by mc-lunar » Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:14 am
Hey so I think this collection is actually really really good. I'm not personally familiar with Burberry (I tried on a Brit leather once before I knew better) and I'm not from England so I can't speak much to the 'burburry look' that ben is talking about but I really like what I'm seeing here.
So part of what Thom Browne did that I liked so much was how his collections took flintstone from the silhouettes and relative sizing of a schoolboy's suit and applied that to a full-grown mans body. What I see this collection as doing is taking not necessarily the physical shape of young boys' clothing and applying that to menswear and formal wear but instead taking elements of children's clothing and playing with the application of those elements to formal wear. The reason I don't think I'm pulling this out of my ass is the presentation of the show - the models have very boyish bowl cuts, and the bags theyre carrying make me think "oh, that's a sack of marbles (or sweets)". Also, smaller details like the polka dot pattern (which, as far as patterns go, is not a very mature pattern) and the wack sunglasses which you'd normally only see kids (or adults who want attention) seeking out. So on top of these details we see the hoods (aped from hoodies) on things like the sweater and the cardigan which both don't normally see hoods. Then there's the emphasis on rain gear towards the end of the show in bright colors which reminds me of moms making sure their kids don't go out without gear for any possible weather and he obnoxiously loud colors kids wear so their parents can spot them in a crowd. Finally I see a lot of looks that seem like they would be put together by somebody who is given clothes but doesn't know the 'rules' of how to wear them and look good. We see the sheer undershirts overhirt and tie. We also see the sweaters/shirts with big necklines and slouchy shoulders, which I know has been done a lot, but here it looks like a natural hand-me-down because of the context.
Anyways, that's why I like this. Mobile, so please excuse syntax etc errors