Let's Move!

I get that Thom Browne has done more to revolutionize menswear than any designer in the last half-century.

I get that his signature suits-- with narrow lapels, jackets that fall just below beltlines and shrunken hems which leave wrists and ankle bones exposed-- have been conferring instant hipster-cred upon wearers from Ginza to Williamsburg since 2001.

And I get that it was only a matter of time before women would turn to the master in search of an avant-garde aesthetic we could call our own.

But when the first lady emerged from the Capitol Building wearing a custom coat with fitted bodice and flared skirt by Browne during Monday's presidential inauguration, my initial reaction was Does Thom Browne get Michelle Obama?

In a post-inaugural interview, the designer explained: "I kind of assumed that the President would be in navy so I wanted to do something in navy so that they looked really good together. The fabric specifically was one I was developing for my men's collection that I just showed: a silk jacquard fabric based off an old tie. There's a beautiful structure to the fabric."

In fact, the Obamas did look like a match made in fashion heaven, and Michelle's ensemble was perfectly structured. But as I watched her move throughout the day it occurred to me that FLOTUS's greatest assets were being muted by design. 

 While the navy jacquard was an elegant choice, I wonder what the million spectators who braved the cold for hours, hoping to catch a glimpse of Mrs. O-- whether on the Mall or along the parade route-- thought of the color choice? Might they not have preferred a pop of color to help identify her in the crowd? As it was, even I had trouble keeping my eye on Obama in the sea of black and blue hues-- and that was with Rachel Maddow's brilliant color commentary to guide me as I watched MSNBC from dawn to dusk.

Of course, the unofficial title of First Lady is as ceremonial as it is anachronistic, but inaugural parades being what they are-- what purpose is served by having a figure head blend in when she could stand out? And though Michelle Obama's educational and career pedigree are the best argument for equality between the sexes, when it comes to special events, the last thing I want is for her to look like one of the guys. 

At 5'11', the first lady is a designer's dream: all arms and legs. But these physical characteristics were minimized by the proportions of her coat-- which appeared to compress rather than elongate Obama's statuesque physique. Likewise, the belted high waist did little to play up her lithe torso, and the neckline did not flatter long neck.

For me, there are two hallmarks of great design-- whether in architecture, interiors or clothing-- and the two are diametrically opposed. First, I want the creation to take my breath away, and then I want it to disappear. And the latter category is where Browne's design really left me cold, because each time Obama lifted her arms to wave to the adoring crowds, her range of motion was severely truncated by her coat. 

To be sure, this design flaw would not have been apparent on a first lady who was adept at giving the presidential wave: that iconic, insincere, emotionless affect that says I'd rather be home, watching the game, eating some Cheetos than here with you. But when the Mom-in-Chief-- a woman as renown for her hugs as she is for her kitten heels-- appears to be straight-jacketed by a garment, it tends to stand out. 

I felt uncomfortable for Michelle as she kept having to adjust the coat-- which would ride up each time she raised her arm above shoulder height. The stiff fabric seemed to dictate her expression-- which left me wondering if Browne even considered his client's personality and physicality before designing her ensemble.

Fifty years have passed since the words pizazz and first lady could be spoken in the same sentence without a trace of irony. And while Jackie Kennedy remains the standard-bearer for unerring style during her White House years, part of Michelle Obama's legacy will be the dawning of words like kinetic and dynamic to accurately describe a sitting first lady. 

In Michelle, we have a woman who is as inclined to bend down and meet her constituents at their level...

 

...as she is to boogie down with grade-schoolers to demonstrate the value of physical fitness. 

She is the living embodiment of her signature issue Let's Move! at a starting lines...

...and receiving lines alike.

Whether doling out hugs on the campaign trail...

or on a basketball court...

 there is no more spirited cheerleader than Obama.

Her enthusiasm can even make something as prosaic (to non-green thumbs like me, at least) as gardening seem like an exciting pursuit.

She is the first first lady I'm aware of who is as pretty in pink...

...as she is in a pair of Pumas.

And whether surrounded by stars... 

or clad in stripes...

the glory of love is evident in everyone she touches.

It goes without saying that I didn't expect Thom Browne to dress the first lady in sleeveless, athletic gear for her husband's inauguration to facilitate freedom of movement. I understand the constraints of time & place and pomp & circumstance. Moreover, the climate had to be taken into consideration as winters in DC can be bitterly cold. 

But when a designer has an opportunity to catch lighting in a bottle-- as did Browne with Obama-- I think the first step must be to get who she is, accentuate the positive, and then get out of the way. 

Not putting Michelle Obama on lock down with a coat that was so unyielding (though beautifully crafted) through the arms and shoulders would have been an excellent first step, and would freed her to do what she does best. Express herself.

With feeling...

with conviction...

and, always, with abandon!

Can We Talk?

I don't know what's more upsetting about the NRA's latest Web video: the reckless content,  or unoriginal execution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmGfZt8iJdA

Barley two month's after putting the genre to bed following the November elections-- for what I'd hoped would be a three-year nap-- our airwaves are being contaminated with yet another divisive political attack ad. And while the message is new, the style is anything but.

Allow me to count the ways...

-Second-rate horror-flick soundtrack?

Check!

-Ominous male voice over?

Yup!

-Waving American flag-as-prop?

You betcha'!

-Coded language engineered to establish an us or them paradigm?

Ummmm hmmmmm...

-Polarizing opening question?

Well... if you consider a humdinger like: "ARE THE PRESIDENT'S KIDS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOURS?" provocative...   

Hellz yeah!

A week after the mass shooting in Newton, Connecticut, that left gun-control advocates demanding stiffer regulations of firearms, the NRA's chief executive and vice president, Wayne LaPierre, held a press conference to call for the end of "gun-free zones" around school buildings as a means of enhancing security; arguing that "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." But when asked for his response to LaPierre's statement during an appearance on "Meet the Press" last weekend, President Obama expressed reservations about putting more guns in schools nationwide, saying "I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem."

And this, apparently, is what triggered the NRA's rapid response.

Within days, a Web site called N.R.A. Stand and Fight released a video calling the President an "elitist" and a "snob" for his opposition to posting armed guards at schools, while Malia, 14, and Sasha, 11, (whose faces were not shown in the video) benefit from Secret Service protection at their school.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney swiftly denounced the ad as "repugnant" and "cowardly," adding "Most Americans agree that the president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight."

As I watch the battle over gun rights escalate, I can't help wondering what those on the far right and far left hope to accomplish. After all, reconciliation cannot possibly be the goal when mud-slinging, stereotyping and a staunch refusal to acknowledge any opposing points of view takes the place of listening and rational dialogue. 

When gun control advocates, for example, refute the logic that the abuse of alcohol, automobiles and artery-clogging foods contribute to more deaths in this country than random school shootings-- why would a responsible gun holder engage them in a serious discussion? Likewise, when the premier firearms education organization publishes a video that suggests parity between the average American child attending their local public school with that of two little girls whose father is a head of state, questions whether Barack Obama believes his children are "more important than yours" and mixes imagery of young children, school buildings and weaponry in a 30 second ad-- as the wounds of Newton are still so raw-- it's counter-productive, and only serves to reinforce stereotypes of NRA members being big dummies clinging to their little guns. 

Though the NRA claims an uptick in membership in the last month, I'd be curious to know how many members have withdrawn their support in that same time frame. One would think LaPierre might have learned a thing or two about temperance after his broadside against Federal agents in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing caused former president George H. W. Bush to resign his lifetime membership in 1995-- stating that his "sense of decency and honor" were deeply offended-- but one would be wrong. 

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm

To be clear, while I have never owned a firearm and possess enough self-knowledge to freely admit that my Cowardly Lion temperament coupled with gun ownership could only end in disaster-- I consider myself in the middle of the road on the gun debate. Having grown up in a leafy suburb of Manhattan under the vigilance of two highly protective parents, I never feared for my safety or witnessed violence first-hand. For the most part, my wide circle friends and family share this outlook on life and remain gun-free today. But it would be naive and arrogant for any of us to judge a gun owner when their decision to bear arms might, in fact, be a mark of intelligence based upon their life experience. 

Perhaps if I lived in a little house on an isolated prairie-- instead of proximate to 50 well-meaning neighbors within shouting distance-- I'd be packing heat too. If I'd ever been mugged, or raped or physically abused in any way, I'd more likely than not have a very different viewpoint on how to best to safeguard my life. And if I had children who needed protection that I felt could only come from me, I might not be inclined to rely on the benevolence of the universe as a back-up plan.

That said, I think I speak for a lot of people like me when I say that what scares us more than a firearm, is a firearm in the hands of someone who is emotionally unstable. Someone who is quick to anger. Someone who is aggressive. Someone who has poor judgement. Someone who regards the world as a hostile environment populated by us and them. We fear people who feel desperate, marginalized and weak. And we fear anyone who has concluded that owning a gun can cure any of these ills. 

To put it mildly, ads like the one released by the NRA only serve spark an already charged atmosphere-- dooming us all to even more heated rhetoric from all sides.

But I'd like to believe that the vast majority of NRA members feel the same way. In which case, can we talk? 

...because I am all ears.

The Accidental Role Model

"The whole universe depends on everything fitting together just right. If one piece busts, even the smallest piece... the whole universe will get busted."

-Hushpuppy, Beasts of the Southern Wild

When the Hollywood Foreign Press snubbed "Beasts of the Southern Wild" during the nomination phase of the Golden Globes, I was determined to snub Sunday's awards ceremony in protest. The film-- which has been nominated for four Oscars, including Best Picture, for first-time director Ben Zeitlin-- is the most original, imaginative and compelling story I've ever seen on a big screen, so it really bugged me that such a masterpiece could be entirely overlooked by any creative body. 

Besides, thanks to my standing date with "Downton Abbey" every Sunday evening... just saying "no" to the Globes would not exactly be a hardship.

But after watching my beloved Masterpiece Theatre series (which left me clutching my heart and gasping out loud!) I retrieved a voicemail from my sister-in-law Kim asking if I was watching the Globes. Slowly, I felt my conscientious objector resolve diminish as I rationalized, "What harm could come from tuning in to see who's wearing what in the last hour of the broadcast?" and made the switch from PBS to NBC.

Little did I know even more clutching and gasping was in store for me that night, but I'm getting ahead of myself...

Jodi Foster was taking the stage as I tuned into the Globes, and she was luminous.

Her hair was cut in a fresh, new bob that perfectly balanced her square jaw, high cheekbones and aquiline nose. She was wearing a navy beaded Armani Privé  gown with criss cross halter that both complemented her bright, blue eyes and flattered her sculpted arms and trim décolletage. And yet, for all its feminine charms the dress also exuded a warrior aspect that reminded me of chainmail, mantles and other suits of armour better suited to a battlefield than a black tie ball.

Whether Giorgio Armani consciously incorporated the aspect of dress-as-body-armour into his design is any one's guess, but the choice proved prescient given what was about to unfold...

Though Foster came to accept the Cecil B. DeMille Award in recognition of "outstanding contributions to the world of entertainment," she apparently saw an opportunity to impact the thinking of a very wide demographic, and wound up conquering her audience with an acceptance speech that was loud and proud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efYg0vQyPGA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Which is not to say it was all smooth sailing...

In a speech I've come to think of as equal parts "I'm coming out" and "I vant to be alone"-- the typically self-possessed actress appeared so high-strung that her audience picked up on the vibe immediately. The closest thing I'd ever seen to Foster's level of tension during a live broadcast was the time David Letterman opened "The Late Show" with a monologue cum mea culpa about his affair with an office intern that led to an attempt at blackmail and eventual arrest of the would-be blackmailer. And just as half of Letterman's audience cracked up (thinking the odd topic was just another of Dave's wacky sketches) while the other half fidgeted uncomfortably under the weight of the revelations; so were the glitterati seated in the Beverly Hilton Hotel ballroom at a loss for how to respond as one of their own rambled on from the podium.

Frankly, I was more than a little uncomfortable in spite of being sprawled on my couch at home as I watched, and my discomfort was exacerbated by the show director's unfortunate choice to zoom in on the faces of stars who were obviously thinking "This... is... sooooo... awkward." Even Robert Downey, Jr., the Cool Hand Luke of awkward situations, appeared somewhat stunned as he watched Foster from stage left. While Mel Gibson, Foster's escort for the evening, looked like he was thinking "This cannot end well..." as he observed his long-time friend teetering on the edge of what appeared to be an emotional precipice.

Where was Foster going with her coy confession-to-nowhere that, "I just have a sudden urge to say something I've never really been able to air in public. I'm just gonna' put it out there. I am... uh... single"? What was up with the few seconds of deleted audio where her lips kept moving, accompanied by more visuals of the audience looking puzzled, only to have the sound resume as she said "...I hope you're not disappointed that there won't be a big coming-out speech tonight because I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago back in the Stone Age"? Was she coming out, or going deep? 

Was the audio blip the work of censors? Or was it my cable? And when Foster assured us that she would not be doing any reality shows, lest she have to "make out with Marion Cotillard or... spank Daniel Craig's bottom just to stay on the air,"  it took me a few seconds to process what I thought I heard. (Leave it to the French to maintain their sangfroid as even Agent 007 broke into a flop sweat. Case in point, the lovely Cotillard: who looked relaxed and appeared to be having a rollicking good time while everyone proximate to her looked like they needed a time out.)

Eventually... mercifully... Foster found her footing and did what she does best: she got real.

There was no mistaking her intent, gratitude and sincerity when she said, "There is no way I could ever stand here without acknowledging one of the deepest loves of my life: my heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love, but righteous soul sister in life, my confessor, ski-buddy, consiglieri, most beloved BFF for 20 years, Cydney Bernard. Thank you, Cyd. I am so proud of our modern family."

By the time Foster turned her attention to "the greatest influence of my life, my amazing mother, Evelyn," she was in tears, as was half her audience. "I love you. I love you. I love you," Foster continued in honor of her mom, who is apparently ill. "And I hope that if I say this three times, it will magically and perfectly enter into your soul, fill you with grace and the joy of knowing that you did good in this life. You're a great mom."

(Can I just say that Anne Hathaway deserves an honorable mention for those heartbreakingly large, limpid, soulful, brown eyes of hers that brimmed with tears as she listened to Foster? Goodness! With the exception of teddy bears, Bambi and Dumbo, I've never seen such ridiculously expressive eyes on a mammal before.)

Whether spilling with tears or dry as a bone-- how anyone managed to take their eyes off of Foster long enough to tweet or record their responses on Facebook for posterity is still a mystery to me because I was riveted: hanging on her every word and expression. But social media was abuzz in real time, and the reviews were mixed. Fans praised the notoriously private actress for her amazing speech and bravery, while critics blasted her for half-stepping when they felt a full court press was in order. And while I understood both viewpoints, my takeaway was that Foster showed us all what grace and dignity under pressure looks like as she was forced into the ill-fitting role of the accidental role model.

It took tremendous courage for a woman who has always avoided the look-at-me/tell-all aspect of celebrity culture to do what Jodi Foster did at the Golden Globes. I found her shyness in the face of taking a giant step out of her comfort zone absolutely endearing. The fact that her speech wasn't facile, slick or perfectly packaged was a reflection of her sensitivity and thoughtfulness, in my mind. In fact, her delivery was a breath of fresh air precisely because it was so raw, edgy and, at turns, uncomfortable to watch.

Given the reality that we were observing a proud, intelligent and exceptionally dignified woman bare her soul in public-- in a manner that was so obviously contrary to her nature-- it seems appropriate that the exercise should have made us all squirm a little for two reasons. Firstly, because who Foster loves and chooses as a life partner is none of our business. And secondly, because the belief that gay men and women should feel any more compelled than their straight counterparts to explain, justify or have anyone else ratify their choices is outdated and has no place in civil society.

Of course, there are those who would argue that along with Jodi Foster's celebrity comes a responsibility to address social injustice and agitate for change. But I've never subscribed to the notion that an artist (or sports star, or any public figure for that matter) owes us anything but their best effort in their chosen field. To the contrary: I think examples of excellence are so few and far between that the least we can do for those who deliver it on a regular basis, as has Foster for 47 years, is thank them for being who they are, try to live up to their stellar example and respect their natural inclinations when their workday is done-- whether this involves standing on a soap box, or curling up with a good book.

That said,  I think Foster's decision to deliver her message where and when she did was informed by profound love and wisdom. I hope we, the recipients of her good faith, prove worthy of the gesture; and pray that her words will resonate with any boy, girl, man or woman who has even felt marginalized due to their sexuality or questions surrounding gender identity. Foster's humanity is the best argument against the insanity of those who seek to protect a separate and unequal status quo in which straight people are entitled to marry, while gay people are entitled to civil unions. Her resolve not to throw out the "righteous soul sister" with the bath water-- in spite of having ended her romantic partnership with Bernard years ago-- demonstrates a maturity, civility and commitment to family values that is as rare in 2013 as it is exemplary.

By the time Foster exited the stage on Sunday night, rumor had it that she planned to retire; when what she actually said in closing was that she would continue to tell stories that will "be my writing on the wall. Jodi Foster was here, I still am, and I want to be seen, to be understood deeply and to not be so very lonely."

Which, given the content of her character, doesn't strike me as too much to ask; and given Hushpuppy's prophecy about the interconnectedness of all things great an small, is a favor none of us can afford to ignore.