I've seen plenty of photos of Brad Pitt's lounge lizard look (and Matt Damon's prep version of it) in Ocean's Thirteen, the new movie from Warner Brothers. But costume designer Louise Frogley's best work was done for Al Pacino, the inheritor of the overdressed mantle from Carl Reiner, who wore it in Ocean's Twelve.
Pacino, who plays the evil casino head, is clad head to toe in Battaglia, apparently a personal favorite of his. There's a lot to like about his clothes, or there would be if he wore each piece separately. Pinstriped suits are powerful day wear by themselves. Adding a white collared shirt is risky but doable. A paisley tie and silk square put it over the top even though they are interesting pieces that bring their own colors while relating well to what's already there. Changing the silk square for plain white linen would help a lot.
In the second photo, Pacino's fuschia silk necktie would have been better worn with a blazer at a Sunday afternoon garden party. I believe this scene takes place in the evening, and a solid navy worsted would let him get away with wearing a silk square if he toned the ensemble down a couple of steps. As it his, his clothes compete with the ladies to each side of him. The women win going away.
Some critics have said that the Ocean’s series has had more influence on menswear than any movie since The Godfather. I'm afraid that most of that influence has been for the bad - Pitt sets gangster dress back twenty years - but Pacino is not the principal problem. Here his necktie is once again nicely coordinated, picking up the stripe in his shirt, in an unfortunate color and paired with a flashy square that's too similar. You could wear it, but you shouldn't want to.
Posts
6 comments:
I'm not going to say that the expressed opinions are wrong - style can be somewhat subjective - but I think two things should be considered here. First, and probably the most plain, is that the setting is a casino. This makes any dress inherently more aggressive, contemporary and, well, 'Vegas'.
Secondly, and maybe more importantly, is that personal style is an intensely intimate thing. As long as the general bounds of propriety are kept, self expression with contemporary applications of color with unique and contrasting patterns and textures, such as Mr. Pacino aptly illustrates, is entirely acceptable.
For instance, the British have a certain philosophy of how to construct a jacket, and the Americans differ from them, and the Italians vary widely amongst themselves. But however different these design and fit philosophies are, they all achieve the same goal, but in very unique ways. The same principle applies to a more progressive (or perhaps aggressive), contemporary style vs. a traditional taste. It all comes down to doing the same thing, but in a unique way, expressive of oneself.
Good dress doesn't have to be a particular style but it isn't supposed to smack your eye either. The obvious is too easy to be elegant.
Well, like I said, its not that I necessarily disagree totally, but it all depends on what you're trying to exude, express or portray - is it always elegance? Or is it power & authority? In some settings - especially in Vegas, lol - the peacock with the brightest plume runs the flock, as it were.
I agree that dress may have differing goals, and the only standard that I hold it to is elegance.
The key to achieving elegance is the blend. The well dressed man is well dressed without wearing anything that stands out. That preempts criticism and places clothes in their proper perspective.
Can u tell me where Willy Banks glasses are from?
Don't know.
Post a Comment