I got word this morning of a tragedy. An earth-rocking horror. A ghastly tale of deceit, betrayal, the unspeakable.
I'm not quite sure how I continued on with my day. I was so shocked, I needed a sip of water and an antacid tablet to regain my composure.
At any rate, I'm more calm and collected now that some time has passed. So I will share the news. Readers must promise, though, not to get hysterical or out of sorts. Promise?
Here it is:
Actress Reese Witherspoon's Golden Globes gown was not, in fact, vintage as she had been told by fashion house reps.
Even worse, it was not virgin couture. That exact champagne-colored Chanel cocktail dress with the sleeveless metallic top was worn by actress Kirsten Dunst in 2003.
OH. THE HUMANITY.
I read a 14-paragraph story on this faux-pas at the CNN Web site this morning. I'm not sure what I was more disgusted by -- the fact that this was a story at all, or the dismal realization that I'd just spent a good three minutes (three precious minutes, lost forever) reading it.
I realize that what stars wear to awards shows is important to some people. A few people. Ok, maybe two: Joan Rivers and that fashion guy from the Today show who looks like he's trying to be a she, or at least trying to look like a fem Mick Jagger. I guess I might care what dress I wore if VH1 were going to broadcast live from the red carpet and do some sort of runway play-by-play, discussing how fat my ass looks and waiting for an unruly breast to pop out of my $20,000-Vera Wang number.
And I know that self-important designers need the publicity to further pad their bank accounts and stroke their egos. So they can sell another $4,000 handbag and be the talk of Tinseltown's elite.
And, to her credit, it sounds like Reese wasn't pitching a fit or wailing a shower of mascara tears. Someone had simply overheard her asking Chanel President Maureen Chiquet at post-show party why she wasn't told the gown had been pre-worn.
Oopsie.
Celebrity stylist Phillip Bloch was quoted by the Associated Press, calling Witherspoon "a victim of the fashion powers that be." Witherspoon's publicist, someone named Nanci Ryder who I've never heard of and don't care diddly-doo about, said: "I'm not angry -- just a little disappointed."
And of course, the fashion house apologized for "the oversight" and did some sucking-up-with-gusto, saying it was "honored that Reese chose to wear Chanel...she looked beautiful...we congratulate her on her well-deserved win."
Need some Pepto, yet?
It's interesting to note that Ms. Witherspoon was born in Louisiana. I'm betting a lot of people in her home state could think of a few useful things to do with that dress that have nothing whatsoever to do with dolling oneself up to prance in front of cameras, batting eyelashes at the cinematic flavor-of-the-week.
Like they could use it as a headcovering to protect themselves from the elements, since tens of thousands of residents are still displaced from Hurricane Katrina. Or they could sell it and use the money to rent an apartment. For a year. How about members of the Louisiana National Guard who are still stuck over in Iraq, dodging enemy fire and risking their lives for narcissistic bitches who think a "theatre of operations" is a movie about surgery (no doubt, of the tummy-tuck or boob-job variety).
She won the flipping award. She has a gazillion dollars. In fact, she got paid a reported $1 MILLION for starring in a movie called "Legally Blonde."
Get a grip.
I'm not quite sure how I continued on with my day. I was so shocked, I needed a sip of water and an antacid tablet to regain my composure.
At any rate, I'm more calm and collected now that some time has passed. So I will share the news. Readers must promise, though, not to get hysterical or out of sorts. Promise?
Here it is:
Actress Reese Witherspoon's Golden Globes gown was not, in fact, vintage as she had been told by fashion house reps.
Even worse, it was not virgin couture. That exact champagne-colored Chanel cocktail dress with the sleeveless metallic top was worn by actress Kirsten Dunst in 2003.
OH. THE HUMANITY.
I read a 14-paragraph story on this faux-pas at the CNN Web site this morning. I'm not sure what I was more disgusted by -- the fact that this was a story at all, or the dismal realization that I'd just spent a good three minutes (three precious minutes, lost forever) reading it.
I realize that what stars wear to awards shows is important to some people. A few people. Ok, maybe two: Joan Rivers and that fashion guy from the Today show who looks like he's trying to be a she, or at least trying to look like a fem Mick Jagger. I guess I might care what dress I wore if VH1 were going to broadcast live from the red carpet and do some sort of runway play-by-play, discussing how fat my ass looks and waiting for an unruly breast to pop out of my $20,000-Vera Wang number.
And I know that self-important designers need the publicity to further pad their bank accounts and stroke their egos. So they can sell another $4,000 handbag and be the talk of Tinseltown's elite.
And, to her credit, it sounds like Reese wasn't pitching a fit or wailing a shower of mascara tears. Someone had simply overheard her asking Chanel President Maureen Chiquet at post-show party why she wasn't told the gown had been pre-worn.
Oopsie.
Celebrity stylist Phillip Bloch was quoted by the Associated Press, calling Witherspoon "a victim of the fashion powers that be." Witherspoon's publicist, someone named Nanci Ryder who I've never heard of and don't care diddly-doo about, said: "I'm not angry -- just a little disappointed."
And of course, the fashion house apologized for "the oversight" and did some sucking-up-with-gusto, saying it was "honored that Reese chose to wear Chanel...she looked beautiful...we congratulate her on her well-deserved win."
Need some Pepto, yet?
It's interesting to note that Ms. Witherspoon was born in Louisiana. I'm betting a lot of people in her home state could think of a few useful things to do with that dress that have nothing whatsoever to do with dolling oneself up to prance in front of cameras, batting eyelashes at the cinematic flavor-of-the-week.
Like they could use it as a headcovering to protect themselves from the elements, since tens of thousands of residents are still displaced from Hurricane Katrina. Or they could sell it and use the money to rent an apartment. For a year. How about members of the Louisiana National Guard who are still stuck over in Iraq, dodging enemy fire and risking their lives for narcissistic bitches who think a "theatre of operations" is a movie about surgery (no doubt, of the tummy-tuck or boob-job variety).
She won the flipping award. She has a gazillion dollars. In fact, she got paid a reported $1 MILLION for starring in a movie called "Legally Blonde."
Get a grip.
Comments
And what's with the people like Paris Hilton who are celebrities because they are celebrities. I mean, she doesn't even do anything. WTF!!!