TheBaronOfFratton

(Sigh), you are probably right - I read far too much into it, damn Art History and Philosophy! I should just appreciate the ladies. But after watching Sam12's video of the 2000 show again it reinforced my opinion. The sheer change in tone is astonishing.

I suppose, as with any spectacle, you have to trump what came previous - witness Olympic opening ceremonies, or New Year firework displays. Sometimes that can go horribly wrong and become an overblown farce. Therefore, on occasion, it's wise to start again - 'year zero' or 'back to basics'. The James Bond franchise chose this approach with "Casino Royale", no gadgets or ludicrous villain's lairs. Once you've had an invisible car in an ice palace where else can you go?

Of course you make it a 'show'. You need general themes. But this is still about lingerie - and by association sex.

This costume is at least logical, from 2005:

It's candy. It has connotations of Valentines, terms of endearment, and supposed aphrodisiac effects. Maybe don't spend too long reading into the whole lollipop thing! And the sweet wrapper is just a tad OTT.

But this:

???

Now I'm not an American, so maybe I'm missing something - but is the Statue of Liberty cross-pollinated with a New York cab sexy? Infact that whole segment looks (from the photos so far) a bit too contrived. I know PINK is supposed to be more playful and young, but to me it just looked garish and messy - and decidedly half-arsed.

Perhaps I'm being the anti-Joker here, too bloody serious! But they started it. They asked "What Is Sexy?"

And then they gave us a woman disguised as a Christmas tree.

Hello all,

This thread is to discuss, via digressions, the increasingly surreal outfits of the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show - which culminated in this year's 'Surreally Sexy' segment.

I wanted to begin by making sure it's understood that this is not a critique on any of the respective models featured. Rather it is about the outfits and the themes.

You watch the earlier VSFS's and they are essentially women walking in underwear - of that in itself, I have no complaints - but the behemoth this show has become seems to have strayed drastically from this simple premise.

Models model, yes? (I'm talking proper models here - not 'models' who spend their time losing their clothes and bending over in increasingly gynaecological poses as per the magazine covers here in Buenos Aires!) And as such they sell us products - clothing, accessories, make-up. I'm sure, even in 2000 had I been inclined, I could have gone and bought some of the items I saw on the catwalk in Cannes. But today? These outfits are designed as spectacle. To provoke interest in the brand. To be fantasy.

This is fantastical lingerie, as opposed to functional underwear. It's a worthy cause, certainly - but it begs that perennial question of theirs: What Is Sexy?

Take one of this year's outfits:

+

=

Now I'm a big fan of Rene Magritte. I have reproductions of his work, books even (of which I shall possibly bore you with later). His thoughts and subsequent art have inspired me in the past - but is it sexy? No. This is just shoving together a few of Magritte's themes (along with another recurring motif in his art - the umbrella), and hoping for the best. I like the idea, and the general theme - I just think it was poorly executed.

Like this:

I guess it was an homage to Salvador Dali's 'Mae West Sofa' - but for me it's simply "Isabeli, run! Mick Jagger's hungry."

Perhaps a movement such as this, although very pre-occupied with sex, is just not sexy enough in itself. Victoria's Secret had another episode like this a few years ago with it's advert featuring Bob Dylan. Dylan, again, is another hero of sorts, but he really is not sexy. To see him juxtaposed with Adriana in that advert was akin to - well - a sexy young woman being next to a slightly ailing old man. Then he had his CD's for sale 'in store'. Ah, marketing...

I don't wish to steal any thunder from the excellent Strange/Unique thread - but I am interested in other's thoughts of surrealism in regards to modelling. VSFS can do this. Take this for instance:

It's at once (obviously to one's own taste) sexy and surreal. Why is she wearing a gate? If you break it down it makes (surreal) sense. The bars, the key, the lock - it's corsetry, but with connotations of chastity and even mild bondage. Why is it in a fashion show, can you buy it? Probably not, but subliminally it works.

And then there's this:

What is sexy? Patently not dressing up as a bell.

You'd have to be a serious campanologist to get your kicks here (Stam notwithstanding). Even the divine Helena Christensen circa 1991 (my awakening) couldn't have pulled that off. And this wasn't (as far as I can tell without having seen the full show) even in the surreal segment. Possibly because it goes way beyond that in to the realms of bizarre.

Magritte himself talked about the power of concealment and it's effect on the human mind. Surrealism - at least in his case - was about "rendering the invisible visible" and he painted with that in mind. I know he wasn't referring to the VSFS per se(!), or even lingerie - but maybe he had a point here:

"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see but it is impossible..."

Now that is sexy, that tantalising glimpse of flesh - the promise of what's underneath...

Or, just perhaps, he simply meant this:

Well, that's my sermon. Please add your thoughts. Like I said, surreal photos and fashion shoots already have a brilliant thread - as does that self-same "What Is Sexy?" question. I simply want to know if you think the VSFS has gone too far from simply showcasing their products, or not far enough.

Or if this has any business being dissected on a fashion forum!

I love you....

Are these drug stories mere speculation - or do they have any substance?

I only ask because it would seem churlish to admonish one particular girl on these grounds when it seems to be fairly endemic in the 'Fashion World'. From the stories of '70's excess by the likes of Janice Dickinson, to more recent Kate Moss tabloid fodder - modelling and drugs (and in particular cocaine) seemingly go hand in hand. Indeed, during the long hours of the big fashion weeks, we always hear that our muses (supposedly) sustain themselves with cigarettes and coffee in lieu of food, and cocaine in lieu of sleep. I simply think that it would be remiss of anyone to ignore these links. I'll also add that all the above is 'alleged' (one has to watch one's back in regards to defamation laws)!!

However, none of this is really my point for writing this.

I just wanted to get that out of the way because I am neither glamourising or demonising drugs, I just merely think that Ana just has that 'look' about her. And I find it INCREDIBLY attractive!

I read on the forum, and elsewhere, about her looking 'drawn', 'strung out', 'tired '...ad infinitum. But it's these qualities that attract me to her. It's that languid expression. Those heavy-lidded eyes. She looks at once ethereal and insouciant. This could be mistaken for excess - heavy nights on whatever drug, legal or otherwise - but could just simply BE. I'm personally plagued by eyes that all too richly tell the evidence of last night, my tongue can spin an innocent yarn but the proof is obvious 'en mis ojos'! Take this picture for instance:

Heavy night, Ana? Or 'come-to-bed' eyes? It's not my favourite photo of her, but I find it enchanting nonetheless. She never comes across as 'high-maintenance' or overly demanding. I think Ana Claudia Michels has this quality too: they just seem chilled. Yeah, whatever..! I've always referred to this quality as 'far away eyes' - and it's highly prized in my world.

At once you know this is a girl you can dream with; infact 'dreamy' is another appropriate adjective. Hours could roll by in a hazy slumber - but the eyes also hint at a myriad Bacchanalian pleasures to enjoy too!

Well, that's my thought today! I suppose this should have been posted under General Discussion - but the 'drug' thread was here on Runway, and intrinsic to my post. Apologies if it is clogging it up incorrectly...

"Much to my surprise, there she was sitting in the corner

A little bleary, worse for wear and tear

Was a girl, with far away eyes."

Regarding this Brandon Davis 'character'...

Firstly - what a Premium-Grade, arse-piece. I, thankfully, was unaware of this detritus until reading this thread. I watched the video. Finding him show-boating, gurning and being so casually vituperative alongside the vacancy that is Paris Hilton really says all we need to know. It matters not what one thinks of Lindsay Lohan (and I think very little); it's that spittle-flecked, character-assassination in the company of such pointless sycophants and the voracious, grasping press that we should worry about...

I care not for how he looks. As I've stated before - in my brief sojourn as a poster - beauty is in the eye of the beholder (ah, that old cliche). He could well be of any creed, colour, religion, size and shape. He could well be conventionally ugly - whatever that may entail. If Miranda sees something in his physicality then who are we to argue?

But, (second cliche alert!) if it's "what's on the inside that counts" then one should be very concerned.

This swaggering idiot, surrounded by an admiring pack of similarly privileged buffoons, is seemingly endemic in 'celebrity' circles. The kind of circles that the models we so admire - such as Miranda - will no doubt fall into. That he should be considered a 'catch' in any sense, other than the obscene amount of money he will so undeservedly fall into, is a disgrace.

There, my friends, is the rub. Miranda - back away. Of course money and power are attractive - it is foolish to disregard that. But we want to think we are made of stronger stuff. And it is not like a Victoria's Secret Angel will find herself short of cash soon.

These people are 'vampiric'. they suck on the edges of glamour. Be it fashion, film, or music. Talentless, but loaded - with money and self-importance. - they whisk our heroes and heroines away with the allure of the 'Lifestyle'. But, judging by this pitiful display - they are ugly to the very core.

Oh, if there were a brief Rapture. One to rid us of these fiends. A brief, sudden, decimation. And they are gone - and we can breathe easily again. The 'entertainment' industry might be left wanting. But that's not so bad a sacrifice!

I expect more from our models.

Then again - perhaps he is just incredibly endowed!

You see, I'm not all super-serious.

(with thanks for the image to wickedcrazyness)

And there you are - my Be'elzebub of beauty

My Titian-haired temptress

Beguliling

Bewitching

Copper-topped coquette of cute.

Be-freckled bastion of bounteous perfection

Devil-tipped diva of distraction

I could, and would wax lyrical of your lips,

Were I not eternally enchanted by your ethereal eyes.

Oh, Cintia, a sencillo

More beautiful than those painted ladies abound

'A minha menina' in your native tongue

Could I get to say the same in mine?

My flame-haired femme of the fashion world

Pelirrojo in perfection, in auburn you shine

Delicious Diablo, render me to digression

To forever count freckles on this template of thine...

(Now That's What I Call Rococo!!! - Although I personally prefer the insult 'Byzantine')

And so my friends - WERE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

Forgive me. I don't have a scanner, access to breaking news, an insider, or any such inroad with which to divulge information for your voracious appetites (mine included)... So let me begin this missive with a sincere thanks to all those respective posters - those heroes who actually contributed photos and information for our delectation. I only wish I could help, that I could join in with something worthwhile other than my words.

But I hope, at least, that this is above the inane banter we sometimes have to sift through!!! Perhaps, yes, it is better to destroy than to create the inessential...

Anyway, my thoughts, they are no greater or lesser than anyone else's - ignore the number of posts: I just type when I feel the need, or have something to say (see above).

Hey - did you notice Ana Beatriz Barros wasn't there!!!

Back to the matter. I suppose we will not really know the long and short until we see the show. We have these snapshots and these all-too-brief segments of waffling reporters on "entertainment" shows who know not what they are referring to. This is not 'Dancing On Ice', Mr. Toothsome Grin. This is not 'The Apprentice', Ms. Was-Picked-To-Be-Homecoming-Queen-But Can't-Really-Compare-To-These-Glamazons-But-Smiles-Maniacally-That-Much-More-Through-This-As-A-Result...

Yes, the photos. Though we can't see the strut, or feel the vibe; we can imagine. Ah, and when the time comes play it with the sound down and crank up the music YOU wanted to hear. Much better. I can see it now. No, not telling, don't want to pigeon-hole myself.

Infact, even better. We can fast-forward through Selita, or whomever our 'bete noir' might be come December 4th. I use the unfortunate Ms Ebanks as an example, judging by the myriad posts I've read - but we all have our own. Again, I don't want to divulge to much. Needless to say it would annoy a great many.

What happened to Doutzen???

Juvenile. I know. Humour, like attraction, is very personal. We can, if we so wish, slow down Angela's predilection for that arm aloft thing, or the multitude of variations on it that have been alluded to. For me it is Inguna's smile. Radiant. Or the ferocity of certain struts. Probably, with our remotes, the show will last the same amount of time. It will just be that much more specific. We don't have to pander to the masses and make sure all boxes are ticked. Just the one's we care about. Oh, that hackneyed old adage of the box of chocolates - but tell me, is there one better? All those flavours... Scoff the ones you want until you feel queasy. Give the crap ones to Grandma (but not the toffees you bastard - you know they're no good for her teeth).

And when it's all over and you feel those pangs for 2008 - go outside and get some fresh air. Next year's Candice might be working at your local corner-shop. Highly unlikely I'll concede... But it get's me out of bed in the morning!

All the best chicos...

You, my Argentinian friend, are my hero.

Ah! But what are we to do?

My friends, this moment, this VSFS - we have but to live in the now. This year will not come again. Yes, perchance, there is next year with all its promises. But the future, like they say of the past, is another country; and they - indeed - do things differently there.

Do not think I don't share in this anguish. Only last week most of my "angels" were on that pernicious list: that list that promised so much (to me) but in the end delivered so little. Oh, where are you now my Ana, my Doutzen, my Natasha, my Cintia..? If it were not for the charms of Inguna then perhaps I would too be inconsolable; sobbing uncontrolably into the nearest glass of wine. Well, maybe I am a little, it loosens those typing hands - but then 'In Vino Veritas'!

But yes - the future. For it was only last year, whilst waiting for these maidens to glide and flow that I stumbled across Rosie. And I, for one, am thoroughly enchanted. From evidence thus far I am thinking Ms Swanepoel may fit that bill this year...

These lists we compile, this "beauty" we speak of - it is fugitive - hot to the touch, and we would do well to remember that. Like I said - I feel the pain; but she will come round again - in brilliance and in fanfare. For these girls, OUR girls, our ideal line-ups, our own personal parade of angels - do they not walk the catwalks of our minds anyway?

Forgive me this tirade. There are photos to be perused, there are new delights to be savoured, there are new angels to discover. It matters not who wears the wings, what matters is who flutters our hearts...

Indeed!

Now let's not do anything rash ladies and gentlemen...