Currently Viewing – The Great British Sewing Bee

I had pretty much given up on “reality TV.”  I’ve been over Project Runway for a very long time, and all of the “old stuff” shopping shows I’ve seen are seriously flawed.  Vintage seller Doris Raymond’s L.A. Frock Stars was actually quite good, but it was on the Smithsonian Channel, which isn’t included in most cable packages, and each 20-something minute show costs $2 on pay-per-view or Amazon instant video.

But then I discovered the latest from BBC2 - The Great British Sewing Bee.  It is everything a reality contest type show ought to be.

There are eight contestants who were picked from over a thousand entrants.  All are experienced sewers (sew-ers)  who come from differing backgrounds in relation to the process of sewing.  How completely wonderful it is to have a show where being older is not a liability!  Unlike US shows where there is an age limit, or where producing something mature is the kiss of death, the older sewers actually have the advantage of experience.

The lack of catty drama is refreshing.  The contestants hang out with each other over a cup of tea when they are between challenges.  They seem to actually like each other, with a sense that they are each rooting for the other.  There are no instances of contestants throwing another “under the bus” on this show.

Another strength is the experience of the judges.  There are only two: May Martin, a sewing teacher with 40 years experience, and Savile Row tailor Patrick Grant.  There are no actresses here who were picked to judge clothing merely because they know how to wear pretty clothes.  No, these two really know their craft, and the comments they make while observing the contestants sew add a great deal to the program.

But what has been the deal maker for me is how the program weaves in bits of history.  In episode three we get a look at how Queen Elizabeth inspired a legion of women sewers to sew for the war effort.  And if it could not get any better, the oldest contestant related her own experience with make do and mend during the 1940s.

For those of you who have never sewn a stitch, this is a great introduction to the craft.  For each challenge, they require certain skills and construction techniques which are then explained to the viewer.  You can actually learn a great deal about how a garment is constructed.

And for people like me who already sew, it is fun to sort of play along in one’s mind, to think how I might attempt the challenges.

Usually we here in the States have to wait months to see new British programs, if we can see them at all, but the first three episodes of Great British Sewing Bee are on YouTube, and I imagine that next week the last installment will be posted. ( One  Two  Three)  For people in the UK, the show can be watched on the BBC2 site.  The finale will air next Tuesday.

Photo copyright BBC2

Currently Viewing – Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has to Travel

This week I finally got to watch this documentary on Diana Vreeland, and it was worth the wait.  Because the film was produced by Vreeland’s granddaughter-in-law, I was afraid that it would be a bit of a sappy tribute.  But no,no,no!  It was carefully crafted from Vreeland’s 1984 memoir, DV, and from interviews she did at the time with Diane Sawyer, Dick Cavett and a smirking Jane Pauley.

In 1983 Vreeland asked George Plimpton to help her write the story of her life.  They conducted a series of interviews which were edited to form DV.  The film uses voice actors to recreate the interviews, along with the film interviews.  While the book gives one a glimpse into the life and character of Vreeland, the film brings what is essentially the same material to life.  Reading Vreeland’s words and seeing her speak them are two entirely different experiences.

The film also includes quite a few interviews with people who worked with her both at Vogue and at the Costume Institute.  It was really interesting how few of them could talk about Vreeland without gesturing with their arms or without exaggerating their voices.  They could not recall her without showing the grand manner in which she spoke.

Particularly interesting was the interview with Harold Koda, who at the time was an intern, and then an assistant curator at the Costume Institute.  He addressed the criticism that the Vreeland shows were long on theatrics  but short on scholarship.  He explained that it was more important to Vreeland that the museum visitors feel the era being represented, rather than merely learning about it.

For an exhibition of 18th clothing Koda carefully researched the high wigs worn at court.  After faithfully reproducing the hairstyle, Vreeland insisted that it was not high enough, so the wig was expanded.  Upon seeing the mannequins they were to use for the show she exclaimed, “They have no éclat! Haut! Haut! Haut!”

Also interesting were the interviews with photographer David Bailey and model Penelope Tree, especially when they were asked to recount the same episode.  Even though the interviews were conducted separately, it was like they were finishing one another’s sentences.

I was struck by who was not included – Grace Mirabella, Polly Mellon, and Si Newhouse, who worked with her at Vogue and Conde Nast.  Perhaps they were asked to interview and declined, but I think that their inclusion, even in a very small way, would have added another dimension to the film.

The film is now available on Netflix, or on pay-per-view via Youtube.  I got the dvd from Netflix, which includes a nice section of additional footage of the interviews.  I would rarely suggest this, but I really think that if you have not read the book, you should see the film first.  After watching The Eye Must Travel (twice!) I’m now reading the book with very fresh eyes.

 

Mrs. Vreeland in her living room.  This is from the back cover of DV.

Thoughts on Downton

FAIR WARNING!  This post contains spoilers about Downton Abbey, season 3, so read no further if you are not wanting to know how the season ended.  And if you are not a Downton fan, I think you’ll want to sit this one out.

It’s the show we all either love, or love to hate.   For the most part, I enjoy watching the show, but I’ve become increasingly irritated by all the bad history.  I guess you can take the teacher out of the classroom, but you can’t take the classroom out of the teacher.

There has been so much discussion about clothing along the lines of are they or are they not properly attired.  As in most costume dramas, there is a combination of the good, the bad, and the downright silly.   For the most part I think that costumers today are much more aware of the need to be historically accurate than they were in the past.  All you have to do is watch a few episodes of M*A*S*H* or Happy Days to see how bad TV costuming was in the 1970s.

Generally speaking, the clothing in Downton Abbey has been pretty much correct to the era, but it is in the details that it goes awry.  After the sinking of the Titanic, Lady Mary complained about being forced to go into mourning and wear black.  But then, even when released from it, she continued to wear black on many occasions.  Of course, black began its move toward chicness during the war, but it is unlikely that she, a young woman who was not in mourning, would have worn it out of choice.

Then there is the problem of the same clothes being seen over and over and over.  A family as rich as the Crawleys would never have been caught dead in last year’s clothing.

But I think that the worst case was this season when Cousin Rose sneaked away to meet her married boyfriend in a “jazz club”.  This was 1921, I believe, and all the pretty young things in the club were dressed like a bad version of 1926 flappers.  Dresses were to the knee and much too tight.  Yes, I know that people automatically associate the 1920s with a wild, frenzied party of flappers, but this is just bad history.

There are also problems with the characters exhibiting modern sensibilities.  Would Lord Crawley have discouraged a suitor for his 26-year-old daughter merely because he was a little old?  Would an older man actually have defended a homosexual saying it was not his fault as he was born that way?  It seems unlikely.

I’ll only touch on the speech anachronisms because there are entire websites and blogs devoted entirely to exposing the dozens of them found in each episode.  Some are pretty obvious, but in order to find them all, some people are using a function of google that isolates English expressions by date of usage.  We all can isolate phrases and expressions that have come into the language during our own lifetimes, but the ones that predate us are just a natural part of our language.  So I didn’t realize that the word “rematch” was not used until 1941, but the usage of “I’m just sayin’” and “steep learning curve” and “a lot on my plate” were more obvious, and frankly, distracting.

Which is the problem of bad history.  It irritates the people who know better and ill-informs those that do not.

But if it is so bad, then why do we keep watching.  My guess is because it is so pretty.  My favorite scenes continue to be the ones that really don’t have a lot to do with the overall story line, but that show the Crawleys engaged in the leisure pursuits of a wealthy family of the time.  They are at their best when shooting or playing cricket or just rambling about.  It helps that they pick spectacular backgrounds.  Anyone care to join me in a trip to the Scottish highlands?

There were rumors that the show would have only three seasons, but the overwhelming and unexpected popularity of the program shelved that idea.  I’m thinking that it just cannot go past four or five, as there is just not going to be anyone left to inhabit Downton Abbey.  I suppose they could move the venue to Heaven, where so many of the characters now reside.

Why is there so much death on this show?  I guess we should not be surprised considering that it was the deaths of the heir and his son that form the basis of the series.  There have been 24 episodes and at least 12 deaths, for an average of a death every other week.

Poor Matthew.  The moment I heard that Dan Stevens was leaving the show I knew that Mary was destined to be a widow, so I watched the entire finale peeking out from under a blanket that I used to shield my eyes from the impending doom!  I feel bad for the little heir, as he sure looks expendable to me.  With the succession secure, who cares about who Mary marries or how she and Edith spar?  Yep, that baby is toast.

All photos copyright Carnival Films for ITV

Currently Viewing : Watermarks

Watermarks is the story of  Jewish sports club, Hakoah Wien, which was formed in Vienna, Austria in 1909.   The club was formed as a reaction to the Aryan Paragraph, according to which Jews were forbidden membership in many organizations.  Hakoah grew quickly, and became one of Europe’s largest sports clubs.  Although the club sponsored various sports including fencing and soccer, the film is primarily concerned with the girls’ swim team of the 1930s.

In the 1930s the Hakoah swim team dominated women’s water sports in Austria.  In 1936 three members were chosen to go to the Berlin Olympics, but all three refused to participate.  For this they were banned from entering Austrian swim events, and their swim records were struck from the record books.  After the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria to the Third Reich) of 1938, the director of Hakoah became a wanted man.  He left Austria, and from the USA he orchestrated the illegal immigration of the club members to other countries.  Every member of the swim team made it to safety.

The idea for the film was to have a reunion of the remaining swim team members  at the old swimming pool in Vienna.  The filmmaker crafts the story by way of archival film and photos, and with interviews with the women, who at the time of the filming in 2004, were all in their 80s.

They tell a compelling story of feeling like strangers in their own country.  Several are worried about returning to a city that turned its back on them, young women who only wanted “swimming, training, swimming, swimming, swimming.”  But they do return and take to the pool wearing reproductions of their 1930s swimsuits.

Watermarks was suggested to me by a reader of The Vintage Traveler who thought I might enjoy the film, and was she ever right.  I love it when this happens!

Currently Viewing – Ultrasuede: In Search of Halston

Fair warning:  some of you are going to hate me for recommending this film, and others are going to be mildly displeased, but hopefully most of you are going to watch it not as the filmmaker intended, but as I suggest.  That’s because the film is about Halston, but it is not about Halston.  If you filter out the nonsense and just pay attention to the archival footage and the interviews, you’ll make it through just fine.

The problem with Halston: In Search of Ultrasuede is hinted at in the title.  Whitney Smith, the filmmaker and narrator, really wants this film to be about himself, and so he interjects his own “journey” into the Halston story.  It’s a gimmick that just doesn’t work, partly because of his maddening insistence on altering his appearance in every scene.  It is at first confusing, and ultimately distracting.  All I can say is, “why?”

But I’ll say that Smith did a remarkable job of getting interviews with all the right people, or Beautiful People, as they would have been known as in the 1970s.  The cast of characters is long and comprehensive with interviews with everyone from Ralph Rucci (who worked for Halston in the late 1970s) to Liza Minnelli to Billy Joel.  What a treat it would be to see some of these interview sessions in their entirety.

Another plus is the wealth of vintage footage and photos.  One really gets a feel for the late 70s/early 80s New York party scene.  You might be amused at the selective memories of some of the interviewees, though, some claiming they didn’t see drugs and sex at Studio 54.

Currently streaming on Amazon and Netflix.

Image copyright Tribeca Films

Currently Viewing: Norma Rae

I promised earlier in the week that I’d have more to say about the 1979 movie, Norma Rae.  Norma Rae was a fictionalized version of a real event.  JP Stevens worker Crystal Lee Sutton was fired from her job for her union organizing activities, but as she was being escorted from the factory she made one last dramatic stand for her union. She quickly made a sign from a piece of cardboard, reading “UNION.”  As she stood on a table and slowly turned for all on the factory floor to see, one by one the other workers shut down their machines in solidarity with Crystal Lee.  It took several more years, but eventually JP Stevens was unionized.

Anyone interested in the textile industry really ought to see this one, if for no other reason than to see the scenes inside the working mill.  As hard as it is to believe, this was filmed inside an actual towel weaving factory,  Opelika Manufacturing in Opelika, Alabama.  I say hard to believe because why would any textile mill owner allow his property to be used in a film about the struggle to unionize?  According to a story I found from a former employee of Opelika, quite a few mills had already turned the film producer down, and it was during a chance game of golf that he found Opelika.

Being filmed inside a working mill adds a real air of authenticity to the work.  Unless you’ve ever been inside a weaving factory, you just cannot imagine how noisy or how dusty they can be.  You can see a bit of it in the movie trailer:

Inside the factory, there were always little tufts of cotton floating in the air.  Not only was this annoying, it was dangerous over the long run.  Many textile workers, including one of my father’s sisters, died from a condition caused from breathing the fibers over years, brown lung disease.

But the movie also shows the good.  Life in a cotton mill town is often remembered by people who lived in them with fondness.  The neighbors were all in the same boat, and there was a true sense of community in the town and among the workers.  The movie also references the fact that the efforts to unionize often were due to Black workers, most of whom had come into the cotton mills only after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It also shows how factory management tried to portray unions as a Black stronghold, knowing that the long-held prejudices would cause a rift in the union ranks.

Norma Rae Webster is a wonderfully flawed character.   When a New York union organizer comes to town, Norma Rae makes no effort to hide or sugarcoat the mistakes that have defined her adult life.  Far from being a victim of her circumstances, Norma Rae is quick to seize any opportunity that might improve her life and those of her children.  She begins to see the potential for her life as greater than being just another cog in the machine.

Okay, I do have a few quibbles with Norma Rae.  Despite a very strong performance, I found Sally Field’s (and Beau Bridges’s as well) fake North Carolina accent to be very distracting.  I realize that would not be so much a problem for people outside the region, because they are not going to hear it the same way.  Why is it that everyone in Hollywood thinks a Southern accent is easy to imitate?

Also, I thought the scenes with Pat Hingle as a doffer were pretty darned funny.  Doffers manually changed the bobbins on the machines when they emptied.  It was a high speed job, requiring manual dexterity and accuracy.  Pat Hingle looked like he was doing the job in slow motion.   In actuality, he would probably have been replaced on that job years ago.

Available on Netflix.

Image copyright 20th Century Fox

Currently Viewing – Frankie and Annette at the Beach

When I was a kid my brother and I went to the movies a lot, like almost every Friday night or Saturday afternoon.  There was only one theater in town, but the owners knew their patrons, and so there was always a kid-friendly movie showing.  From 1962 to about 1970 I must have seen every Disney film, plus any other that appealed to the Baby  Boomer audience.

Among these films were the Beach Party series, the first of which was released in 1963.  The big name stars were Frankie Avalon, singer/heart-throb, and Annette Funicello, ex-mouseketeer.  There were seven films in all, plus a slew of copy-cat films.

On a cold rainy day not too long ago I decided to revisit the Beach Party scene.  That was easy since they are streaming on Netflix.  About 15 minutes into the first film, I began to seriously lose interest.  Amazing how what held one’s attention at age 8 just doesn’t cut it at age 57!

So I found myself fast forwarding though it, stopping to get a good look at the swimwear and the beach clothes.  Now, that is where these movies really shine!  What is really super about the costuming in these movies is that they did not try to put all the girls (or boys either, for that matter…)  into one “look”.  Annette, the demure Disney star, was dressed in more covered up two-piece suits or in maillots, whereas some of the other girls wore skimpier bikinis.

Why is that so good?  Because it is authentic.  In 1963 swimsuits were getting smaller, but some people were slower to reveal more skin, just like many women were reluctant to shorten their skirts.  Moving through the series, which ended in 1966, the bikini became more prominent, and one piece suits all but disappeared.  Still, Annette continued to be more covered up, due partly to her being pregnant in the last movie she filmed for the series!

Posters copyright American International Pictures