The Tom & Lorenzo Archives: 2006 -2011
Our current site is here: www.tomandlorenzo.com

Lights of Spring

Darlings, our ongoing quest to give you shiny things to look at has taken a turn for the literal today. The great Mario Testino photographed an editorial for V Magazine showcasing the spring '09 metallics trend. The pics themselves are gorgeous, the clothes range from fabulous to ugly, and the styling is kinda bleh. The bored model with the JBF hair and a cigarette just seems so...nineties, y'know?



Balenciaga, Burberry Prorsum

Love both the jackets and sure, you can't see them as well as you could on the runway, but they do look pretty fab in the pictures.

Marc Jacobs, John Galliano, Chloé

Love that skirt; LOVELOVELOVE those shoes. Those pants are HIDEOUS and pulling them up to tit-level isn't exactly an improvement.


Ralph Lauren

It's a fabulous dress and while we think the styling for the runway show may have been a bit on the cliched side, at least it wasn't as disturbing as pairing it with a neck bandage.


Versace, Prada

Yes on the Versace; no on the Prada, although the latter does look better in the editorial than it did on the runway.

Maison Martin Margiela, Balmain

Both pieces look better in the editorial, but no matter how well it's styled, we hate that Balmain dress, which was worn by Jennifer Connelly to her last film premier a couple months back.


Model: Natalia Vodianova
Photography: Mario Testino
Styling: Beat Bolliger


[Photos: Mario Testino/V Magazine/Style.com/NYMag.com]



Post a Comment
73 comments:

Heroine chic is so 1993... There are some interesting pieces in the shoot, but I think the model looking all drugged out is too distracting.


Lorenzo and I would look so cute in those shoes!

:0)


I love Vodianova, so I enjoyed this editorial. The clothes did range a fair bit, but she worked them.
This shoot feels 80s to me, and I was born in '86. The other 'sequin revival' and 'trend: metallics' posts you did showed more of the successful pieces, but ingenuity still seems to be lacking.


Chloe?

That's not Chloe, "Chloe Blue" Chloe, is it?


"Those pants are HIDEOUS and pulling them up to tit-level isn't exactly an improvement."

If this is vogue, then my grandpa's a fashion visionary!


it's an indicator of how far downhill Chloe has gone now that people are confusing the house with a reality show winner.


Oh.. i think I just had a shoe-gasm. Wow. Just freaking FABULOUS.


those shoes are just plain mean!!


Did she have a hideously giant hickey or something equally large and unpleasent to photograph on her neck?
Like the Burberry Prorsum, Marc Jacobs, Versace, and the Balenciaga. I like how the lighting makes the Prada look in the editorial. I just can't get on board with the shoes, they're a little too cartoon into reality for me.


Just a minor thing but I think you got the two jackets mixed up. Though I have to agree that she makes those clothes look much better and more dynamic


I hate it all so much, words fail me.


Who will be the first celeb to wear those shoes - my bet Posh. Who will be the first celeb to hit the pavement in those shoes? Jennifer Garner after looking at this morning's TMZ.


another laura

I'm sorry, I'm just laughing so much at the Galliano shoes that I can't really notice anything else!

Well, that's not exactly true. The styling in the editorial is really yuck (neck brace, those fingernail tips, cigarette - looking like she just picked herself up out of a gutter in a VERY expensive neighborhood.....


why are all the shoes getting more ugly and utterly ridiculous??

i mean they are actually getting insanely dangerous.

these celebs wearing these 9 inch platforms all over needs to stop too..

is there something wrong with pretty and practical and most of all...SAFE????


@titpants

STOP.

Hammer time


frogponder
4/30/09 1:39 PM Who will be the first celeb to wear those shoes - my bet Posh. Who will be the first celeb to hit the pavement in those shoes? Jennifer Garner after looking at this morning's TMZ.


Then Lindsay Lohan will steal them, only to be found two days later with stains from cigarette ashes, spilled vodka and smeared coke.


WTF is with those creepy claw thingies? Ew.

Regards Ross' comment about Chloe the design house, I think it's been on a steady downward slide since Karl Lagerfeld left.

And darlings, what is "our" Chloe up to these days?


Those shoes are TO. DIE.

I am a shoe whore. No shame.


Why would someone style Natalia to look like that intentionally? Just wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.


"Anonymous said...

Just a minor thing but I think you got the two jackets mixed up."


The jackets are the closest we could find from the collections.

XO

TLo


OK, took me a minute to work out "JBF". But then it took me months to figure out LMAO and all its variations.

Those shoes are awesome. Posh would rock the hell out of those.


The only one I really like is the Prada (in editoral) it looks like a house dress made out of liquid gold. I also like the metalic blue shoes she is wearing.
On the runway it looks like it has some smoochy stuff around the hips that is not flattering.


OH MY GOD.

THOSE SHOES!!! <3 <3 <3


Those shoes are DEATH. SHINY, SHINY DEATH.


I felt like I was looking in my freezer at all the packages wrapped in Reynolds Wrap, and I think I find my freezer more appealing.
Blech, I hate them all, shoes included.


This comment has been removed by the author.

. . . you can't see them as well as you could on the runway. . . the latter does look better in the editorial than it did on the runway.Oh, TLo, does that mean you were there?


Great post - now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to have a Zima and watch an episode of Mad About You while I wait for my iMac to download a Veruca Salt song from Napster.


My eyes just slide off those shoes. I don't know how to look at them. (blink)(blink)


How are you supposed to tell if the shoes are too small for you? In my day, if your heel hung 1/2 an inch past the end of the end of the shoe, it was too small.


I hate it all. At first I sort of liked the shoes just because they're different, but the more I looked at them, the less I liked them. Different doesn't always equal good.


In my day, if your heel hung 1/2 an inch past the end of the end of the shoe, it was too small.Good point. I guess they want it to depend on how well you're strapped in (if the back of the shoes is too snug/too loose?) Then again, those straps are squeezing her around the ankles. so I'd go with them not really fitting the model.

I like the heel/wedge/whatever, but not the top, and I'm not sure I really like it in metallics. It doesn't seem like it would be harder to walk in than any other stilletto/platform, though.


The Margiela and Balenciaga jackets really do seem like they were switched, though, just look at the sleeve length. Could the magazine staff have made a mistake? How many heads would roll for something like that?


"Anonymous said...

Just a minor thing but I think you got the two jackets mixed up."


The jackets are the closest we could find from the collections.

XO

TLo



I think they meant that the last jacket you show in editorial is actually the first jacket shown on the runway, and the first jacket shown in editorial is the last jacket shown on runway.

They just need to be swapped.


see, I for one like any nod to the 90s (though the only thing I see here reminiscent of that is the heroin chic bedhead)-far better than any nods to other decades-enough of recycled 80s already! The shoes? I don't know. The only thing I really like about them is that they're purple and shiny. These outrageous shapes just seem to be grasping at straws.

I just wanted to pause a moment and say how great you two are-wish I could meet you in person!


The poor dear has a bandage over her tracheotomy and is still smoking. Such dedication is rare in one so young.

Gold lame Hammerpants are the devil. And those shoes are his henchmen....Well, as art, the shoes are intriguing. As shoes they are...not shoes.


The shoes are fabulous!


Well, maybe Hedda Lettuce would have liked the purple shoes.

To me, a lot of these garments look like the result of a bad Project Runway challenge to make something out of leaf & lawn-sized trash bags, only this time they're gold instead of black.

Bleh.


"Anonymous said...
I think they meant that the last jacket you show in editorial is actually the first jacket shown on the runway, and the first jacket shown in editorial is the last jacket shown on runway.

They just need to be swapped."


Right. Fixed. Thanks!

XO
TLo


It's Desperately Seeking Susan, isn't it?


Oh boys...of course you love those shoes!! Please...try them on and wear them for an hour or two (no fair sitting down!) THEN tell me you love them! Podiatrists dance (in sensible shoes) for joy!


Oooh! It's Cousin It wearing Maison Martin Margiela!


And yet another commenter can't tell the difference between loving a design for aesthetic reasons and wanting to wear said design.

Please, tell us all how you hate that models are so thin.


Bittybis said...
OK, took me a minute to work out "JBF". But then it took me months to figure out LMAO and all its variations.

I still haven't work out "JBF".

TampaBay


I saw these shoes in horn somewhere, maybe in Italy? They were fabulous, but I wasn't sure if they were knockoffs as I only recalled seeing them in metallics in runway pics. Regardless, I actually like the ones in horn a lot more as the design seems more elegant - the metallics make them look over the top, in my opinion. But I would wear them if they magically appeared before me, I won't lie. I LOVE John Galliano.

(Also, I think one of the other commenters disparaging platforms had it all wrong - platforms make high heels more comfortable, as you can have a higher heel without so much pain in the arch. I dunno - maybe they're a bit more wobbly, but not TOO much.)


JBF: just been f***ed


I expect magazine editorials to present the clothes in a different way, perhaps combined with another piece from the same or a different designer or accessorized unusually. This editorial fails to do that for the most part. The lighting and the model might be better, but that's about it.

She IS very pretty, so why hide her face with that Medusa hair?


I actually love that Prada dress, something about the fabric...


By the way, great site, guys. I'm new here : )


Fab fab shoes! I LOVE super high heels and the double platform is a plus. I don't know why people automatically assume that these shoes are uncomfortable by just looking at them.


Some of these clothes, I like.
But the styling, horrible. Plus, I find it awkward that they took pictures at the corner of a room.


Those shoes are NOT fabulous, they are NOT gorgeous, they are atrocious. They are so misogynistic that they scream hatred of women from the get-go. I can't believe anyone likes them! I mean, come on, people, those things would cripple any healthy woman in a matter of minutes! The Consumer Product Safety Commission should be notified, for heaven's sake.


" Terry said...

Those shoes are NOT fabulous, they are NOT gorgeous, they are atrocious. They are so misogynistic that they scream hatred of women from the get-go. I can't believe anyone likes them! I mean, come on, people, those things would cripple any healthy woman in a matter of minutes! The Consumer Product Safety Commission should be notified, for heaven's sake."


OK...now let's talk about what REALLY bothers you. It ain't the shoes we know that.


The purple shoes look like they belong in the category I call "do me" clothes. They scream for attention. If they accompany a deep v-heck, hem-up-to-there mini, the recipe is complete.


Maybe it's because I live in the Midwest, but I always read that designer's name as Burberry Possum.

A character from "Wind In the Willows Meets Project Runway ..."


Sorry guys but the shoes are hideous.

Don't like the styling of the model at all.


"JBF" hair? Can someone help me out, here?


another laura

anon 9:19:

just been f***ed


What *really* bothers me? The shoes.

Not sure what you're getting at here, but I really hate fashion that cripples people.


Certainly not for everyone, but the shoes are FABULOUS! Some of you here need to broaden your fashion horizons.


Fabulous?

Perhaps for Ru Paul.

I don't think it is a matter of broadening our fashion horizons as much as it is clarifying our approach to fashion. Clearly there are some of us who look for things that can be worn a number of times (and sometimes be classic enough to be worn for years) -- more of an investment dressing kind of approach. To somebody with that mindset, a lot of this stuff is a huge waste of money, a blatant attempt to get us to part with money for a flash-in-the-pan, single use or limited-time style.

It's just not practical or a worthwhile investment when you have that view.


Anonymous said...

Fabulous?

Perhaps for Ru Paul.

I don't think it is a matter of broadening our fashion horizons as much as it is clarifying our approach to fashion. Clearly there are some of us who look for things that can be worn a number of times (and sometimes be classic enough to be worn for years) -- more of an investment dressing kind of approach. To somebody with that mindset, a lot of this stuff is a huge waste of money, a blatant attempt to get us to part with money for a flash-in-the-pan, single use or limited-time style.

It's just not practical or a worthwhile investment when you have that view.
Yes anon, that makes you interested in CLOTHING, not "fashion." Get a clue.


"I don't think it is a matter of broadening our fashion horizons as much as it is clarifying our approach to fashion. Clearly there are some of us who look for things that can be worn a number of times (and sometimes be classic enough to be worn for years) -- more of an investment dressing kind of approach. To somebody with that mindset, a lot of this stuff is a huge waste of money, a blatant attempt to get us to part with money for a flash-in-the-pan, single use or limited-time style.

It's just not practical or a worthwhile investment when you have that view"

Those shoes are not meant for you, literally. You're not the customer for which they were designed. The previous commenter was a bit rude but essentially right: you're not talking about fashion at all. You're talking about clothes.


That shoe confuses the hell out of me. I thought it was a shoe and its reflection at first, but it wasn't, which I guess is kind of cool, and then I realized that they were shiny magenta and I didn't know how to feel about that, and then I wondered, how on earth do you put them on?

It's something that could only be worn by someone with a big enough persona, I guess, but even so I'd exercise Extreme Caution in all senses when giving those a go.


"The previous commenter was a bit rude but essentially right: you're not talking about fashion at all. You're talking about clothes."

Actually, I was talking about being fashionable within far narrower parameters. The kind of work you do and the community you live in or the crowd you're in definitely influences or limits what you can get away with, as does budget. Working within those constrictions can be a real art form.

Your comment implies that only those with money to burn can be fashionable, or that you should be "fashionable" only when you're not doing everyday things (when "clothing" would suffice, evidently). I would disagree.


Anonymous said...

"The previous commenter was a bit rude but essentially right: you're not talking about fashion at all. You're talking about clothes."

Actually, I was talking about being fashionable within far narrower parameters. The kind of work you do and the community you live in or the crowd you're in definitely influences or limits what you can get away with, as does budget. Working within those constrictions can be a real art form.

Your comment implies that only those with money to burn can be fashionable, or that you should be "fashionable" only when you're not doing everyday things (when "clothing" would suffice, evidently). I would disagree.
Actually, way to miss the point AGAIN. It is certainly possible to be stylish at a low budget, but ONCE AGAIN we are not talking about that here. Judging high fashion by what you hope to find in the bargain bin at Fashion Bug is applying a ridiculous set of criteria meant for something else. You are talking about being stylish. "Fashion" is about being innovative, provocative, and yes, often outrageously creative and impractical. If you want basic black shift dresses, yes, you can find stylish ones, but they are clothes. NOT Fashion with a high F. Fashion does not begin and end with a physical garment. But then, why am I arguing this with you anyway? Your, um...."rebuttal"....shows you clearly don't get it. Whatever hon.


"Your comment implies that only those with money to burn can be fashionable, or that you should be "fashionable" only when you're not doing everyday things (when "clothing" would suffice, evidently). I would disagree."

Look at it this way: What if you only looked at works of art under the criteria of whether you could afford them and how well they would fit into your home decor? Because based on your comments, that's how you're looking at fashion.


Not exactly. I'm not adverse to the rare splurge for the truly cutting edge and gorgeous. Part of the fun of keeping a lid on the budget is that, when you do see something that is just gotta-have-it outrageous and provocative, you can afford it.

But these shoes, while eye-popping, are still garish and fugly. At these prices, I'd want the item to pack some serious wow without unfortunate "ow." These shoes are so cringeworthy they make my eyes hurt.

Also, my personal ideal shoe splurge, for example, is something that could actually be repeated, at some point in history, with another gown or dress without standing out as "so last week" or "fugly in any century." That doesn't mean that shoes have to be as boring as a sofa, merely that even a unique purchase has to be minimally tasteful enough that it could be repeated in another context. That's just my personal preference.

And to the hostile poster above you, bargain bins and Fashion bug are not my thing, but you've certainly insulted the women for whom they are.


"Those shoes are not meant for you, literally. You're not the customer for which they were designed. The previous commenter was a bit rude but essentially right: you're not talking about fashion at all. You're talking about clothes."


Exactly, and for some people if they're not meant for them they're not good. That's a very narrow way of looking at anything; and how the hell do they know the shoes are uncomfortable? Have they tried them on?


"Anonymous said...
Chloe?

That's not Chloe, "Chloe Blue" Chloe, is it?"

No, dear. That's Chloe, a very well established fashion house.


Is it just me.. or does that model in the editorial have something on her neck in every picture or what?

Did she have a massive hickey or something?


Ze shoe! Eeet eees ugleee. *barf*

But ze shoe eeen ze bright red?

Pretty colour. But still ugleee.


The shoe is to be worn in a horizontal position. (Or possibly on all fours).

The gold clown pants is to be worn at the circus.

Vibeke in Oslo





BALMAIN for women

Blog Archive

Search This Blog

Loading...

Project Runway