RICK OWENS: awesome, awesome, awesome.

I didn't post about this (AMAZING) show on HelloTailor because I was writing about it elsewhere. So...

Finally, a Paris Fashion Week show that gives us something to cheer about.

Until this week, fashion designer Rick Owens was mostly known for creating gothic, grunge-inspired clothes that wouldn’t look out of place in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. But thanks to his Spring 2014 show at Paris Fashion Week, he’s now famous for introducing one of the most diverse and rebellious runway shows in recent memory.

Even if you make every effort to ignore the mainstream fashion industry, you’ll still have a fairly accurate mental image of what “models” are supposed to look like: tall, thin, expressionless... and usually white. This Thursday, Rick Owens broke the mold by employing a mostly African American cast of college step-dancers (a combination of cheerleading and military drill) to “walk” his new collection down the runway.

Compared to the size zero, predominantly white models of most womenswear shows, it was a shocking display of diversity. Not to mention a lot livelier than your run-of-the-mill fashion show where models calmly walk in a line from one end of the room to the other. [READ MORE]

Read More

Marvel's Agents of O.M.G.

As a Marvel movie nerd, a Joss Whedon fan, and a person with twelve life-size cardboard cutouts of Agent Coulson strategically placed around their house*, I was somewhat looking forward to this show. "Somewhat", in that I've watched the trailer 470 times and basically spent the entire episode making muffled screaming noises. I thought I should get this caveat out of the way before we started, because I am 100% gonna be reviewing Agents of SHIELD from the perspective of a fan. Is it a silly show? Is it a low-budget spinoff of a movie that pretty much defines the high-budget blockbuster genre? Is it almost certainly going to be more child-friendly and populist than Joss Whedon's previous work? Yes, yes, and yes. But do any of these details have any negative impact on my enjoyment of the show? Take a wild guess.

*if only.
Just to provide the illusion that this is a fair and balanced review, here are the things that I didn't like about this episode:

• People kept using the word "tech" like it wasn't a filler word. "Quick, hand me the Unobtainium, Agent Nolastname!" Stop this.
• Idiotic line about "sweaty cosplay girls". Joss Whedon should know better.
• Uninteresting costume design. But I'm willing to excuse this because a) it's a pilot episode, and b) most of the characters are secret agents who have to look as boring as possible for work purposes. Clark Gregg looked amazing though, obviously. Although I doubt they've retained the Dolce & Gabbana product endorsement from the Avengers movies. 

Other than these three minor quibbles, Agents of SHIELD was extremely enjoyable and I look forward to making muffled screaming noises throughout many episodes to come. 

Agent Coulson is the saving grace of the whole SHIELD concept. As a cross between Men in Black and the CIA, it's very easy to interpret SHIELD as the bad guys, particularly since one of their main purposes is keeping things secret from the public. I mean, in the very first episode we've already seen them kidnap a young woman and put a bag over her head. In shows like NCIS, I always found this kind of thing deeply troubling because it suggests that it's OK for all these faceless US government agencies to trample all over everyday citizens in the name of national security. Luckily, SHIELD was always portrayed as an ethically ambiguous entity, and Coulson humanises it enormously. (Oh, and before anyone comments to say that SHIELD is technically an "international" agency: LOL, no. This is an American show. A couple of British characters and a quick jaunt to Paris are not going to detract from the fact that SHIELD is clearly based on a long history of media portrayals of US government agencies.)

I've seen a lot of press about how Coulson was the "everyman" character of the Avengers, but I never really felt that this was the case. Hollywood has been glorifying the so-called everyman forever, but Coulson really just looks like the stereotype of the everyman. He's a middle-aged, harmlessly good-looking white guy in a suit. He's not the everyman, he represents The Man. As in, "Stick it to The Man". A point which this episode quite obviously hinted at when real everyman Mike Peterson went up against Coulson in Union Station. He interacted with Coulson not as a person having a conversation, but as someone railing against an avatar of the government or, well, The Man. Which is completely legit, because Coulson knowingly plays with the whole "bland government suit" cliche, and is aware of his own power in that role.

Honestly I think the Union Station showdown scene was played in the best possible way it could have been: with Coulson acting with self-awareness of his own role as an intimidating government drone. The reason why Coulson is so appealing isn't because he's "ordinary", but because his main characteristics are kindness, trustworthiness, compassion, and hope. Basically, Coulson is a Hufflepuff, which is pretty damn rare for the male lead in a genre show.
Hopefully we'll see more of Mike Peterson, not just because he's such a deliciously genre-savvy character ("This is an origin story!") but because he's more relatable than pretty much anyone I can think of in the entire Marvel movie universe. Unemployed, pissed off, and experimented on by some callous mad scientist douche? Honestly, he's already more interesting to me than Marvel's most well-known underdog/everyman hero, Peter Parker. This episode could've been ten times more ridiculous than it already was, and I still would've loved it. Just because the central story was about someone like Agent Coulson not dismissing someone like Mike Peterson, who has been screwed over by everyone and doesn't deserve to have his origin story turn him into a supervillain.

Expository dialogue is my least favourite thing in television, particularly when it ruins so many pilot episodes by talking down to the audience. I always imagine some studio exec standing over a script editor, saying, "Come on, explain it to me like I'm five!" Fortunately, the exposition in Agents of SHIELD wasn't too clunky, and it was balanced out by one of my favourite ways to introduce a new TV show: the Ocean's Eleven-style "getting the band back together" trope. I love all the characters already! Even the fundamentally unappealing Agent Ward, who I hope is treated with similar levels of mocking disrespect throughout the rest of the series. (I also hope that Ward/Skye never happens, because Ugh.) Fitz and Simmons filled me with utter delight, Maria Hill and Dr Shepherd Book From Firefly were hilariously ominous (IS AGENT COULSON A ROBOT? A CLONE? A LIFE MODEL DECOY??), and... well, I admit Melinda May could've done with some more screentime. But I'm sure that she'll be more important in later episodes, because Ming-Na Wen is credited second after Clark Gregg, and is the only other remotely well-known actor in the main cast.

Miscellaneous

• The only costume I found remotely interesting was Simmons' blazer, which really seemed to fit in with her entertainingly posh, yah-girl voice, hair, and first name (Jenna).
• I love Lola. Sorry, but every time that car came onscreen, I started laughing. The revelation that it had hover-wheels was just too much for me to deal with. RIDICULOUS.
• IS "TAHITI" THE NEW "BUDAPEST"?? My immediate assumption was that "Tahiti" = Coulson's brain being put in a robot body or something, but to be honest I don't really care as long as Clark Gregg is still onscreen.
• I'm definitely hoping that the show builds upon the self-aware hints of SHIELD being ambiguous rather than straight-up "good guys". ie, most of the characters finding it ~acceptable to just shoot Mike Peterson rather than try to save him. As the audience of this type of show, we are way too used to absorbing media that clearly delineates between good guys (who always survive) and bad guys/acceptable casualties. More scenarios where problems aren't solved by using a gun, please. 
• I just glanced at some of the viewer reactions on Tumblr, and wow, what a crock of shit. A LOT of people already dislike Skye, for reasons that I can only really describe as typical knee-jerk internalised misogyny. Yes, Skye is slightly annoying, but... that's kind of the point?? She's meant to be an embarrassingly overenthusiastic person who thinks she's in a spy novel. She is a fangirl. You are a fangirl. Female characters are not obliged to be cool, badass, or faultlessly adorable. They can also be brattish dweebs, and that's OK. As for the criticism that she seems too frivolous to be "smart enough" to hack SHIELD: please shut up.
• Also, people saying that the show is corny, cliched, and overly simple. Guys, it's a family-friendly superhero spinoff show, written by Joss Whedon and starring a bunch of people that nobody has ever heard of. What were you expecting, The Wire?
• Potential Coulson/Maria Hill chemistry: Was I the only person who picked up on it? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FEEL ABOUT THIS. I'd kind of enjoy it if he had a really ordinary middle-aged love interest rather than a six-foot-tall babe like Maria Hill... but who am I to criticize Hill's excellent taste in men?

 Previously: The costumes and characters of The Avengers: SHIELD.

Read More

Spring 2014 Fashion Week: Victoria Beckham, Fausto Puglisi, Vivienne Westwood Red Label, and Chris Kane.

Previously on Spring 2014: Ralph Lauren, Theyskens' Theory, Duro Olowu and Tom Ford.

Fausto Puglisi
I love it when designers attempt to describe their new collection in one simple soundbite. It's Stonehenge meets The Hamptons! It's Hollywood meets Star Wars! It's Kraftwerk meets The Craft! Fausto Puglisi attempted to jazz up his first catwalk show by labeling it with the deliciously meaningless publicity soundbite of "Carolina Herrera meets Axl Rose". Thank you, thank you! These clothes are definitely just like a cross between an aging, unwashed douche-rocker, and a super-feminine couture gown designer. What a great description. (In that they are relatively normal-looking skirts and dresses, with a slight leatherwork element. NAILED IT.)

All images via Style.com.

You may be shocked to learn that Fausto Puglisi is a man. He also seems to be somewhat unfamiliar with the concept of breasts. Like for example, this "harness bra" (LOL) may have been manufactured by Tuscan saddlemakers, but that doesn't mean it's very well-designed as an item of boob-regalia. Don't get me wrong! It looks pretty cool, in a bondage/punk kinda way. But there are some things that are just so uncomfortable-looking that, even as a fashion nerd, I have to take a step back and say, "Steady on, pal." First of all, only a tiny fraction of the female population are flat-chested enough for this whole harness bra idea to be a remotely plausible life choice. Secondly, why would you put a tight leather buckle strap directly over your nipples? I guess it would be slightly better if worn over a shirt, but I'm pretty sure that would be the socks-and-sandles of the bra world, and therefore kind of a faux pas.

Leather nipple-restraints aside, I was quite fond of all the wide, A-line skirts. It's a really fun and flattering look, and even the leather/floral print ones would look really good when paired with something a little more toned-down than a leather shirt. (Leather shirts are just a bad idea in general, really. Unless you're actually a medieval blacksmith or a member of a biker gang.)

Victoria Beckham
I mentioned already Victoria Beckham when I was writing about the Olsen Twins and celebrity fashion designers the other day. Despite the fact that she's been going for a few years now, I still get the impression that a lot of people think that she's not a "real" designer. Which is... really not true at all. Her label is not enormously innovative or experimental, but she's very good at what she does, which is producing minimalist, classy, office-formal outfits for thin rich ladies. And, yes, I realise that this isn't exactly a niche market in the fashion world. I can already feel you raising your eyebrows. But when I look at Victoria Beckham's output and then look at similar collections from much more established designers (CALVIN KLEIN), Beckham is clearly superior.

I love the little flash of pleated underskirt in these outfits. REALLY hoping that this look somehow makes it to the high street, because, well... none of us are ever gonna be rich and thin enough for real-life Victoria Beckham. I took a look at her website a while ago, and even the bland, loose-fit dresses from her B-label are selling for like £900 each. Nooope.

Horrible shoes, though.

Vivienne Westwood Red Label
There was a whole climate change awareness subtext to this show, as is often the case with Vivienne Westwood's Red Label. Obviously I'm in favour of climate change awareness, and I get that her heart is in the right place. But are mud-spattered models and Lily Cole performing an interpretive dance based on "The Red Shoes" really the best way to go about this? There's something pretty goddamn embarrassing about using a high-end fashion show as a platform to inspire discussion about the dangers of consumerism. This sort of thing is why, even a decade after it came out, Zoolander is still basically a documentary.

Chris Kane
A lot of the imagery in this collection was inspired by photosynthesis and cross-section diagrams of plants: a refreshing alternative to the unavoidable barrage of ~florals~ during Spring Fashion Week. If you're not acknowledging the fact that you have a weird obsession with the sexual organs of a useless decorative plant, then I ain't interested in your floral bullshit.

Read More

Spring 2014: Ralph Lauren, Theyskens' Theory, Duro Olowu and Tom Ford.

Previously on Spring 2014: The Row, J.W. Anderson, Prabal Gurung and Peter Pilotto.

Ralph Lauren
I have mixed feelings on the topic of Ralph Lauren, mostly because I used to work for them and therefore lived through several months of semi-successful corporate brainwashing. Without the brainwashing, my feelings would be decidedly un-mixed, because their designs are largely dull as balls. As it stands, I know way more about Ralph Lauren than any other designer, which forces me to think critically about the brand as a whole. Ugh.

All images via Style.com

Ralph Lauren's high-end work (ie, the stuff you see at Fashion Week) is occasionally interesting, but their lower-price labels are generally an exercise in non-fashion. The purpose of Ralph Lauren clothes is to maintain a supposedly timeless preppy/equestrian/American royalty look, which primarily means a lot of v-neck sweaters, beige, faux prep schoolwear, and touches of feminised "menswear-inspired" shirts and blazers. The ideal Ralph Lauren woman is rich and vaguely sporty, but not really interested in "fashion" so much as interested in looking... rich and vaguely sporty. While other major labels like Dior and Chanel do rely on a certain amount of recycling in order to retain a recognisable brand style, Ralph Lauren is basically in a constant state of self-consumption.

This adherence to the brand's history is a double-edged sword. From a critical perspective, I want Ralph Lauren to shake things up and produce a more thoughtful and innovative variety of clothes, even if it's only in their top-of-the-range collections. Their Fall 2012 collection was a particular success, because it combined an interesting yet topical inspiration (1920s, Downton Abbey-style tweed suits) with the general in-house style of ladylike American preppiness. This season failed because the inspiration (1960s mod; largely in stark black and white with a handful of shriekily colour-blocked dresses and coats) didn't fit with the overall palette and mood of previous Ralph Lauren collections, and isn't really on-trend with the current fashion world as a whole. A few of the outfits appealed to me personally because I enjoy well-tailored trouser suits, but overall this show was not a success.

Duro Olowu

Duro Olowu hasn't changed much in the handful of years he's been on the mainstream fashion circuit, but that doesn't mean his designs don't stand out. Probably because most bigger labels don't tend to go for things like "1970s-inspired Nigerian print capes". TBH I don't have much to say here other than that these BRIGHT, BRIGHT COLOURS are delicious food to my poor, autumnal eyeballs. I live in Scotland. Everything is grey here. It's pretty tragic. Cape on capin' on, Duro Olowu.

Theyskens' Theory
This show was my first genuine personal style inspiration of the season. Plenty of designers make beautiful yet unattainable clothes, but this collection was the opposite: completely everyday clothes styled in an interesting way that you could easily recreate at home. I'm never gonna suggest spending $$$ on a plain grey Theyskens' Theory sweater, but I really enjoyed the layered styling -- if not the odd decision to make all the models look like they'd just dipped their hair in a vat of oil.

Tom Ford
I'm always into any outfit that makes you look like an alien lizard-bug warrior queen, so naturally this show was A++ from my perspective. The crushed glass mosaics looked so sharp that they might easily have been made from actual crushed glass, while the neat silhouettes and simple hair/makeup balanced out the busy appearance of the fabrics. Also, I love the way Ford managed to make a bunch of tough-looking leather outfits that didn't reference aviator jackets or (shudder) "biker chic". When is someone gonna hire this guy to costume a sci-fi movie?

Read More

Spring 2014: The Row, J.W. Anderson, Prabal Gurung and Peter Pilotto.

It's been a while since I did any fashion writing, so for new readers... My unscientific method of reviewing Fashion Week is that I only pick the clothes I actually find interesting, whether it's because they seem genuinely innovative/attractive, or just because they're so goddamn ugly. Sadly the vast majority of Fashion Week shows are so dull that I can't muster the spiritual energy to write about them. So without further ado: Some of my favourite outfits from the start of the Spring 2014 season.

The Row
It was a smart decision for the Olsen Twins to name their label "The Row" rather than, you know, "Mary-Kate and Ashley". By now they've proven themselves when running a fashion empire -- not to mention being famed for their personal style (which was mostly shaped by real-life Cruella deVille and professional eating disorder enabler Rachel Zoe, but whatevs). Any lingering doubts over the Twins' ability to run a fashion label are probably because The Row has now evolved past what the Olsens wear in real life -- which doesn't necessarily mean The Row is not still "theirs".

All images via Style.com.

Designing for yourself is the easiest way to quickly hone a personal brand, which is why most celebrity designers (whether it's "real" designers like Victoria Beckham, or just glorified fashion endorsements from a Kardashian) tend to go that route, at least at first. The most successful celebrity fashion label is Jessica Simpson's, for the dual reasons that a) you always know what you're getting, and b) her label caters to plus-size women. While they are respected by critics, the clothes displayed by Victoria Beckham and The Row during fashion week are unlikely to reach Jessica Simpson's level of financial success because you have to be rich and thin in order to wear them. Luckily for her, nobody expects Victoria to cater to the commoners, while the Olsens have several lower-tier labels to fall back on.

 

This show was particularly interesting to me because while I usually have very little tiem for accessories, I really enjoy The Row's hats, bags and shoes. There was no obviously overarching design theme, with individual outfits taking vague inspiration from all round the world, including details such as fabric choice. I particularly liked the slouchy, casual shoulder bags.

J.W. Anderson
There was a lot of skin on show at J.W. Anderson, in that un-sexy fashion way that would nevertheless get you kicked out of most public space if you wore it in real life. Some interesting looks in general (check out the black and white outfits below), but my fave was probably this dress that is literally a deflated car tire:

Prabal Gurung
Not a great year for Prabal Gurung. A lot of the individual pieces looked good, but I just couldn't get over the fact that the show was supposedly inspired by Marilyn Monroe. Guys, if any of you are planning on starting a fashion label anytime soon, take my advice and don't tell people your latest show is inspired Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, or "old-fashioned elegance". The latter is permitted if you're Dior or Chanel, but the first two are 100% verboten. Particularly if a) your show does not actually resemble Marilyn Monroe or her style at all, and b) all your models are 15-year-old skeletal brunettes.

The skirt looks pretty, if you're OK with the clamminess of plastic sheeting on your bare legs. The pink suit is fresh and chic, with prints that look abstract enough to avoid the Spring cliche of randomly dropping flowers all over everything in the hope that it will look topical. HOWEVER. Please stop name-dropping Marilyn Monroe, who certainly wouldn't be wearing these outfits even if she were still alive. It's like traveling to Scotland to stage your latest version of Macbeth. Just don't.

Peter Pilotto
This collection was inspired by a ceramicist named Ken Price, who was a big fan of bright colours, abstract shapes and iridescent glazes. Refreshingly obscure compared to Prabal Gurung's Monroe-free Marilyn Monroe show, plus when you google Ken Price you can definitely see where Pilotto was coming from.

Some of these outfits aren't the most wearable (ie, navel-bearing button-down shirts are not for the faint hearted), but the colours are amazing and I'm really into the idea of modern crinolines. It's not immediately obvious on all the dresses, but pretty much everything here has a flexible frame under the skirt, meaning that it'll sway dramatically when the wearer is walking.

 AMAZING layering on this one. It looks like a stained glass window from the Church of Toothpaste.

Read More

Harry Potter, costume design, and wizarding fashion in 1920s New York. (Part 2)

Previously: Part 1.

Most wizarding robes in the Harry Potter movies are a combination of bell-sleeved faux medieval robes, and old-fashioned suits. Gilderoy Lockhart looks like a 19th century dandy, Cornelius Fudge wears a three-piece pinstripe suit and bowler hat, and Remus Lupin dresses like an impoverished mid-20th-century academic. There's a variety of quite disparate looks in the wizarding world, but they all have a few things in common: mixed patterns, heavy fabrics, and multiple layers of tailoring. So even though most of the costumes incorporate elements of Muggle styles, they still don't look like something you'd often see on your morning commute. However, as I previously pointed out, they regularly rely on a late-19th/early-20th century aesthetic, meaning that the costume designer for Fantastic Beasts would be wise to go in a different direction. Personally, my first decision would be to radically alter the silhouette and fabric used for wizarding fashions overall.

The first thing you need to know about 1920s fashion is that everything uses a very flowing silhouette. The masculine and feminine ideals are very different from what we see today, right down to things like placement of muscle tone and fat, and general proportions. This is slightly more the case for women than for men, but men's suits are still pretty different in shape and cut from the way they look today. Also, the modern concept of flappers is pretty much a total fiction, which is one of the reasons why I never reviewed the latest Great Gatsby movie, and why I'm eternally frustrated by the concept of "flapper parties" and faux-1920s fashion spreads.

from The Great Gatsby, 2013.

First of all, the body shape required for flapper fashion is just as damaging as any other ~fashionable body type~ because, you know, you have to conform to a certain standard that most people cannot naturally achieve. Specifically, the flapper look required you to be slim, boyish and flat-chested, meaning that women bound their breasts and wore girdle corsets. Secondly, while flappers were a feminist movement in that they were all about female liberation, sexual freedom and not passively relying on the income of your husband, one of the reasons why they were seen as so rebellious and extreme was because they were hanging out in multiracial nightclubs and/or co-opting black jazz dance styles. So I'm not saying that it's bad to enjoy the concept of flappers (or the modern idea of "flapper fashion"), but there's a lot more to it than just going to speakeasies and cutting your hair short.

via New Republic.

The biggest issue with modernised versions of flapper fashions is that it's seemingly impossible for people to let go of present-day ideas of what looks sexy on a woman. Right now the two things to emphasise are skinniness and breasts, which is sort of the opposite of the way 1920s/flapper-era fashion works. Back then, the trend was to emphasise the legs and obtain a more boyish figure by smoothing the difference between waist and hips. However, the average woman 90 years ago had a different figure from the average woman today, particularly when it comes to waist/hip ratio (which was significantly greater in those days; women were historically more hourglass-shaped) and fat distribution. Google some pictures of people in the 1920s and you'll see what I'm talking about. You'll all notice that even though flappers were all about tennis and being sporty, they don't look toned and muscular in the way "sporty" people are nowadays.

I'd say that 1920s wizarding womenswear would have to emphasise bare legs, a boyishly slim figure (but not skeletally thin like current trends, because in the 1920s that still implied that you were too poor to eat), and waistlines tailored loosely around the hip. Also, a shape that tapers towards the ankles and calves, which is something you don't see much of these days. The other thing is that while the "weirdness" of the wizarding clothes in the Harry Potter movies is sort of connected with ideas of English/British eccentricity, so it'd be interesting to see how a rebellious, American new-money wizarding aesthetic would turn out. Normal muggle dresses that change fabrics and colours at the flick of a wand? Transfiguration? Flames...? 1920s party girls could be pretty punk rock.

via costumereference.

For men, there are two major differences from today, one rather more noticable than the other. The most obvious difference is that everything is a lot baggier than the suits you see noawadays. The trousers look comparatively oversized, and jackets are far more loosely tailored. Also, everyone wears a hat. The less obvious difference is that many clothes, particularly trousers and jackets, would've been hand-tailored to fit the buyer -- or at least altered to fit. Meaning that you're way more likely to see guys wearing things that don't look like they fit very well. Although I suppose this would be less of an issue for wizards, who might be able to alter or mend things by magic.
The main thing that will govern the costumes of wizarding New York is how close US wizarding culture is to the muggle world. I think it's safe to say that wizards and muggles will be separate, but how much will wizarding New York be influenced by the rest of the city? Are robes a British/European tradition that never even made it across the Atlantic? Does everyone just dress like a muggle? And how will New York's immigrant population affect its magical culture in general? I find it hard to believe that countries from all over the world will all have the same attitude to muggles, or even to magical culture in general. Surely not everyone uses the Latinate spells of Hogwarts, or dresses like the witches and wizards of British/Western European folklore. Whatever this movie turns out to be about, we're sure to learn huge amounts about non-British wizarding culture that we never even considered before.

See also: Leyendecker and the Arrow Collar Man.

Read More

Costume design, JK Rowling's new Harry Potter movie, and the wizarding fashions of 1920s New York.

JK Rowling announced yesterday that she's teaming up with Warner Brothers to make a new series of Harry Potter movies, instantly causing the the top of my head to flip open with excitement. The HP books shaped my childhood, and my love of the series was recently rekindled when I got to report at LeakyCon London Harry Potter convention last month. The prospect of an entirely new story set in the wizarding universe already has me grinding valium into my martini. STAY CHILL, SELF. IT WON'T BE OUT FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS. We need to set up a Harry Potter-related group therapy session, stat.

The new movie(s) will focus on Newt Scamander, the author of Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, the definitive textbook on magical creatures. He already seems to me like an ideal choice of protagonist, because he has a strong connection to the wizarding universe but no real link to the events of the Harry Potter series. I'd be very leery of a Harry Potter spinoff that seemed to act as a prequel or sequel to the series itself, but I feel like JKR is pretty unlikely to do that anytime soon. Most interestingly, the Fantastic Beasts movie will take place 70 years prior to Harry Potter (ie, the 1920s), and begins in New York. I'm already brimming with speculation over what this means in terms of worldbuilding and, of course, how the costumes are going to look.
The Harry Potter books are so utterly British (and JK Rowling is so amazing at writing about the British class system) that I'm already enthralled by the idea of a story about a former Hogwarts student in New York City. We learn virtually nothing about American magical culture in the books, which is probably on purpose because it's best not to think too hard about the concept of an international wizarding community. Like, why do other countries never intervene when a tiny racist cult is going around killing people and taking over the government in the UK? My personal assumption was that Britain is seen as so backward and eccentric compared to the rest of the wizarding world, that other countries have a total non-intervention policy. Considering Britain's disastrous muggle/wizarding conflicts, class system, and inexplicable decision to segregate all children by personality type at age eleven, it hardly feels like a place that's very in touch with the outside world. Well done, you put all the ruthlessly ambitious kids together in a school house that's known for producing dark wizards and racist fanatics. What could possibly go wrong? Without the "benefit" of the Hogwarts house system, who knows what wizarding society would be like.

There are a few things we can expect from the setting of 1920s New York. The most obvious, to me, is greater racial diversity than we saw among the main cast of the HP films. While the books are open to interpretation, the movies are very white when it comes to speaking roles, particularly among the adult characters. The casting generally defaulted to white unless the character is explicitly described as otherwise (ie, Kingsley Shacklebolt), which is partly down to the semi-accidental racism of almost all movies casting white actors by default. The other reason is that the books give the impression of being set in ~historical~ England.
Even though Hogwarts is in the Scottish Highlands and the main storyline takes place in the 1990s, the overall feel is that of an English boarding school adventure story, a genre that largely focuses on the period on either side of WWII. The only other major locations are London and Hogsmeade, both of which seem decidedly Dickensian and pretty distant from the multicultural world of 21st century cities. Hogwarts feels like a 60-year-old story taking place in a medieval castle, while general wizarding society has something approaching a 19th-century class structure. The only three wizarding households we see are Malfoy Manor (literally a manor; owned by aristocrats), The Burrow (just outside a small village in Devon), and Grimauld Place (a decaying Victorian town house). None of these exactly scream "modern, multicultural Britain". If Hogwarts had been located in central London during the same time period, it would've been harder to get away with casting almost everyone as white.

While English boarding schools, rural manor houses and Dickensian London all inspire certain ideas of how characters and stories "should" look, 1920s New York gives us entirely different expectations: flappers, jazz, gangsters, the Harlem Rennaissance, and the Great Gatsby. Plus, having read the mystery novel that JKR recently published under a pseudonym, I'd say that she's listened to criticism since the HP books were written, and puts a lot more thought into writing diverse range of characters. Either way, I'm gonna be majorly disappointed if the Fantastic Beasts movie doesn't include at least one scene where clueless Hufflepuff Newt Scamander wanders into a wizarding jazz bar and/or encounters some kind of prohibition-esque NYC hijinks. Also, there must SURELY be at least one black market magical creature smuggler in this movie, right? (CAST TOM HARDY IN THIS ROLE. CAST TOM HARDY IN THIS ROLE.)
Thinking abuot JKR's transition from page to screen, I'm curious to see what happens with regards to worldbuilding. The later HP films are genuinely good, and I think it's safe to assume that Fantastic Beasts will be of a similar tone (ie not a "children's film"), but much of the enjoyment for HP fans comes from the fact that we're aware of the extended universe behind the movies. Sure, there are plenty of people who never read the books, or read the books after watching the films, but JKR's strength lies in attention to detail, specifically when it comes to worldbuilding and minor side-characters. The HP universe is so rich and complex that every chapter contains some new spell or backstory detail or minor character, and all of them are interesting enough to warrant their own story. But you really can't get that level of detail in a film. I can imagine JKR getting frustrated at the limitations of writing a screenplay, but who knows. She spent a decade consulting on the original movie series, so she's hardly a novice.
When it comes to costumes, I'm hoping that Fantastic Beasts looks drastically different from the Harry Potter series. Obviously 1920s NYC is pretty distant from a medieval castle full of teenagers in the 1990s, but the historical setting may be a hindrance because the HP series already looks like a historical drama. The costume designers did an amazing job, but they were kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place when it came to transferring wizarding fashions from book to film. The robes in the books are described as being an entire outfit (rather than a sort of optional overcoat, which is how they look in the movies), with most people also wearing pointy hats. Wizarding styles were intended to be so different from muggle clothes that pureblood wizards don't even understand muggle fashion, with some wizards even having a problem with the concept of trousers. But it's difficult to transfer this look to a movie set in present-day Britain, because most characters would look so weird that audiences might find it distracting. So the designers had to think of other ways to set traditional wizarding fashion apart from the muggle world.
Even the robes worn by older witches and wizards are often close to just being a three piece suit or a dress, aside from especially "magical" characters like Dumbledore, McGonagall and Snape. Lucius Malfoy may be a traditionalist but his leather battle robes are an exception, with most of his costumes looking like a cross between an old-fashioned suit and a costume from a historical drama. The most common style among wizarding characters is some kind of normal-looking outfit with a robe-like coat over the top, while "dress robes" are just muggle eveningwear with the men's outfits taking on a slightly 19th-century aesthetic.

In my opinion the most well-designed "traditional" wizarding outfit is the original Quidditch robes, while the Hogwarts uniform is basically a normal British school shirt-and-tie uniform with an academic/graduation gown instead of the blazer. And hardly anyone wears a hat, because it's difficult to identify with a teenage everyman hero when he's wearing a pointy hat and an ankle-length gown. Even the casual clothes worn by Harry, Ron and Hermione have changed from book to film, I think. I always felt like the clothes worn by the kids in the books implicitly fit in with the boarding school aesthetic (ie, nonspecifically mid-20th century non-fashions, like wearing knit sweaters all the time), while the movie updates them to wear more contemporary outfits like jeans, hoodies, and t-shirts. I'd be interested to know whether the appearance of characters and costumes in the earlier film adaptations actually changed the way JKR described them in the later books.

Continued in Part 2.

Read More