Golden Globes 2014: Fashion Round-up

Forget the films, music-scores and awards, this year’s Golden Globes was all about one thing (well, as far as we here at Expose Fashion are concerned anyway!), the dresses. From Taylor Swift to our very own and very lovely Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey’s Lady Mary), the stars came out in force for the 71st annual ceremony to show off their fashion credentials, and boy did they succeed. Not only was the fashion simply divine darling but we here in good old England have cause to be just a little bit proud as the red carpet was absolutely rocked by the British actresses in attendance (not that we’d ever be biased in such important matters). So, here at Expose, we attentively watched the proceedings in order to bring all you fashion-lovers the top five outfits from the night and aren’t there some stunners…

 

Emma Watson – Dior

redcarpet-fashionawards.com

 

 

 

Never one to play it safe when it comes to fashion, or for that matter look anything less than pristine, Watson once again showed the fashion world how it’s done in this elegant yet daring Christion Dior backless red gown, paired with silk cropped trousers and matching Rover Vivier navy pumps. What an outfit, what a girl.

 

 

 

 

Taylor Swift – Carolina Herrera

eonline.com

 

 

 

Yet another lady in red, Taylor Swift opted for a sophisticated and chic look with this strapless Herrera dress. Combining her stunning dress with beautiful soft curls and a touch of red lipstick Swift was without a doubt the queen of the red carpet this year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michelle Dockery – Oscar de la Renta

popsugar.com

 

 

We’ve loved both Dockery and la Renta for rather a long time now so when the two came together in this absolute triumph of a look, we very almost cried tears of pure joy (we held back of course, we’re grown-ups silly!). This off-white sequined dress complimented Dockery’s pale skin giving her a gorgeous glow and the mullet-hem allowed her to show off just a little bit of leg. Fab!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dame Helen Mirren – Jenny Packham

dailymail.co.uk

 

 

British fashion royalty, Helen Mirren rarely puts a foot out of place when it comes to the red carpet and this year’s Globes was no exception. In a mint floor-length gown covered in glittery floral-designs and cinched at the waist to flatter her incredible figure the Dame didn’t look a day over fifty in this exceptional outfit. We, on the other hand, can only pray we look this good at sixty-eight!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zoey Deschanel – Oscar de la Renta

thefashionsupernova.com

 

 

Although causing some contention (some loved, some hated, we yawned), here at Expose we were completely smitten with Deschanel’s metallic two-piece from designer of the night – Oscar de la Renta. Although the detailed embroidery and beading of the outfit could have ended up looking overly cutesy, the kooky star of sitcom New Girl managed to pull off this tricky combo and look ridiculously gorgeous in it. Could she be our new fashion crush of 2014? Only time will tell…

 

 

 

 

 

Iona Swannell 

Is the legacy of Potter helpful? Robert Galbraith and 'The Cuckoo's Calling'

Natalie Clark examines JK Rowling’s latest offering, and wonders how our ideas about Rowling and Harry Potter affect our reading of the book..

J K Rowling has yet again become the victim of celebrity culture. In this instance, it is not an invasion of her personal life, but rather the removal of her right to publish without the legacy of Potter.

After the leak of Robert Galbraith’s true identity, The Cuckoo’s Calling soared from 4709^th to 1^st in the Amazon bestseller list. Rowling states that the revelation was not a publicity stunt, but rather an astonishing breach of trust. To Rowling’s annoyance the leak appeared on Twitter from the spouse of a member of her own legal team. The subsequent media coverage hurled The Cuckoo’s Calling from insignificant obscurity into the bestseller list.

We can only speculate at the merit the novel would have held without the leak. Some early critics comment that ‘his’ first-time novel was presented with a great deal of confidence and professionalism. The novel was, however, rejected by at least one publishing house, including Orion Books, before being picked up by an imprint of Little Brown & Company, who picked up Rowling’s 2012 novel The Casual Vacancy. Nevertheless, the book has since received universal critical acclaim.

This is the second time Rowling has changed her name to conceal her female identity, first with the Potter series when ‘JK’ was used over Joanne to attract boy readers, who were assumed to be deterred by female authors.

Has our reading of The Cuckoo’s Calling been tainted by Rowling’s reputation? Since the revelation it is impossible to read it ‘blind.’ Readers search for breadcrumbs leading to the identity of its true authorship, carrying the implication they were laid out by Rowling for an avid reader to unravel for themselves. The novel has escaped from the original aim Rowling had for it – a liberation from fame and the freedom to experiment with the crime fiction genre.

Both The Cuckoo’s Calling and The Casual Vacancy are sensitive to the invasion of privacy caused by paparazzi and journalism – which receives a new angle when Rowling’s role as a witness in the Leveson Inquiry is considered. Rowling’s fondness for alliterative names is also present, with model Lula Landry throwing hints towards loveable Ravenclaw Luna Lovegood.

Although, we may consider that we cannot have a ‘pure’ reading experience, judgements are made from the moment we step into a bookstore. The placement of the book, its cover, its thickness, along with the author’s name and biography all sway our expectations and prejudices when reading.

The Cuckoo’s Calling is worth a read, a rich criticism of celebrity culture interspersed with Rowling’s trademark characterisation – this whodunit is reminiscent of Poirot and Marple, and may just revitalise the private detective sub-genre of crime fiction. Just don’t expect to read without the shadow of Potter transfiguring every chapter.

Natalie Clark

Ignite Festival: Something's Gotta Give

Something’s Gotta Give, an exploration into the effect of the celebrity on normal everyday life, is performed by Handprint Theatre. Formed by Deaf and Hearing performers, the company strives to create inclusive theatrical pieces for all, able to “communicate across language, disability or culture”.

Image Credits: igniteexeter.org,uk

The show is performed without speech for its duration, and relies chiefly on an exquisite range of facial expressions to convey individual characters and to drive the action. Music, multimedia and accompanying British Sign Language to songs by Britney Spears also dominated – mostly with great effect. A projector was used to screen the lyrics of certain Spears songs, including Lucky and Gimme More, which added a great amount of emphasis for audience members such as myself who could read along in addition to listening – celebrity culture was therefore tentatively criticised in light of lyrics such as “’I’m miss bad media karma, another day another drama”, “They’re still gonna put pictures of my derriere in the magazine” and “She’s so lucky, she’s a star”.

Over the course of the show, the two cleaning, maid characters seem to become increasingly preoccupied with the fame and fortune that celebrity life seems to promise and promote. The cleaning garb and casual hoody and sweatpants are traded in for more revealing outfits, which conform to the idea that celebrity culture is image and money obsessed. Moreover, this is built upon by the two characters as they come to compete with each other on matters such as who looks the best.

Cleaning product props increasingly become used as signifiers for commodity culture – spray cans morph into perfume and face makeup, whilst toilet roll at one point brilliantly becomes a feather boa. The imaginative use of props in this way is sophisticated and clever, and probably my favourite aspect of the paced show. Unlike with the looped backing sequences of Britney Spears Gimme More, I didn’t get bored waiting for the next inspired use of a spray can and cloth in the same way I did of two women fighting it out in their bid to be the best.

I did find myself checking my watch towards the end of the performance – everything suddenly seemed a little bit clichéd and over thought as the characters, newly infected with the poison of celebrity culture, retreated away from the audience and regressed upstage into cowering and broken shapes of the former energised and genuine personas they had held as “real people”. A disappointing end to a mostly inspired piece.

Kitty Howie, Lifestyle Editor

Celebrity culture – a step in the wrong direction?

Image credit: Justin Bieber Day

With celebrity culture an ever-present part of our society, Conor Byrne discusses whether it is a problem, and where the future lies. 

Celebrity culture is undoubtedly a crucial social, cultural and increasingly political phenomenon in today’s world, particularly in the West. We constantly follow celebrities on Twitter, Facebook and through the media (newspapers, magazines, TV); we want to meet them, we want to emulate them, we want to see what they are really like. But the purpose of this features article is to pose the question: has celebrity culture gone a step too far and become something dark and sinister?

Justin Bieber has to be the most recognisable celebrity in today’s world; adored by legions of female fans who will do literally anything for their idol. The smallest slight to Bieber is mercilessly attacked by these figural bodyguards, who spring into action whenever they perceive a wrong done to this angelic creature. Just look at, for instance, the abuse faced by actress Olivia Wilde when she dared to voice her opinion on Twitter about Bieber. When the American singer was photographed without his shirt on in London earlier this month while celebrating his nineteenth birthday, Wilde tweeted: ‘Bieber, put your f**king shirt on’. Probably not surprisingly, the actress then met a barrage of abuse from Bieber supporters on Twitter. But this does not seem so strange when you consider the story earlier this month.

Image Credit: chunkysalsa

When 15-year old Courtney Barrasford tweeted that she liked Bieber’s new album, despite not previously being a fan, she was then retweeted by Bieber to his 34 million followers. Disturbingly, these jealous fans sent the teenager threatening and cruel messages. But arguably the depressed nature of the tweets addressed to Bieber himself was even more disturbing. One wrote: ‘U notice her n she’s not even a fan. I am but you won’t notice me Can anyone hear me crying?’ Even when taking this with a pinch of salt, it is worrying that anyone would be so obsessive over a celebrity that they could bring themselves write such a thing.

The sad case of Britney Spears is perhaps another example. In 2007, amidst mounting personal troubles, Spears famously shaved her head at a hair salon in Los Angeles. She then admitted herself into various treatment facilities, having previously stayed at a drug rehabilitation facility in Antigua for less than a day. Others have commented that Spears’ concerts see dwindling interest and plummeting ticket sales. Despite this, Britney was the top-earning female musician in 2012. Britney, too, has encountered troubles and intense criticism, maybe not to the same extent as Bieber, through her status as a celebrity, opening her up to ridicule, fascination and constant scrutiny. Surely she is not adored so much for who she is – being a musician – but for what she represents: teenage girls’ aspirations to be famous, successful, a singer, inspiring thousands of copycat lookalikes who want to actually become Britney.

There is evidence, of course, to the contrary, for the positivity of celebrity culture. Celebrities are able to use their fame for good purposes – look at Heather Mill’s charitable pursuits, while other celebrities speak out against crimes, political issues, issues of gender and sexuality, and make a very real difference in society (consider Lady Gaga and Cher’s public support for gay rights). Celebrity culture has always been with us, and to be fair Justin Bieber and Britney Spears are probably extreme examples, because they are the most famous of the famous. Most celebrities do not deal with anything of the sort that Justin Bieber does – in that sense, he is a unique phenomenon. Celebrity culture is arguably fun, exciting and enrapturing – but as long as people stop short of becoming obsessive in the sense of becoming stalkers or attacking cruelly and vindictively anyone who dares voice any criticism of their beloved celebrity.

The criticism and victimisation of teenage girls on Twitter for their tweets about Justin Bieber is a very pressing issue, but at the end of the day we all have freedom of speech and celebrity culture is so embedded in Western culture that it is something that inevitably raises questions and features in the media daily, hourly. Maybe there is something to be said for educating our young people differently as for better or for worse – we are a celebrity society, and whether or not it is going the right way, we have to accept that it is here to stay.

Conor Byrne

Celebrity: the new oracle of reason?

Unhealthy obsession? Picture credits: markhillary

Meg Lawrence asks whether the views of celebrities really matter in our society.

Celebrity is the new religion. But did you realise it’s also the new oracle of reason? It’s nothing new, since the golden age of cinema celebrities have used their fame and public position to voice ideas about politics and society. But in this modern age, where social media is at its height, celebrities have an unparalleled opportunity to share their opinions with the world. How thoughtful.

Don’t believe me? On Twitter, the most followed people are Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, whose followers amount to over 100M. If you have an interest in politics, you might like to know that Barack Obama takes fifth place on this list, with 26M followers. Clearly there are many who want to hear what Justin had for breakfast, but when do the opinions of celebrities become overbearing? We all have the right to exercise our freedom of speech, but when does this cross the line?

I’d hazard a guess that the answer is when they have absolutely nothing to add to intellectual debate. For example, in a recent interview surrounding his new Die Hard movie, Bruce Willis condemned any gun laws that could infringe rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Whilst Willis dismissed links between his new gun-filled movie and his protests against the proposed legislation, it is rather coincidental that he chose to promote both at the same time. Bruce Willis is an action movie star. The debate should be confined to how good an actor he is, not his views on gun legislation. The day Barack Obama appears in the latest Die Hard movie we can perhaps spare some time to listen to Willis’ political ramblings.

Dame Helen Mirren recently announced that she believed victims of date rape shouldn’t expect the issue to go to court. Mirren stated that she had been a victim ‘a couple of times,’ but believed it was a matter that should be sorted between those involved. This relates back to the dated ‘she was asking for it’ defence, which shows complete disregard for the safety and respect of women. Even politicians should think twice before sharing their bigoted views with the world.

Justin Bieber, whose followers on Twitter now amount to over 100 million. Picture credits: ShowbizReporter

Former Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe backed Mirren’s statement, saying, ‘(a woman) should accept that she has got herself into that position. What’s she asking for? A cup of tea?’ It’s particularly frightening when a member of the party that leads our country holds such backward, harmful views. According to the Home Office, 60,000 women are raped every year, but of these cases only ten per cent are known to the police, and of those known only six per cent result in a conviction. No wonder more women don’t come forward.

Despite this, there are times, although I hate to admit it, when celebrity expression is invaluable. Barack Obama’s 2012 election campaign was endorsed by celebrities such as Jay-Z, Stephen Spielberg and George Clooney, each of whom will have induced some public opinion into voting for Obama. Am I guilty of only wanting celebrity endorsement when I happen to agree with the individual’s opinions? Maybe. But I satisfy myself that my opinions aren’t to the detriment of others.

Celebrities need to remember why they’re famous. While it may be great that Hilary Duff supported Obama, who really cares? We wouldn’t ask a chef to express their view on the latest medical advancements, so why should celebrities be able to express their opinions about areas which they have no expertise in?

If a famous person can use their status to motivate others to take action, it is to be applauded. But I would hope that they would think long and hard about the power of their influence. It’s easy to lose count of the number of celebrities who complain about intrusion into their private lives – I believe the greatest travesty is how they manage to intrude into ours.

The celebrity face of charity

Photo credits to Ezo

Lance Armstrong’s resignation from the board of the cancer charity Livestrong this week should be treated as a tragedy. Recent revelations have seen him portrayed as the biggest fraud in sport since Diego Maradona but this latest development will put sorrow on the faces of charity organisations worldwide. His stepping down to prevent the charity from suffering due to his negative perception represents the inexplicable and now irreversible blurring of celebrity image and the profile of charities. No one can deny Armstrong’s despicable behaviour in keeping the world in an elaborate ruse while he picked up seven Tour de France titles with the help of performance enhancing drugs but this proves a trivial matter in comparison to his struggle with cancer along with all the other people Livestrong has helped.

Some may argue that the bad press Livestrong has endured from elements of the fickle public is the fault of Armstrong, who made the charity his own creation and his own beast. To a certain extent this is correct, the branding of the charity being dominated by yellow, the colour of the Tour de France winner’s jersey, but one must look beyond that. He still suffered and recovered from testicular cancer, and that entitles him to project his efforts into helping people who have had similar experiences. What this represents is the superficiality of image overpowering a genuine cause, seen in the past with things such as LiveAid and the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death. So what is the solution? End celebrity affiliation with charities? This would seem the obvious solution but ignores complex cases such as with Armstrong, which has proved to be indeed a tragedy.

However at present we see a similar yet entirely different case with the horrific and largely accepted allegations placed against Jimmy Savile. Two organisations of which he was patron, The Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust and The Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Trust have been forced to close, again the result of one individual overshadowing the work of the charities. With the benefit of hindsight, one can see how the link between Savile’s paedophilic tendencies and charities established to care for sick children is now untenable which adds strength to the argument that celebrities should not be affiliated with charitable organisations. Unlike Armstrong, Savile doesn’t have any credibility; the reason for which he founded charities is also ultimately the reason for his very public undoing. There is no separation between the alleged monster Savile and the philanthropist Savile, meaning that the trusts, which were thinking of continuing under a different name, now cannot. And unlike Armstrong, this issue is largely swept under the carpet with the eradication of any legacy of Jimmy Savile, ignoring the genuine work the trusts have done for the children of Yorkshire. This is a separate tragedy but one that addresses the similar conflict between charitable aims and celebrity culture.

Both the cases of Savile and Armstrong highlight how someone so celebrated can fall, taking everything they have contributed to with them. The reactionary will want to accelerate this fall, eliminating any traces of these disreputable men, neglecting the genuinely good things they have done. In the case of Savile, a moral dilemma over whether a certain charity is ‘good’ comes about, making it very hard to discuss and thus put to one side, out of the limelight. With Armstrong, he has taken the noble step to remove himself from Livestrong, tragically acknowledging the ridiculousness of distorted public perception, fed fat on celebrity culture. The solution however is not to stop celebrities from founding charitable trusts, a kneejerk reaction to current issues, but to improve the scrutiny of these organisations, who exactly establishes them and why. Charities unfortunately can no longer have a free pass; they are irreversibly part of celebrity and should thus be held to account.

Frank Kibble