings for Vesper Lynd than earlier Bonds had for their love-interests. But although Vesper was considerably more three-dimensional than most previous Bond Girls, I could never really get onboard with her and Bond's relationship. Rather than making Bond more interesting by showing that he's emotionally vulnerable, Casino Royale just reminded me of all the annoying movies I'd seen (I'm looking at you, Christopher Nolan Batman franchise) where female characters are only there to be killed off so the male lead can feel some feelings

Skyfall is the first time I've been satisfied by a Bond movie both as a feminist, and as a fan. The female characters are more interesting and well-written than ever before, and when it comes to Bond's attitude to women, Daniel Craig's characterisation is impeccable. He may be sexist, but the movie itself isn't, which is always an important distinction to make. I'll go into more detail about the female characters themselves in a separate post, but for now I'll just say the way Daniel Craig's Bond treated Eve and Sévérine was a very clever mixture of old-school Ian Fleming 007, and a realistic portrayal of how a professional of Bond's calibre would act in 2012. One thing I really enjoyed was the flirty back-and-forth between Eve and Bond, which was a great modernisation of Cold War-era Bond's interactions with the many female agents he encountered. Eve is demonstrably a cool and fun person, and Bond clearly respects her and recognises her as a kindred spirit while still being very subtly protective of her. One thing all the iterations of 007 have in common is their rather condescending attitude towards their love-interests, but in this case it really worked for me.
I doubt that Bond would ever say to a male agent: "Being out in the field; it's not for everyone," because even in the 21st century he still secretly thinks that women need protecting more than men do, and he's generally just more emotionally open to women. But at the same time, he knew that Eve would be better off as a desk agent in the long run because although she's adventurous and tough and capable, she isn't a fucked-up murderer like Bond. Ten years ago, Eve's transition from badass field agent to Miss Moneypenny would have come across as a sexist tale of Bond safely putting a woman back in the office and out of harm's way, but in Skyfall this was her choice. Eve Moneypenny is awesome, but Daniel Craig's Bond is a stone-cold bastard, and he knows it. The reason why Skyfall succeeded where Casino Royale failed is because rather than going out of its way to be "gritty", Skyfall shows the balance between the danger and importance of Bond's job, and how much enjoys it. Daniel Craig's Bond, like the original Ian Fleming character, is an alcoholic womaniser who will cheerfully headbutt you in the face, laugh, and then murder a room full of people for queen and country. And the writers of Skyfall managed to put that character in an incredibly high-stakes situation and allow him some believably humanising emotional leeway in the form of his relationship with M.

Part 2: The new Bond Girls. 
Part 3: The Costumes.

Read More

Haider Ackermann, Spring 2013.

Haider Ackermann is my fave and Tilda Swinton's fave, which means two things: 1) that he's been judged to be Objectively Awesome by a panel of experts, and 2) that Tilda Swinton and I are destined to be BFFs.

Ackermann tends to stick very closely to his tried-and-tested design themes, but I'm of the opinion that that's A-OK because no one else is doing what he's doing. I'd divide this particular collection into three sections: pajama-style outfits that closely resemble his other recent work, tailored suits, and translucent, floaty gowns that represent an interesting step away from his usual fare.

The big difference between this show and Ackermann's previous work is the lack of colour. Up until now he's worked mostly in jewel tones, using deep, iridescent purples and greens to create a signature look inspired by Victorian men's pajamas. This time round everything is strictly monochrome, but since Ackermann is a genius when it comes to fabric choice, the clothes have retained that subtle glow. Also, the absence of colour gives him more leeway to experiment with patterned fabrics.

The androgynous, relaxed silhouette of the cinch-waisted pajama outfits is familiar from previous seasons, as are the wide belts and general lack of buttons. The suits, however, are tighter and more tailored than they were before. Although I very much enjoyed the fabric used in every one of these outfits, the suits were the weak point of this show because they weren't all that different from what several other major labels are turning out at the moment. That's a pretty minor quibble, however, considering the fact that the did still look great.

Ackermann isn't really a designer I associate with delicacy, but this season introduced a certain lightness of touch that I haven't seen from him before. His designs always focus a lot on draping, with whole outfits looking like they're made from scarves, so it's no surprise that his dresses are almost entirely un-fitted. Despite the quantity of skin on show, the aesthetic was still far from girly, with thick pleated leather belts providing a protective layer over the bust.

I really enjoy the fact that all of the dresses seem to have trousers underneath. Haider Ackermann is a ridiculously luxurious brand -- one of the few who regularly turns out entire ready-to-wear collections that are genuinely different from the kind of clothes you can buy from highstreet shops -- but there's always something very "street-style" about his clothes. Maybe it's because aside from the suits, his clothes always seem very customisable, fitted out with multiple layers of scarves and belts to be tied up or left hanging loose as the wearer wishes.

Click here for previous Haider Ackermann posts.

Read More

SUPER IMPORTANT: Iron Man 3 promo pics.

This is the point where you lose all respect for me as a writer and an adult and a human because I'm posting about a) a trailer for a trailer, and b) a bunch of uninformative photos of superheroes standing around and looking at stuff. (N.B. Yes, a trailer for a trailer. Please direct your tears of frustration at Marvel, not me.)

These promo pictures truly are a reassuring balm because thanks to them, we no longer have to worry that Iron Man wouldn't appear in Iron Man 3, or that Robert Downey Jr had suddenly become non-handsome. We can now rest easy in the knowledge that RDJ continues to be pleasurable to look at, and that at some point in this movie he puts on the Iron Man armour and fights something. I swear, superhero movie promotional material is more tightly controlled than press-releases from presidential campaign offices. 

Iron Patriot
I'm gonna go ahead and assume that the filmmakers are self-aware enough to know that this armour looks totally ridiculous. When the first on-set pictures leaked, it was quickly pointed out to me that the decals on the hips and shoulders of the Iron Patriot armour look like My Little Pony cutie marks (I thought they looked more like tramp-stamp tattoos, personally), but I suspect that Tony Stark is likely to point this out himself. At least Steve Rogers can relax his guard because Rhodey will surely now bear the brunt of Tony's Star Spangled Man-related teasing.

Iron Man armour
I'm not wild about the newest iteration of the Iron Man suit, which is mostly gold with some red parts, which has considerably more gold than the previous versions. But since this movie is going to deal with the Extremis storyline somehow (no spoilers, please!), I suspect that there may be another Iron Man suit in the movie that won't appear in the trailer? I would actually prefer it if they leave the Extremis stuff as a surprise for the movie itself.

Pepper Potts
As for Pepper, the promo shots don't tell us much, but the teaser trailer is already stressing me out because Pepper looks upset (and strapped into some kind ofcage or torture device??), and there's a clip of a scene where Tony exits a hospital. Is Pepper in the hospital? If so, someone please fetch me my fainting couch because Pepper Potts and I are linked on the astral plane, and if she hurts, I hurt. (This is scientific fact.) 

The poster.
This poster is like an inkblot test for comicbook nerds. If you look at it and see something really exciting, you're one of us. Basically all we've got here is a dude looking at a bunch of robot suits, but my reaction to it is: ;LAKSDFAS;LAF because of completely legitimate reasons like, I Love Iron Man. Actually, I really enjoy this choice of image because not only is it ~mysterious~ (and a helpful reminder of all those other Iron Man movies -- you know, in case we'd forgotten), but Tony Stark is the only superhero for whom it is totally in character to build a circular display room where he just looks at his own costumes while trying on new ones. This poster is essentially a picture of a guy standing inside his walk-in closet and preening. In other words: awesome.

Quick postscript: it's no secret that I'm a total fan-dork so there will definitely be more vacuous posts like this in the future, regarding any and all Avengers-adjacent movies coming out in the next couple of years. However, no matter how many "WHAT IS HAPPENING??" type questions I appear to ask, please know that they are all rhetorical. Although I enjoy speculating about films that haven't come out yet, this blog is definitely going to remain a spoiler-free zone.

Edited to add: And also, we get a picture of Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin, looking like one of the many interchangeable dwarves in the new Hobbit movie!

Click here to see all previous Marvel/Avengers posts.

Read More

Elementary 1x03: Child Predator

Previously: Elementary 1x02: While You Were Sleeping.

The opening scene of this episode was so dire that I was straight-up boggling at the screen. A twelve-year-old gets into a car with a strange man, who then leaves "THANK YOU" balloons behind as a taunting gift for the kid's parents? WHAT. First of all, this is cheesy as hell, but also it doesn't make sense once we know that the boy has the emotional intelligence to begin manipulating his captor almost immediately, and within two years is masterminding his own crimes. Our society is so riddled with paranoia about child abduction and paedophiles that the "get into my van" narrative is something that children are warned about from a very young age, making this episode's opening scene rather difficult to believe. I realise that putting it this way does sound somewhat like victim-blaming, like smart kids "shouldn't" get kidnapped, but considering the characters involved I feel like it's a fair point.

It would have made more sense if the writers had implied that Adam had shown signs of psychopathy even as a child, and that he might have "allowed" himself to be abducted out of curiosity. There was already some hint of that in the form of Adam saying he enjoyed seeing his grieving parents on TV, but it was never really followed through. Either you can have a manipulative teenage genius serial-killer who forces an adult man to be his accomplice, or can you have a character who at the age of twelve is naiive enough to get into the car of a complete stranger in a scene that seemed like it was lifted directly from a PSA video. I just don't think that they can plausibly be the same person, even allowing for the effects of trauma.

The crime stories in the first two episodes of Elementary were kind of so-so, but 1x03 made me think that there's a real Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde thing going on when it comes to the writing in this show. On the one hand we have the witty, thoughtful writer who deal with all the Holmes/Watson scenes and drops e e cummings references into the dialogue, and on the other we have the cliche-dependent moron who writes the crime subplots using some kind of CBS-affiliated Random Crime Generator.

source

Aside from the general sense of mediocrity, my main impression of the crime-writing in Elementary is that it belongs in a crime show from at least fifteen years ago. It seems superfluous for Holmes to explain that he likes to bounce his ideas off someone, because anyone anyone who watches crime TV (ie, most of the audience) already knows how this type of show works. The main character is some kind of maverick genius detective, and the sidekick is there so he has someone to talk to. It's the basic Sherlock Holmes formula, seen in everything from House MD to Psych to Monk. So even though I enjoy every Joan/Sherlock scene and I liked the insight we got into Holmes' lonely life in London, I feel like this type of exposition just highlights the absense of any substantial writing regarding Holmes' deduction methods. Having the main character in a show like this spend an entire scene explaining that he needs someone to bounce his ideas off is akin to the main character in a new CSI-style show spending half of the first episode explaining what fingerprints are.
There weren't enough Joan-centric scenes this week to see much of how the Holmes/Watson relationship is progressing, but I'm still absolutely loving their dynamic. I've written before about how impressed I am with this show's willingness to break away from the "asshole genius" archetype, but not only does Holmes apologise to Watson when it's warranted, he apologises well. Maybe this is a weird thing to pick up on, but well-written, heartfelt apologies aren't something you see on TV unless it's regarding something really major and emotionally frought. In a similar vein, Holmes thanks Watson for her help in a very direct and genuine way, which you don't see very often either. Apologising for minor slights doesn't usually make good television unless the show is aimed at very young children, but I think it works really well in this context because in many ways, this version of Holmes is quite childlike. The only other show I can think of where the characters regularly make sincere, specific expressions of gratitude or apology is Avatar: The Last Airbender, which is aimed at children and has significantly better writing than pretty much anything else on TV.

source

I don't know whether I want Holmes' Anders Larssen to be real or not. It's all too believable for an upper-class English character like Holmes to have been utterly warped by his experiences in boarding school, but I'm not so sure if I'm happy with the possibility that this ties into the earlier hints that he's a masochist. But that's still just conjecture at this point. Based on what we know from the previous two episodes it does seem like the Anders Larssen story is true, though -- whatever that means to the present-day Holmes. In all three episodes so far Holmes has solved the case thanks to his ability to empathise: first for the mentally ill stalker who was preyed upon by his psychiatrist, then for the drug-addicted private detective who leaks information to Holmes and the police, and now for the perpetrator himself.

Costume-wise, this episode brings sweet, sweet validation to my theory that Holmes doesn't give two shits about what he looks like. Not only do we hear him state that showering is a low priority (a stark contrast to the BBC's eternally well-coiffed Sherlock), there's a scene where he literally did not notice whether he was wearing a shirt or not. Which was actually kind of impressive considering the fact that it seems to be autumn in New York. In the first couple of episodes it was cold enough that everyone was bundled up in sweaters and scarves, but maybe the heating in Holmes' apartment is just really good?

source

Holmes' comments about his personal hygeine and fashion sense helped me pinpoint what it is that I love so much about Jonny Lee Miller's appearance. It's that unlike most actors on mid-level American TV, he looks like an actual human being who is made from cells that deteriorate and die. Compared to Lucy Liu, a 43-year-old elf with flawless skin who may or may not be immortal in real life, Jonny Lee Miller looks positively decrepit. He has wrinkles, and fluffy hair, and when Watson says to him, "you look tired," he actually looks tired. Do you have any idea how often you get scenes on TV and in movies where someone says "you look like shit" and the other character is played by a world-class beauty with nothing more than slightly messy hair and a hangdoc expression? I find it kind of amusing that the only other well-known character who looks this "bad" is Hugh Laurie's Gregory House, strongly implying that America has to outsource to the UK for middle-aged actors who haven't had a facelift yet. (Unfortunately there will never be an equivalent female character to these guys because that would require a woman to go on TV with unshaven legs, and that's illegal.)

source

Since I apparently can't stop myself from making comparisons between Elementary and BBC Sherlock, here's my thought for this week: Elementary Holmes is a better scientist than Sherlock. I don't mean in the sense that he exhibits more scientific knowledge, because BBC Sherlock is still superior when it comes to classic Holmesian deductions, but Elementary Holmes does seem like far more of an enthusiast and a purist. Basically, he's more devoted to the Scientific Method than Sherlock ever can be, and this all boils down to ego. One of BBC Sherlock's most commented-upon characteristics is the way he appears to care more about being right than he does about human suffering, which is why it's so easy for Moriarty to convince everyone that Sherlock is a sociopath and a fraud. Jonny Lee Miller's Holmes differs from this in two ways: he's already far more emotionally sensitive than Sherlock, and he seems to take genuine pleasure in Joan teaching him new things and helping him develop his own methods. While John and Sherlock's relationship is more intense than Joan and Holmes', Sherlock can be incredibly condescending towards John. John's role in BBC Sherlock is to humanise Sherlock, and to a certain extent that happens, but Sherlock still doesn't empathise freely the way JLM's Holmes does, because Sherlock's self-image is so tied up in the belief that he's set apart from the rest of humanity.

Miscellany

• Disappointed by the lack of BEES.
• Disappointed by the lack of VIOLIN.
• Angus the phrenology skull is a prop from House's office in House, MD. Head writer/producer Peter Blake (co-writer of this episode of Elementary) stole it from the set when the show was wrapping up.
• "From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other." -- I loved this ACD quote, just dropped casually into dialogue. Happily, JLM's Holmes has the correct voice and inflection for this to work as something he'd actually say.

Click here for all other Elementary posts.

Read More

The iconic menswear of James Bond.

In the run-up to Skyfall I've had a few requests for Bond-related costume posts. Well, I'm afraid that's probably not going to happen, except maybe for Skyfall itself. The reason for this is I try to write about things that are slightly off the beaten track, costume-wise. There are some TV shows and movies that already get a lot of mainstream coverage for their costumes, either because they're showy and beautiful like Downton Abbey or Titanic, or because style and product placement are an acknowledged feature of the story. The James Bond franchise definitely falls into that second category, with Bond's suits being some of the most iconic movie costumes of the past 50 years. Just try counting how many lazy dudes you see at Halloween parties this year, wearing a tux and claiming to be 007.
The character of James Bond is all about style: signature cocktails, well-tailored suits, and vehicles and weaponry whose serial numbers are lovingly recited in every single movie. There are entire books dedicated to Bond's costumes, to his accessories, his gadgets, and the love-interests who are purposefully written as being less memorable than his trusty Walther PPK. There have been whole museum exhibitions catering to fans of Bond props and costumes. Basically, as a casual watcher rather than a hardcore 007 nerd, I have little to offer. It'd be the blogging equivalent of an English undergrad thesis on Pride & Prejudice. HOWEVER! I am able to offer you a plethora of links to other, far more well-informed people!

First of all, there's Clothes On Film's guest blog on the topic of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which provides a kind of prologue to Daniel Craig's suits in Skyfall. Also on Clothes On Film is a similarly suit-nerdy post on Dr No, and if you want more in this vein then I suggest checking out the author's home blog, The Suits Of James Bond. If you want to look like Bond yourself then there's always Affordable Bond, or the clothing section of the exhaustive Bond Lifestyle site.

If you're more into Daniel Craig specifically, I liked this short video from behind the scenes on Skyfall. Then you can segue neatly into Designing Bond's Look with costume designer Lindy Hemming, an interesting glance at how Bond's style has developed over the years (including the awesome first shot of Sean Connery's turnback cuffs in Dr No). The thing I enjoyed most about this video is the way it accidentally highlights how godawful Pierce Brosnan looks to a modern eye. Not physically, of course, but the fact that his power-tie/business suit look now makes him look like a corporate douchebag of the first degree. I suspect that in 15 years he'll look fine again, thanks to the Law Of Vintage. 1995 is too close to the present day for Brosnan to seem retro and cool like the vintage styles of the earlier Bonds, so instead he just seems dated and embarrassing.

I love the slavish attention people pay to Bond's suits, although I do wish other modern-era movies got a fraction of the costume-based attention Bond receives. It's mostly down to the fact that audiences don't really think of Bond's suits as costumes; they're more like an extension of the whole 007 fashion/booze/status-symbol industrial complex. The Bond franchise is one of the few instances where a film's content actually invites product-placement, because the whole point of Bond is that he's super cool all the time, and that means he has to have all the best accessories. Bond's image is so important that the actors tend to become Bond in the public eye -- something that I've definitely noticed with Daniel Craig. Craig's Bond is the biggest bruiser since Connery, and looks like the kind of guy who would headbutt you during a barfight. Like Lindy Hemming says in the clip I linked above, his suits are very "mean", very tightly fitted -- even though he's the most muscular Bond so far. Daniel Craig clearly loves this look himself because it's what he wears to most red-carpet appearances, which is slightly unfortunate because his own suits are (inevitably) not quite as well-tailored as what he gets to wear as Bond.

The result is that in real life, Daniel Craig often ends up looking like the proverbial condom full of walnuts, tailored to within an inch of his life but missing the mark he previously set whilst in-character. I realise that this is a nitpic because Daniel Craig usually looks great and has excellent dress-sense when compared to most male A-listers, but seriously, Dan, if you're reading this: stop trying to strangle yourself with your own clothes. Your suits don't have to be that tight. The main problem seems to be that he knows what look he's going for (ie, the look he has when he's playing Bond, basically) but in real life there are more things to consider than the suit being tailored close to the body. The key thing that differentiates Bond's suits from a normal outfit of the same style is that they're action costumes and therefore have been designed with movement in mind, meaning that they're a lot more relaxed and flexible than a typical suit. Daniel Craig on the red carpet usually looks like he could barely manage to crouch down or move his arms in a full circle, never mind leap out of a helicopter and wrestle some supervillain down a lift-shaft.

Read More