Saturday, May 3, 2025
Blog Page 1051

Debate: Should queer spaces be for LGBT people only?

0

Yes: Molly Moore

“Why are there so many gays here?” “Are you really gay?”

These are but two of the strange utterances I have overheard and been asked whilst sweating glitter and dancing my queer butt off at Plush. “Plush is a gay club?” I hear you whisper, to which I reply, “Plush is a proudly queer space.” As such, it is no surprise that as a club it hosts LGBTQ+ Society’s Tues-gay club night, nor is it a shock that people of the same gender can regularly be found making out on the premises. Indeed, at the entrance you’re even greeted with a sign explicitly informing you that you are about to enter a queer space. I greatly admire the steps taken by Plush to create an environment which makes people aware of the nature of the establishment they’re about to enter. What I don’t quite understand is the volume of people who seem surprised that there are LGBT folks in Plush once they have walked through the door.

I kissed my girlfriend at MNB (shock horror) once. We were harassed and assaulted by at least three diff erent guys, including one who made the absurd assumption that somehow, by kissing, my girlfriend and I were inviting him to join in with us. The worst part is that in a club widely regarded as ‘very straight’, my girlfriend and I were then essentially told in no uncertain terms by our heteronormative society that we should expect this kind of thing, that it is in some way normal, and the perpetrators of acts of violence should not be held responsible. We weren’t in Plush, after all. And maybe two girls were only 
kissing for the bantz? But would you believe me if I told you the same thing happened to me in the recently-deceased Babylove – yesteryear’s LGBT space of choice? Or that in Plush, a guy once told me he would fi nd it sexy to watch me make out with another girl?

Queer spaces are not void of lurid behaviour, leery guys, and the lingering threat that someone of a diff erent gender might attempt to chirpse you. However, those responsible for carrying out disrespectful actions in queer spaces towards queer people seem almost unanimously to be cisgender and heterosexual. As an out queer woman, I choose to wear my identity as armour. I inhabit my own queer space. Yet all too often, my personal space comes under attack from people who don’t respect the nature of queer spaces, or neglect to understand how rare such environments are.

I challenge any non-queer Oxford student to name the spaces they would consider to be inherently queer. Did someone say Plush? LGBTQ+ Society Drinks? Well aside from internalised college meetups, liberation campaigns and drinks events, queer spaces are almost non-existent in Oxford and beyond. With that in mind, I’m sure it’s easier to understand why LGBT people so value the right to have our own spaces, free from invasion by non-queer people. When LGBT charities are dropping like fl ies due to government cuts, like anti-domestic violence charity Broken Rainbow or LGBT mental health charity PACE, it becomes increasingly more important to preserve the environments in which queer people are told we matter, are valued, and can have our voices heard. While such spaces are rapidly decreasing, non-queer people seem to be feeling the overwhelming need to invade our safe spaces simply for the sake of a good night, or because it’s in some way their right.

Cisgender, heterosexual people are at the top of the social food chain, and growing up, the world assumes that everyone adheres to these ‘norms’ unless otherwise stated. Maybe in a world in which queer people don’t have to ‘out’ ourselves I’ll be receptive to non-queer people entering LGBT spaces. The unfortunate reality is that the world doesn’t appear to be changing fast enough for such a thing to happen. The issue is a complex one after all, as queer identities are nonbinary, diverse, innumerable, and outside of the defi nitions societal hegemony has constructed. Queer people may visibly appear to be ‘straightpassing’. For example, they may appear to fit the definition of a typic a l ‘heterosexual’ couple. But how are we to know if that’s really the case? We know that it is impossible to enforce policing of anyone’s sexuality or gender, and I don’t believe that is something LGBT people should be advocating. Our bodies and identities are policed already; our bodies are property; our bodies are toys, objects to be judged and laughed at.

The safety of LGBT people is paramount, and as Women’s Welfare Rep for the LGBTQ+ Society and Christ Church JCR’s LGBTQ+ Welfare Offi cer, my main aim is to protect the right for queer people to be safe. Sadly, this is not possible when non-queer people assume the right to enter queer spaces. LGBT people shouldn’t have to give evidence for our identities. Instead, we should be able to trust that the people around us aren’t cishet and easily off ended by queer culture. Our identities are fetishised and mocked in places we are told belong to us, and we’ve had enough.

I’m not asking for segregation when I say that only LGBT people should be allowed in queer spaces. I’m demanding respect for our identities, alongside the preservation of our culturally signifi cant and vital spaces. Yes, we know Plush is a great night out. But it’s our night out. I’m tired of hearing tales of stray heterosexuals wandering into the Plush toilets to vent in fury at “all the gays” they’ve seen on the dancefloor. However, until society ceases to spew its ingrained heteronormative and cissexist values, there is no room for non-queer people in queer spaces – especially when I have to battle through hordes of horny straight men just to be able to kiss my girlfriend safely. My identity is no one’s plaything, and so many LGBT people depend on exclusively queer spaces just to feel valid, visible and alive. Queer only spaces are our lifeline.

No: Jack Schofield

With increasing LGBT liberation, a trend of rising LGBT positivity among young people in particular, and let’s face it, better music and a fun culture, it is not surprising that straight people wish to be part of queer spaces, be that genuinely out of support, just to have a good time, or to make them feel good about themselves as allies, without actually doing anything. Whether the queer community should provide for that inclination is a complex debate, and should be argued asking what will be best for the LGBT community, as that is all that matters here.

Firstly, tempting though it may be to claim, society is not so unsafe that we need to create an entirely separate community for members of the LGBT community. Rather, those of us who can should seek to be members of society precisely like anyone else, in such a way as to show cis, straight people just how common queerness is, and how it has no impact on a person’s ability to work hard and be a fun person that anyone would wish to be around. Nice as it would be not to be dependent on our homophobic society, we simply cannot cut ourselves away from it, and so we must allow cishet people into our spaces to show that queer people are not different, but a normal and valuable part of our society.

Furthermore, it is directly through allowing cis straight people into our spaces that they are most likely to become all the more sympathetic to the cause of LGBT liberation, which in turn will help improve society. I would certainly wager that the more queer friends one has, the less likely it is to be an issue for them. It is a well known fact that humans fear the unknown; anti-immigrant views are most prevalent in areas where no immigrants are to be found, for example. In this way, letting cishet people in ‘normalises’ queerness and thus reduces the need for safe spaces.

A further important point is that the LGBT community has something of a duty to help closeted queer people. Until you come out as lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans, you evidently claim to be cis and straight, and so it simply cannot be assumed that all professedly cisgender, straight people going to Plush, gay bars, or attending LGBTQ+ Society drinks are not, in fact, queer. In my own experience, occasionally attending LGBTQ+ Society drinks while closeted massively helped to give me the confidence to come out, and I believe we would be doing a great disservice to other people if we were to knowingly make that painful process even harder.

Keeping events open allows queer people to have the broadest possible support network if and when they do come out, which is invaluable. Similarly, some queer people might want a friend to accompany them to their first few queer events, and that friend might not be queer themselves. This too should be borne in mind; consider the negative impacts that restricting entry could have on the very people such a policy would be supposed to help. I do, however, recognise that there are some queer spaces which should not be open to nonqueer people, such as support groups, whether online or in person. While a discussion group, such as NoHeterOx, should be open to all, there are other circumstances where LGBT people rightly want to talk openly only to those in the very best position to understand and help them in the right way, and that is those in the same boat as them.

In any case, while I strongly believe queer spaces should generally be open to all, this does not mean that anything goes. In queer discussion forums which are open to all, no cis, straight person should talk over a queer person, and generally speaking, cis, straight people should be there to listen and learn, and yes, to contribute a bit too. There is a simple reason for this: society at large is geared towards cishet lives and voices. Queer spaces must therefore remain places in which queerness prevails and queer people feel entirely safe to express themselves, however they wish. So if a straight man is hit on by a gay man in a queer space, they do not get to be off ended or awkward about it; queer people are allowed to assume any random person in a queer space is queer (in some way) while still accepting that they aren’t necessarily, because there is nowhere else in our lives that this assumption can be made.

Naturally, any person who is being homophobic or transphobic in a queer space should be required to leave, as the right of any person to enjoy queer spaces only goes so far. Regarding the controversy over the ever-popular Queerfest at Wadham last term, I agree it is unfair that an LGBT person wishing to attend a celebration of queerness and queer culture should miss out to swathes of cis, straight people, and that those ‘allies’ should reflect on their actions.

With this said – and I think cis, straight people wishing to make use of queer spaces would do well to have taken particular note of the last paragraph – I wish to convey a positive message that queer culture is something to be celebrated and something which can truly liberate us all. With gender roles in society seeking to limit every single one of us, queer and non-queer people alike benefit enormously from an increasing right to ‘be yourself’ beyond such things. Everyone would benefit hugely from coming to accept just how diverse humanity is and that there is creativity in and much to be learnt from the range of personalities which we all would naturally have, if we were given the message that being who we are, as we are, was fine.

Such a cultural change in society at large will make (and is already making) it easier and easier to come out as LGBT. As our relationship with labelling and fear of the Other reduces, queer identities will become less and less of an issue. This will only come about through openness on our part and our subsequent increasing visibility as everyday members of society

Luminaries: William Shatner

0

Canadian-born Shatner’s career can only be summed up by reference to the Queen lyrics he reads out (it would be wrong to say he actually sings them) in a recent advert for a travel agency: “is this the real life or is this just fantasy?” The utterly surreal nature of his glittering film, television and spoken word career has no bounds. It is almost Lynchian. You can practically imagine him as a character in Twin Peaks.

If you look at some of the great cult television programmes, he appears. He is there. Often for baffling reasons, or as a joke, but he is there nonetheless. The Twilight Zone. Star Trek. The Simpsons. Family Guy. He is ubiquitous in popular culture.

Generation upon generation has been reared on Shatner. My own first memory of him was less illustrious: his brief foray into Crunchie Nut adverts in the 2000s. But after that I saw him in films like Miss Congeniality, quirky legal dramas like Boston Legaland eventually the second greatest episode of The Twilight Zone, the much-parodied ‘Nightmare at 20,000 Feet’.

But, beyond Star Trek and his Hoff-like meme status in popular culture, he is also a published science fiction novelist, director and spoken-word behemoth. TekWar, his science fiction saga, has given rise to comics, video games and television adaptations. Who can forget his rendition of ‘Rocket Man’? Or ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’?

Seemingly no-one continues to make as many appearances on television as Shatner. He has hosted numerous awards ceremonies, comedy and panel shows, far beyond his native Canada and the United States. Saturday Night Live and Have I Got News For You are just two institutions where his appearance will be remembered. And for some, remembered in infamy.

To put it simply, there is only one William Shatner. And that is his biggest draw. 

We fought a war for this

0

Dad’s Army has been too many years in the making. If only it took even longer then I would have spent my time more wisely and productively. I could have re-arranged my underpants under the Library of Congress system, or taken up seppuku as a hobby. Either pursuit would have been more productive than casting my eyes on the film equivalent of Martin O’Malley’s presidential bid. It just keeps going on and on, and you want to put it out of its misery. You look through your hands in horror, only to find your fingers have become the bars of the prison that is the auditorium. It is less entertainment than a prison sentence.

If, of course, your prison is also a residential nursing home. It’s as if the entire film has been cynically targeted at the elderly. 10 minutes in, Godfrey pisses on Jones in a ‘subtle’ attempt at humour. As if the geriatric golden shower wasn’t enough, we see Michael Gambon wearing a Hawaiian skirt. What larks! The only conclusion I can come to is that the writer hoped that anyone who remembers the brilliance, the love and the warmth of the original series has gone senile. Judging by the audience in the cinema with me, that might’ve been a canny move. But, amongst the sea of John McDonnell-lookalikes was a lone lady who laughed all the way through. I can only assume she was high from a warfarin overdose.

It does have a great ensemble. Bill Nighy. Catherine Zeta-Jones. Tom Courtenay. Legends of British cinema. But, it amazed me how they managed to assemble such a good cast and use them so poorly. There is only one single logical explanation I can find for the woeful caricatures of the original actors. They’re actually life-size cardboard cutouts. The sort you get peering out of student rooms. The producers have gone on Amazon and looked for cutouts of people who look vaguely like the original cast. If you’ve suffered a botched cataract operation in the last 15 years.

Bill Nighy isn’t playing Sergeant Wilson. He’s playing Bill Nighy. Lynn from Alan Partridge is playing Mrs Mainwaring. And though she’s one of the better characters in the film, she was never seen in the original. Blake Harrison is playing some weird sex-obsessed version of Pike. But of course, this film is seemingly intended to be viewed solely by old ladies who gave birth through asexual reproduction. Hence any innuendo is immediately followed up with a completely unsubtle explanation of why it is not innuendo at all. “I’m on top tonight,” says Mrs Mainwaring, only to then spell out that she’s on top bunk directly afterwards. It’s like William Gladstone has risen from the dead and censored the script with a blue pencil before giving it to Saga Norén for a rewrite.

The sheer frustration I felt watching it. How the hell could they screw it up so badly? They barely played up the nostalgia factor, perhaps the biggest draw for the film, while the comic delivery seemed to have been inspired by Microsoft Sam. I didn’t even attempt to laugh: the amount of energy needed would surely have turned me into dust like the Nazi at the end of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. If there was a straight choice between watching the film again and decomposition, I’d chose the latter. Now that would be choosing wisely.

You know, I’d have given Dad’s Army one star, but that would be unfair on the preceding advert for Butcher’s dog food. Even the ad by the South African tourist board was a better example of cinematography. The special effects team managed to make a pigeon look unrealistic. If British cinema can’t make a good computer generated pigeon when there are literally millions outside a bloody window, then what hope is there for us as a nation? 

Street Sport

0

Photography:  James Alexander Lyon

Hair and Makeup: Brothers Oxford

Creatives: Kim Darrah – Ella Harding – Harry Sampson

Models: Nicole Rayment – Chloé Delanney

 

 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12923%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12928%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12925%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12929%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12926%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12930%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12927%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12924%%[/mm-hide-text]

Astounding concept, flawed execution

0

★★★★☆

Before this evening, I had never seen a live improvised comedy show in my life. I was excited but a little bit worried about the imminent threat of audience involvement, which the Imps were so insistent would be a part of this show. I entered the Simpkins Lee theatre and plucked up the courage to sit at the very front – this turned out to be a very good decision.

The whole concept behind Hyperdrive is to do something genuinely innovative – to take that flourishing medium of improv, with all of its infinitudes of possibilities, and to smash it unrelentingly into the glittering world of internet communication, social media, and the silicon valley age. This show got off to a phenomenal start, with a ‘loading screen’ from three enormous projectors exclaiming that the systems were doing a wide variety of preparatory tasks – ranging from “Inquiring about the ethical standards of Oxford tattoo artists”, “re-evaluating life choices”, “annexing Crimea”, “problematizing gender binaries”, “testing burning jet fuel on steel beams”, and most intriguingly for me, “seducing reviewers”.

One of the driving gimmicks of the show was the promise of setting up a tinder account, to be managed by a member of the audience over the course of the evening. The pictures and bio of the account were decided through a poll, which the audience voted for on their phones; the outcome of which was a picture of a sliced ham, and a description that pertained to Winston Churchill’s penchant for “dank ass kush”.  This tinder account was then entrusted to an unsuspecting audience member, with the promise of building improv around the conversations that ensued; the audience were able to submit opening lines on a rolling feed on the projector screen.

Sadly, despite the 60+ matches that the ham was able to get on tinder, there was a lack of any substance to the ensuing flirtations which could have led to sketches – as one of the imps was forced to concede “well it doesn’t look like that’s going anywhere”. This was the first in a series of technical mishaps, which prevented this show from fully realising its potential. The next bit involved the Imps improvising a serenade over facetime for the girlfriend of an audience member. Sadly, the girlfriend failed to pick up on facetime, so the Imps were left singing and being filmed on a phone – still very funny and impressive, but not quite realising the potential of the show.

The improv sketches got of to a very good start – a series of images sourced using audience contribution and google made the backbone of a ‘what we did on our honeymoon’ sketch – with the married imps completely unaware of what was going to come up next on the slideshow. Similarly, a sketch where one imp had to read alternate lines from a random text conversation, whilst the other desperately forged a narrative out of the ensuing nonsensicality was incredibly impressive to watch.

The bulk of the improv was built around an audience member’s facebook profile, which was projected onto the big screen – all of the joys of profile pictures from 5 years ago, group chat nicknames and context-less timeline posts forming the heart of a series of sketches which careened wildly from a communist Disneyland, to an art exhibition featuring the director of the Imps turning himself into a burrito. An extended bit about Mary Somerville not getting onto the five pound note was enjoyable, until I realised that this Imps line up was comprised of seven white men and one woman – something about glass houses and stones might have been appropriate here.

Overall, this is a very funny show – packed to the gunnels with energy and some very bright ideas. It took the audience a little while to get into the swing of it, but the comedy really shone when the randomness of social media shone the light on little hints of shared understandings and common truths. It’s a shame that the Imps were occasionally let down by the technology that this show is so reliant on, but I hope this company continues to innovate and come up with this sort of exciting and boundary pushing comedy. 

Poetry Bites: HT16 week 4

0

Rain dance by Steve Wright

What a thrill to be out and about in the rain

without socks or shoes or even a mac.

It’s probably unsafe but we can catch our

death of cold together. Look how the drops

dance on puddles like the skin of a drum,

like a pudding left too long in the air.

I went out in a storm when I was six

and lathered my hair with apple and pear.

You should have seen the neighbours stare,

and my mum behind the curtains in creases.

So slap the puddles with your feet,

give the rain something to dance for.

 

Note:

With the frequent February showers Oxford has been experiencing over the past week, Steve Wright finds joy in english weather through poetry. Also contained is a useful life hack for those struggling to make the time to wash in the lead up to fifth week.

Poetry Bites: HT16 week 3

0

A study in urban botany

17/1/16

On the bridge behind the Tescos

Sprouting out from the cracks of the pavement

There’s a small, delicate blue plaque

Pinned tastefully to the railings. It reads:

‘Geranium Robertianum flowered here

From June to October 2014’.

The railings have been lovingly repainted

And the pavement has been recently swept-

There isn’t a weed in sight.

 

In the doorway of a McDonalds

Two homeless men crouch on plastic bags

Discussing where best to spend the night.

 

Author’s note:

This experience with the plaque did genuinely happen to me whilst out running in Oxford one evening last week- it struck me as such an absurd moment that I had to write it down. After writing it I felt it needed something else – whilst walking to a tutorial the next day I saw the homeless on Cornmarket Street, and I realised how the poem had to end. I like the fact that the comparison gives the poem a whole new level of meaning- looking at what really proliferates on our streets, plants or people.

Poetry Bites: HT16 week 2

0

The Arctic Tern’s Prayer

tell the air to hold me in the rushing heart of it

and keep its paths straight

away from home let there be a land that

flows with fish and flies

and let it taste like it tasted at home

home take this salty scent of home from my head

cut away the memory of its last ultraviolet

flash beautiful beneath me

don’t turn me to a twist of salt to fall to

sea’s saltiness if I look back at my home

let me look back just once let me

look back

 

Note:

This poem is published in Flight, an anthology in response to the refugee crisis, which launched on the 1st of February. Artic terns spend summer in the UK and winter in the Antartic. Annual round trips extend up to an estimated 90,000 km.

Warhol in fresh light

0

It is not controversial to assert that Andy Warhol is the most instantly recognisable artist for the latter half of the 20th century. This makes the task of putting on an exhibition of his work rather problematic – presenting Warhol in a fresh light is challenging when the man has had so much exposure. An unimaginative exhibition of his work would no doubt still draw crowds, so it is particularly exciting when an exhibition attempts to put together something genuinely fresh, to carve a new-fangled lens through which to view him. Last year, the Barbican did so by displaying (a portion of) his private collection in their delightful exhibition Magnificent Obsessions: The Artist as Collector. This year the Ashmolean Museum presents, in public for the first time, over a hundred works from the collection of Andrew and Christine Hall. The collection is predominantly formed of various portraits – of celebrities, naturally, but also of politicians and other artists. It also includes other work, such as some of his Oxidation paintings and an attempt at replicating a Rorschach test, as well as a number of films loaned from the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Curated by veteran Sir Norman Rosenthal, the exhibition is brightly lit. Each piece has a number of lights from a variety of angles pointed at it, creating a criss-crossing overlap of shadows. Jonathan Jones suggests that there are shadows everywhere in Warhol’s work and Rosenthal’s careful curation reflects this notion in the exhibition space itself.

Contextual information is usefully, but not excessively, provided, in each of the rooms, and is sometimes even quirky. A highlight is the backstory of a series of portraits of Ethel Scull (1963), which explain how Warhol, armed with a hundred dollars’ worth of change, took her to a photo-booth and shot image after image after image, before picking the best 36 to use in the commissioned work. The result is a series of images of Scull in a variety of positions and a variety of colourways, which, when placed next to each other, produce a notable sense of movement – as if we are seeing her facial reactions throughout an average day.

A similar effect is enacted by the films included in the exhibition. Two Screen Tests, where people were asked by Warhol to sit and ‘do nothing’ in front of a rolling fi lm camera, are displayed on screens side by side. The focused gazes, combined with the participants’ minute twitches, make for a strangely transfixing (and utterly disarming) experience. A 50-minute excerpt from Empire State, Warhol’s eight hour film of the changing daylight on the eponymous New York skyscraper, is shown on a screen on the perpendicular wall. The juxtaposition leads one to draw parallels between the building and the faces, both standing still in front of the camera but also minutely changing.

Warhol seems fascinated with the motion created through repetition, with his portraits of Watson Powell (American Man) providing an early illustration of this. Later on, we get a small selection of the hundreds of society portraits produced by the Warhol Factory, displayed in a large grid on a colossal wall. The portraits are often repeated with minor changes in colourways. In the same room hangs Twenty Fuchsia Maos (1979), which takes the official image of the leader disseminated throughout China in The Little Red Book and repeats it again and again in a gaudy colourway. Rosenthal’s note to the piece likens the image to the widely disseminated Coca Cola logo, and highlights Warhol’s transformation of a necessarily static image – a logo, or official portrait – into something changing and mutable.

The final room of the exhibition is, in this respect, unexpected, and more than a little jarring. Devoted to his late work, it is filled with black and white pieces which often focus on religious subjects. Subtle changes and the resultant movement they create give way to a preoccupation with dichotomies: between black and white, or ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell.’ Repetition only occurs in the form of positive and negative versions of the same work, further emphasising a focus on the opposition of these extremes (or lack) of colour.

Postulating about the purpose or meaning behind Warhol’s work will always present a problem, particularly given the man himself continually refused to share his system of beliefs. Such an ambiguity can, perhaps, be seen as a reflection of Warhol’s diffidence in regards to his own image – he wore a wig from his 20s, narrowed his nose, and had repeated collagen injections in his later years. The self-portraits included in the exhibition are thus remarkable insights into a man of mystery, in that they articulate a desire for control over self-image. None are repeated like his other portraits, but rather each exists as a singular expression of himself. Yet that is not to say that these expressions are lucid or unaffected – rather, they are personas. As such, the resounding feeling upon leaving this exhibition is that we may never quite know what made the man under the wig tick.

What’s next for Dior?

0

When Raf Simons left his position as creative director at Christian Dior last year, half the fashion world gasped, the other half breathed a sigh of relief.

Whether you loved him or hated him, it cannot be denied that his work at Dior was pivotal in opening the door to a younger public and placing the brand within the market of today’s fashion.

Simons’ practicality and minimalism was a breath of fresh air after the years of 90s extravagance under the guide of John Galliano. He transported us back to Monsieur Dior’s original vision of simplicity and elegance, while rethinking the cuts and textures to shake off the dust of 50 years of boredom.

Simons did not merely present a return to the essentials. As he stated after his first Dior show back in 2012, he wanted to “bring some emotion back”. Creating emotion from minimalism is not easy. Indeed, the sometimes reductive nature of such esssentialisations of form can stifle sentiment .Has Dior managed to retain the emotion in his absence?

The maison has not yet been able to find a suitable replacement but the work doesn’t stop at the atelier. A team of seven, including Mesdames Monique Bailly and Florence Chehet, whom you might remember from Frédéric Tcheng’s documentary Dior & I, designed and constructed the Haute Couture collection that was showcased in Paris a couple of weeks ago. The bar jacket was the undisputed protagonist in neutral autumnal colours, either grazing the hips or elongated to the calves, delicately balanced atop sumptuous dresses. The team honoured Simons’ legacy by combining fluid curves with more structural pieces, as in some of the jackets that were aggressively pulled down the shoulders in an awkward attempt to convey a Parisian effortlessness that was never there.

The team borrowed loosely from the archives, focusing the attention on precise needlework that decorated dresses and coats alike. However, it was also influenced by contemporary fashion, as seen in the Gothic transparencies worth of Hedi Slimane and the 70s-inspired pieces á la Ghesquière.

Ultimately, the collection was nothing short of beautiful, with an attention to details that, if taken a step further, could have meant the beginning of something great.

However, perhaps because it did not come from a single mind, it lacked a certain cohesion. There was no leitmotif, no invisible string to connect the pieces; rather it was a sequence of clothes that tasted of anonymity. Indeed, the bar jacket was there; the accentuated silhouettes was there; so was a hint of richness in the sparkling details. Yet, something important was missing: a Dior story, a vision – that grace and grandeur that is pure Haute Couture.