clothesonfilm.com: When you are costuming the biggest franchise release of the year and creating a capsule range to run alongside it for a major online retailer, it is clear a normal approach to the task is not going to work. Ex-stylist and one time assistant for Michael Kaplan, Trish Summerville, one of the fastest rising names in the industry, has purposely sought out what many costume designers shy away from: co-collaborations with new and established fashion designers and, in several cases, pulling clothes directly from the runway.
12 comments:
We actually talked about this topic with Kenny in stagecraft one day. If the "costume designer" took all the clothes from a recent fashion line and used them for characters in a show are they really the costume designer? I do agree that some element of design comes into play because they made the conscious decision to make those fashion elements part of another world for some reason. This particular case sounds more like an artistic costume director, because while Trish chose designers based on what she knew their aesthetic to be, she trusted them to create looks for the movie's world. She directed and delegated what choices were made, while maybe not making all the choices herself.
I think it is interesting that this article predicts Trish will be scorned by her peers for taking on the role of the "Costume Director" instead of designing all of the costumes herself. While Trish may have not personally designed every piece of clothing in the movie, she did have a vision for the costumes in the film, and delegated in order to achieve her vision. Although Trish may have not designed Katniss' wedding dress, she had a vision for what the dress would look like. In this particular case, Trish's vision looked like a dress that a known fashion designer would make. I think it makes complete sense that Trish decided to involve fashion and runway designers in her process. I think that the role of the Costume Director may be seen more and more, especially in film, because of logistics and resources. For a film such as "Catching Fire," it may be impossible or completely unreasonable for one person to design every single costume. With that said, I think some films need to have costume designers, where others may be able to have costume directors. In the end, it all depends on the needs of the production.
I support what Trish did for these movies; it is completely understandable and even very smart of her to reach out to other artists to help with this daunting monstrosity of a movie. There are so many aspects of the Hunger Games costumes that need to be meticulously detailed and thought out, it would be nearly impossible for Trish to do them all herself. However, it is also important that these other costume designers get the credit that is due to them. If Trish is spending more time pulling clothing off the runway and asking other designers to design for her, they need to be well recognized for their contributions to the movie. Not only that, but perhaps Trish's title needs a bit of re-imagining. "Costume designer" implies that she did most of the creative work herself. Instead, maybe she should be labeled a "costume manager" or "costume director," as the article mentions. Perhaps we are steering away from a single costume designer for big budget films, but if so, titles and credit must adjust accordingly.
I had never thought about the fact that costumes for movies are all designed by one person rather than shopped and bought. I wonder why what Trish did is causing such a stir as this article makes out. There are a huge range of costume types in this movie ranging from the height of couture to work jump suits. Not everyone can design that wide of a range of clothing. But it does take a certain kind of person to be able to pull all of those items together and make them work in the same world on screen.
I do disagree with Emma's comment about Trish's title needing to change. The article makes it sound like Trish designed a lot of the costumes for the movie, and shopped out the designs for the couture and specialty pieces. That doesn't mean she didn't design the movie. It just means that she used all of the resources available to her in order to create each and every piece of clothing in the movie. Does buying a piece and then putting it on screen mean that Trish didn't design the movie? If you're going to think in that manner, then any theatrical costume designer who buys and piece and puts it onstage with altering it shouldn't be called a designer either.
This is a debate where I have trouble picking a side. On one hand I see no reason why if the costume os right for the piece, then who made it does not change that fact. It should not be frowned on to use the right piece just because you did not make it. But then you get to the plagiarism part. It would be fine to use other peoples work but then you don't have the right to say you designed it. Using the title "costume designer" becomes misleading. I'm guessing the resolution for this is a money thing. If you compensate the real designers, everyone is happy.
While what Trisch Summerville did for The Hunger Games might not be technically "costume design," I feel it might have been the best way to make this movie. I never even realized that every costume in a movie was personally designed by the costume designer- I always assumed that, especially for minor characters, there was a certain amount of "farming out" that happened. Since movies usually have such huge casts and cover so many different days, each with a different costume, it seems ridiculous to demand that for a person to be qualified as the costume designer they must have designed every item worn by anyone in the movie. especially in a movie such as this, which is supposed to be set in a sort of dystopian near-future, it can be even more effective to use modern clothing, rather than constructing it all. I also find it odd that the author described the use of McQueen pieces as a "risky choice" of fear of spoiling the "illusion" and implying that "high fashion may well be art but, as with Effie herself, is also vacuous and trivial." This doesn't sound like a random choice that has unfortunate and unintended implications- this sounds like a deliberate design decision which was meant to convey just that. There is a lot of design that can happen in the choosing of clothing for characters, and the choice to use clothing from the "real world" can be as much a design decision as choosing to make them all from a certain kind of fabric, or using a certain color palette throughout the movie.
I saw this movie last night and the first words out of my mouth what that the costumes in the film were amazing. That however was under the belief that all the costumes were designed by Trish. Its not that I don't respect here for her choices on the film. It was superbly done and she deserves her credit that said it would have been far more astounding if she had designed the costumes and looks herself and paid homage to designers like McQueen in the process rather than just getting an Alexander McQueen dress and putting it on the character.
The problem is, though I may think that, I will readily admit that most of the time when costuming a show, it is about putting together looks, not designing each and every element. You are allowed to buy things in the costume world and still call the overall look your design. I don't think she needed to make all of the costumes in the movie and it makes sense with all the studio pressure she was under that she didn't. I do however think that the move pivotal costumes in the film (Effie trinket, Katnis's gowns, the the tribute outfits) should have been designed in house. She really was more of a costume direct than a costume designer, and if she is happy with that then more power to her.
Nerd alert: I just have to say that reading this article makes me even more excited about seeing the movie.
I like the term "costume director", and sure, maybe it's more appropriate, but I don't think it's necessary. She is the designer. And the director. The supervisor, and the manager. Since when is a position of leadership only limited to wearing only one hat? This is a collaborative art. And part of that "art" is facilitating her vision through others. Duh. I think it's wonderful that she's humble about it--encouraging, and embracing of others ideas. These are the best folks to work with and learn from. I think that is what this article is celebrating more than anything else. And it's definitely worth acknowledging. Wouldn't it be validating to be part of a process where everyone is truly collaborating? We should all be so lucky.
I think this article was really cool. I always wondered about what kind of process do costume designers use in movies and on television. Jess uses the title "Costume Director" but then it questions the title costume designer in general. Does that mean that the only costume designers out there are the ones who actually create their own costumes (like in Wicked)? I was working for a costume designer over the summer and she would come up with a look and then tell me to go out to different stores and look for shirts, pants, skirts, ties, etc. The clothes already exist, so does that take away her title as costume designer? Also, when you have a period piece, the costume designer does a lot of research in order to "re-create" the clothes of that time. It's not really designing... it's recreating. So who are we to say that taking from the runway isn't designing, you're actually designing an idea, a new world. You're designing the fashion of whenever the movie/show takes place.
This article is incredibly thought provoking. As Jacquelyn points out we were recently talking to Kenny about this subject. The fact that she used designs by other designers I think still qualifies it as her design. She's the one who chose to use this specific design for this specific character. Thus making her designer. Alexander McQueen. If the specific costume that was chosen was the exact same thing that the designer of the film or play had in mind then why not use it? Its probably cheaper and its also providing advertising for the designers whose clothes were being used.
I saw Catching Fire before reading this article and I had two impressions of the costumes. First was that I definitely had the feeling with this one, more than the first movie, that the clothing was more trendy and looked similar to what people may wear today. I'm not surprised to hear that it was a different designer than the first movie. And prior to reading this article, I would not have known that Trish Summerville used designs of many different designers instead of designing all of the pieces herself. Because of that, I would say that her effort was successful, since despite the many designer's aesthetics that went into the movie, it looked like a cohesive design.
I have mixed feelings about Summerville's use of other designer's work. Certainly, she is appropriately attaching credit to whom it belongs, and I am not against many designers collaborating on a project. The articles comment however, that this could be the future of the industry is pretty unsettling to me.
I never really looked too closely at the costumes from The Hunger Game. After reading this article, I've noticed that they are quite beautiful.
I think that what Trish did is very smart. A movie with so many costumes that need to be "designer clothes" it makes sense to use many talented designers. If she is making a realistic world, even in that world there would be many designers so it makes sense that the clothes will not look like one designer did them.
I never really looked too closely at the costumes from The Hunger Game. After reading this article, I've noticed that they are quite beautiful.
I think that what Trish did is very smart. A movie with so many costumes that need to be "designer clothes" it makes sense to use many talented designers. If she is making a realistic world, even in that world there would be many designers so it makes sense that the clothes will not look like one designer did them.
Post a Comment