What Ginger Wore

Ginger Rogers as Ruth Weston and Lew Cody as Joe Lehman in The...

henriettabrown — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:29:08 -0700

Ginger Rogers as Ruth Weston and Lew Cody as Joe Lehman in The Tenderfoot (1932).

How amusing is this? There is something about a little LBD worn with a modest tweed coat, with a HUGE FUR RUFF over it that gladdens the heart. So goofy! Though it definitely fits with the pattern of young pre-Code pre-Fred Ginger wearing giant ruffs that don’t entirely fit with her working girl outfits.

That said, the oversize ruff DOES manage to foreshadow our heroine’s fate: first, that she will hitch herself to a rubber-faced Texas rancher impersonation (everything’s bigger in Texas, yo). And second, that she will become a Broadway diva. I mean, say what you will about the morality of fur or the advisability of putting giant pieces of fur on otherwise modest outfits, but: that ruff is SERIOUS DRAMA.

You know who’s awesome? Ginger Rogers in Stage...

callmeabsurd — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:11:00 -0700

You know who’s awesome? Ginger Rogers in Stage Door (1937).

You know who else is awesome? EVERYONE IN STAGE DOOR.

Seriously, what a freakin’ all star cast. Katharine, Ginger, Lucy, and Baby Ann Miller to boot! I’ve never quite been one for the Ann Miller DANCE FACE, but damn can that gal tap up a storm. Know who else can tap up a storm? ONE GINGER ROGERS. Only she, and the greatness that is the movie Stage Door, could turn this costume for a magician’s assistant into a theatrically charming, strikingly sassy, and androgynously progressive performance ensemble. What else does this scream if not “Pre-Janelle Monae, By A Good 70-Something Years”? Plus, SPARKLE! Dance outfits just do not exemplify proper showmanship if they do not have enough sparkle.* Furthermore, her expressionistic face-off with Gail Patrick in this number is ACES. What a great way to say “WELCOME TO STAGE DOOR, WHERE THE FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS ARE COMPLICATED AND AWESOME.” We love this movie.

*The Sparkle Principle also applies to figure skating. Do you know why Kim Yu-na so dominated on the Olympic ice in 2010? Talent, and grace, and charisma, and maturity, and practice, and effectively perfection, but mostly: SPARKLES. Please refer to her James Bond costume for an illustrative example. Note that Mao Asada, who had an otherwise powerhouse, triple-axel-laden set of routines, barely displayed ANY SPARKLES in her antique courtesan costumes, and where did she end up? A disproportionately distant silver. That one singled jump didn’t put her that far back, I’m telling you — something else was at work: COSTUME POLITICS.

Ginger Rogers Meets Fashion Week: Balenciaga Resort 2014 vs....

callmeabsurd — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 02:05:49 -0700

Ginger Rogers Meets Fashion Week:

Balenciaga Resort 2014 vs. Roberta (1935)

Ok, call me crazy, but does the Balenciaga kind of look like a deranged, postmodern version of Ginger’s “Dress of the Ultimate Poofs” from Roberta? Not that either look contains a whole lot of sense to begin with. (What they DO each contain is a hilarious hat. Bless.)

MONOCLE APPRECIATION POST.

callmeabsurd — Wed, 08 May 2013 16:54:48 -0700

MONOCLE APPRECIATION POST.

HELLO. I am Irene Malvern, High Priestess of Week-End at the...

callmeabsurd — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:29:00 -0700

HELLO.

I am Irene Malvern, High Priestess of Week-End at the Waldorf. HEAR MY DIGNIFIED ROAR.

Let’s just start off by saying…what Ginger wore here is a HAIR-RING, people. I didn’t even know those existed. It’s almost like Glamorous Irene said to herself “Earrings worn in ears? Tosh! How horribly conventional. I WILL PUT ONE IN MINE HAIR.” (That is not at all how she talks in the movie - don’t worry.) As if her hair twist wasn’t already elaborate enough!

But I suppose this is how supreme actresses must dress in order to fully assert their power, and Irene Malvern is not here to disappoint. She pretty much out-dresses everyone in this movie on a scale of 100:1. This makes sense, because she is playing a high-profile film star — and also, the other main characters are all men. Except for her maid. And Lana Turner. But poor Lana Turner is forced to play a secretary, named BUNNY, and thus is left to office garb, dreams of the Park Avenue life, and TERRIBLE chopped-off-Marie-Antoinette hair. Seriously, what a curse that hair is. I really feel for beautiful Lana Turner in this movie. It’s twice as insulting when you compare her unfortunate hairdo to the truly elaborate updos Ginger gets to work with in almost every scene, so much so that I wonder if Wardrobe specifically wanted hair to be the focal point, like all of Irene’s queenly power was invested atop her head in a naturally-derived crown.

Lest we believe that, though, Wardrobe reminds us that Irene is Queen not only through her magnificent hair dids:

…but also her BLING! Look at that bracelet! What is it? It looks like the clockfaces of several watches strung together to be The Ultimate Wrist Accessory, but I don’t know. It could just be full of giant gemstones. Either way, we would not be disappointed.

Also, I’m pretty sure Wardrobe does not want us to ignore her actual clothes:

…which are fabulous and oh so elegant. Just look at that soft draping around her chest and waist compared with that sharp shoulder frame. The ensemble is punctuated and floaty all at once (she may have a mild genie pants situation going on - it’s hard to tell as she drifts so ethereally throughout these scenes), and it’s just so perfectly structured and effortless in every way. Irene, I know you were just complaining to your manager that fame and money aren’t everything, yadda yadda, but can I still have your life? Thanks.

theclutteredclassicattic: Ginger Rogers, 1930s Another...

callmeabsurd — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:24:39 -0700

theclutteredclassicattic:

Ginger Rogers, 1930s

Another beautiful photographic rendition of G’s curiously sexy LBD from her Shall We Dance verbal/sartorial showdown with everyone’s favorite gay uncle, Arthur. She’s quite the statuesque doll in this portrait, isn’t she?

Ginger Rogers as Beatrice Page, Pat Crowley as Sally Carver, and...

henriettabrown — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:59:00 -0700

Ginger Rogers as Beatrice Page, Pat Crowley as Sally Carver, and lots of my feelings in Forever Female (1953).

Here is my conflict: in the divine Forever Female, the way that Ginger Rogers and little Pat Crowley are styled is very interesting. There is definitely some cool age, class, taste, etc. stuff going on here. Plus, we here at What Ginger Wore just love to compare things. And yet…I just can’t bring myself to go ahead and compare these outfits, or the others in this movie. And the reason is sort of embarrassing and needs a disclaimer (haha, no it doesn’t, but for my own peace of mind – DISCLAIMER TIME.)

Okay, generally I am not an enemy of, for lack of a better term, the Other Girl. The woman you are supposed to hate in practically every other TV show, movie, etc. You know her, I’m sure. Anyway, I almost always LOVE HER! Favorite character from the Sound of Music? The Baroness. Favorite character from Singing in the Rain? The divine and deeply sympathetic Lina Lamont. I like the Other Girls in Ginger and Fred movies – Fred’s fiancée Margaret in Swingtime and his sexy ambiguously-Russian ballerina stalker Denise from Shall We Dance are A-OK by me! Margaret seems fun, and I forgive Denise for the reasonable urge to stalk Fred Astaire, plus her clothes are great and she turns out to be a pretty good sport for a stalker (I also just love her a lot). I like Other Girls! Heck, I even like BETTY DRAPER ON MAD MEN! No one likes her! I DO.

So all this build up is to confess – I happen to kind of HATE HATE HATE WITH A PASSION little Pat Crowley’s Other Girl character in Forever Female! She is the worst! She doesn’t ruin the movie for me, but every scene she’s in makes me fervently want the movie to go all slasher-horror. Why the hate? I will list some reasons, but bear in mind – I now have to fast forward through her scenes, so undoubtedly some of her heinous crimes will be left out.

1) Almost every scene she’s in, she puts down the lead heroine for being a) too old for a part, b) not young, and therefore not sexy, c) just generally daring to be another woman.

2) She clings to a man who clearly states multiple times that he doesn’t like her, at one point coming to a rehearsal of his play and CRYING at him.

3) She HAS A CATCHPHRASE! It is putting SIAMESE before another word. If that isn’t bad enough, she explains that she invented it so PEOPLE WOULD NOTICE HER.

4) Now I’m just angry.

5) Deep breathes.

Okay, she is supposed to be young and annoying. But I think we are supposed feel something other than blind rage towards her. Here, the movie fails by setting her against the beautiful, charming Ginger Rogers in a particularly intelligent and sympathetic role. It’s a bit of an actress fail too – though Pat Crowley is a lovely and promising actress who (ironically) got better as she got older. But she was AWFULLY young (early, early 20’s) when she played this part, and she doesn’t have the acting chops of the other experienced and charming leads. And you can’t help but NOTICE this, especially when she’s going on about her amazing acting abilities.

I think another reason for my strong dislike for Pat Crowley’s character is that in many ways, she isn’t a proper Other Girl. Her salient characteristics – young, naïve, overenthusiastic – is typical of lots of female protagonists. Just think Sound of Music! In fact, Ginger Rogers’ Beatrice has a lot in common with the Baroness – a beautiful, sophisticated, older woman who has a lot more power than her younger romantic rival. Part of my love for this particular role of Ginger’s is her character archetype would usually make her the Other Girl. Doesn’t the Other Girl deserve to win, just this once? GO AWAY, PAT!

And, to prove that Ginger Rogers plays an Other Girl in lead role clothing; and Pat Crowley is the female protagonist of my nightmares: I give you, finally, clothes (escorted by one William Holden).

See! This is what I’m talking about. Both are in white outfits while making a public appearance. And just look how flouncy and 50’s and virginal Pat’s is! I mean, it is the 50’s, so it isn’t unfashionable, but the whole thing is quite girlish and demure. She is in the bridal dress the innocent heroine wears at the end of the movie, with a simple, almost veil-like shawl over her shoulders. The comparison to Ginger is especially striking, as Ginger is dressed for an actual engagement announcement, yet comes across as FIERCE TO THE MAX. Even when she takes the furs off, the dress is so well designed! It could come across as robe-like if not so perfectly fitted. But instead it is deceptively sexy, elegant without seeming to try, and crazy flattering on her. If any outfit screams, “older woman of the world who knows how to dress herself,” it is this outfit.

(Join us next time, for another exciting episode of: “Every Single One of My Many Passionate Feelings About Forever Female!” or as we call it around here “ESOOMMPFAFF!”)

Speaking of In Person, here is a much more glorious photographic...

callmeabsurd — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:46:37 -0700

Speaking of In Person, here is a much more glorious photographic impression of Ginger’s Disney Princess kitchen ballgown than what we were able to capture from our secondhand video film.

Ginger Rogers as Carol Corliss in In Person (1935). At first...

callmeabsurd — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:38:00 -0700

Ginger Rogers as Carol Corliss in In Person (1935).

At first glance, you’d probably see these PJ’s and go “What a darling little outfit! A tailored satin shirtwaist over pants, which also happens to have some lovely delicate piping on the seams that makes it all quite streamlined! Elegant enough for Movie Star Carol Corliss, but still casual enough for sensible sleepwear!” Carol / Ginger looks so fresh-faced and happy, you get the sense she must really be enjoying her peaceful woodsy retreat, all tucked away from the demanding lifestyle of Celebrity, right? She can just spend the morning lounging around in a set of immaculately constructed pajamas! What a welcome reprieve from her party clothes that must be so binding!

But then we remember…a) Carol Corliss is not Cher Horowitz of Clueless, who, like any modern gal, indeed finds party clothes VERY binding, and b) you can’t take the Actress out of the girl, no matter where she goes. That is a lady strutting around a cabin in pajamas and HEELS, my friends. SHE LITERALLY ROLLS OUT OF BED INTO A PAIR OF HEELS. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Now, ok — while this is completely laughable, I also find it kind of admirable. I mean, I can’t even pull myself together enough to put on a pair of slippers before I leave my bedroom, let alone real shoes. And if we’re getting real, I can barely wear heels to actual EVENTS (I attribute this to the fact that I may be sort of flat-footed? I mean, when I took dance back in the day, I thought I had an okay arch when I pointed my feet, but, far from being a prima ballerina, I couldn’t really tell, and my teacher, far from being someone who would ever want to drive teenage girls towards Body Issues, didn’t really care. There’s also the little fact that I was an early adolescent who was really more concerned about things like geometry and whether the Lakers could pull off a three-peat than reshaping the growth and development of my feet. All I’m saying is, being flat-footed would certainly explain why I cannot handle shoes with ANY arch formation AT ALL, which I guess isn’t that big a deal — except for maybe that time I really wanted those Pumas everyone had in middle school, that was a BIG DEAL). My point is, what you have just read is but the introduction to my ongoing memoir Troubles with Heels: A Blogger’s Life, and here we have Carol just nonchalantly slipping into them to commemorate the act of waking up. I am supremely envious. Girl definitely takes diva footwear consciousness to a whole new level.

…Your move, Beyonce.

Ginger Rogers as Peggy in Twenty Million Sweethearts...

henriettabrown — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:15:00 -0700

Ginger Rogers as Peggy in Twenty Million Sweethearts (1934).

Ginger plays the world’s chillest and most rational girlfriend in Twenty Million Sweethearts – and wears the clothes to match. Which is to say; perhaps not the most scintillating costumes, though her outfits are attractive and appropriate. That said, I do like her hat here,* which is a good date hat. It looks smart without looking too goody-goody, which is a risk that can befall competent people. And though subtly effective clothes are less fun than sequins and bows and ha-cha-cha-cha, they are also harder to put together. Point being: I like the hat. I respect the hat. Finis.

*Her facial expressions are even better; her look on the right still perfectly expresses “your manager is an obfuscating weasel and you are too clueless to notice.”

Ginger Rogers as Donna Mantin in Star of Midnight (1935). G...

henriettabrown — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:23:00 -0800

Ginger Rogers as Donna Mantin in Star of Midnight (1935).

G busts into this movie all brash and heiress-like, and at first sight, I was disappointed. I was promised G as a spoiled society dame dressed by Bernard Newman! Why was she in a black sack?

But, dear reader, you will be happy to learn that there is a point to the shapeless sack coat! For G’s coat, much like Gretchen Wiener’s big hair ….is shapeless because it’s full of secrets.

For yes, we soon learn that G is a spoiled society dame with the good instincts to fall in love with William Powell at his most dapper. But…what else do we know? Can we trust her? Why is her coat so huge and shapeless? Is that oversized white bow a scarf or part of the ensemble? How did she get mixed up with gangsters? Why must William Powell retrieve mysterious letters from a gangster’s lair? LITERALLY: who is that masked woman?

It takes sophistication to make a costume that reflects a character’s personality. This coat does that, and beyond, creating mystery simply in being. A mystery coat for a mystery movie! Shapeless sack coat: I salute you.

PS: I love this movie so much! William Powell, Ginger Rogers, high society mysteries, gangsters, and mysterious masked women, are delightful on their own, and when put together - it is basically my personal dopamine hit. Why are movies from the 30’s the VERY BEST?

What happened to fuckyeahgingerandfred's tumblr?

callmeabsurd — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 17:23:58 -0800

Fear not! She’s simply trying out a url change — she’s fuckyeahfredandginger.tumblr.com for the moment. Same tumblr, same awesomeness :)

Ginger Rogers as Madge Rountree (ROUNTREE! What kind of a name...

callmeabsurd — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:25:00 -0800

Ginger Rogers as Madge Rountree (ROUNTREE! What kind of a name is ROUNTREE? (No offense if your name is, in fact, Rountree)) in Change of Heart (1934).

I figured I would enjoy this movie right off the bat when one of the very first scenes, right after Ginger and a group of her close friends graduate from college, was devoted to a significant discussion of the phrase “hot mama.” What constitutes a hot mama? What sort of girl might YOU call a “hot mama”? (asks Janet Gaynor suggestively to her best friend / unrequited love Charles Farrell), and so on. Sadly, Charles Farrell, being a college-aged boy, also has the emotional sensitivity of one, and quite vocally bestows the “hot mama” label not upon Janet Gaynor, the girl by his side who is madly in love with him, but instead upon her best girl friend (ouch) — none other than OUR LADY GINGER. While one does feel a little bad for Janet Gaynor…does this movie have it right, or what? Within minutes of starting, it has already explicitly verbalized that Ginger is a hot mama!* Combine this characterization with a plot centered around the twentysomething post-collegiate experience in the Big City during a time of vast unemployment, and you’ve got yourself a movie full of universal truth.

As it turns out, Janet Gaynor more than holds her own as the lead in this movie, and Ginger’s character is set up to actually make you disinclined to like her (playing the role that is supposed to disrupt Charles Farrell’s and Janet Gaynor’s onscreen relationship is hard), but until that becomes clear, let’s examine how Ginger earned her covetous “hot mama” status, shall we? I’ve decided it’s because she looks pretty fetching even in a graduation robe. Madge is seen complaining to her mother after the ceremony that she wishes the robes fit better, because they are obviously cramping her flirting style. It’s sort of comforting to know that the shapeless sacks we have to wear as graduation robes today have essentially not changed since the 1930’s. It is also comforting to know that someone in the 1930’s could be seen as a hot mama when wearing said robe on top of an overwrought gown with a giant waistbow-sash and what appears to be an externalized crinoline petticoat. I wish the same could apply today.

*Also, I’d like to commend this movie for naming Ginger’s character Madge, because that is definitely NOT your typical hot mama name. It is your typical sassy dame name, a name for your Helen Brodericks, etc. (Not that Helen Broderick isn’t a hot mama! It’s precisely BECAUSE she owns that name so well in Top Hat that I don’t want anyone else to have it in the movies ever. But I suppose this film has made me see otherwise…)

Ginger Rogers as Kitty Foyle in Kitty Foyle (1940). Kitty...

henriettabrown — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:13:00 -0800

Ginger Rogers as Kitty Foyle in Kitty Foyle (1940).

Kitty Foyle’s experiences are not universal - in fact, part of the point of this movie is that they are somewhat new - but as a 21^st century 20ish-something working lady, I find her less dramatic issues quite relatable. If I haven’t had her exact experience, a friend has complained about it. (See: I moved to a big city, and it is hard. My job is okay. My boyfriend’s family is made up exclusively of manipulative assholes, and it might be a dealbreaker).

So I like these little scenes when I can go: “oh yeah, don’t forget this is a movie made during and about the forties, and everything ever was SUPER DIFFERENT!”* And I mean, this is a tiny scene (seconds, barely) but does reveal something about the era. Kitty Foyle is in school, training to get a good secretarial job and is wearing pigtails and a demure dress that resembles a schoolgirl’s uniform. And the whole outfit is flashed on screen without irony or comment. And…it is just so very different from how things are now. College, regardless of whether it is a university, junior college, a trade school, whatever, is seen as a step towards the adult world; you may not wear adult clothes, but you transition out of your school uniform, for goodness sakes. And this – I actually don’t want to make too big a deal of what it means, because it is such a tiny scene, and whatnot -- but this is a different version of what it means to go to school and receive training for the adult world. Kitty Foyle is in a different place, somewhere closer to childhood, someplace where you can wear pigtails without any sort of irony. It is neat – there are so many huge changes since the 40’s (Technology! Civil rights! Heck, the fact that it is supposed to be possible for someone who isn’t a male of western European ancestry to hold a position of power), that smaller changes get lost. It might have never occurred to me if I hadn’t seen Kitty Foyle wearing sincere pigtails and banging away at a typewriter that this sort of thing had ever been different.

WELL DONE, KITTY FOYLE.

*You’d think the fact that I am watching a black and white movie starring exclusively dead actors would remind me, but, well….no. I get very swept up!

Can we talk about how much we love this image right now?...

callmeabsurd — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:20:57 -0800

Can we talk about how much we love this image right now? It’s like an awkward Flying Down to Rio yearbook group photo.

THESE ARE FANTASTIC.

callmeabsurd — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:37:49 -0800

THESE ARE FANTASTIC.

Ginger Rogers as Beatrice Page and Paul Douglas as Henry...

henriettabrown — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:46:00 -0800

Ginger Rogers as Beatrice Page and Paul Douglas as Henry Phillips in Forever Female (1953).

Ginger wears this coat twice, which I like for narrative continuity purposes. It is comforting to know that even fancy Broadway stars wear an item of clothing more than once. I always get annoyed when I’m watching TV and the characters are supposed to be poor, yet they’re constantly wearing different coats. Coats are expensive - so unless there is an awkward line about thrifting, they should wear the same one! Anyway, Beatrice Page could wear a bunch of different coats and it would be fine - she’s rich, yo - but in theory, I am all for wearing an item of clothing twice.

But the second time she wears this coat, it makes no sense. The movie has established that it is the middle of summer in New England. And, for those unfamiliar with the middle of summer in New England: it is hot, humid, and full of bugs. I love coats, and love this coat – so dramatic! Checks and big sleeves, and it sort of looks like a cape, which I like! But I would never wear this in the summer, not unless I wanted to sweat a bucket and faint.

And Ginger! I know she is supposed to be getting older, and that is the point of the movie, but she is only supposed to be MIDDLE-AGED! Not eighty! If anything, she would be getting hot flashes from menopause. She must be miserable. She even looks miserable!

Look at Paul Douglas, giving Ginger a confused look. Dude: you GAVE her the coat! Remember when you handed it to her? When she collapses from heat stroke it will be YOUR FAULT. Or at least aiding and abetting! That’s all I’m saying.

HELL YES 42ND STREET FEATHERS. is what I said, out loud, to no...

callmeabsurd — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:11:47 -0800

HELL YES 42ND STREET FEATHERS.

is what I said, out loud, to no one, when I first saw this photo. I just LOVE this Anytime Annie outfit SO MUCH, despite the fact that Ginger is wearing it in the scene that I am most frustrated with in all of 42nd Street. This is my problem: throughout the movie, Anytime Annie is basically seen sauntering through life as if the 1930’s version of “NA NA NA DIVA IS A FEMALE VERSION OF A HUSTLA” is her personal soundtrack. And she has every right to. As one can see from the hints of Ginger’s star potential in this supporting character role, Annie has the sass, the talent, and the equally wisecracking fellow blondie bestie in Lorraine (UNA MERKEL) by her side to pull off that sort of persona.

BUT, when we get to this particular scene, in which Annie is (kind of by default) offered to fill in for the lead in a show, I’m all “YES! ANNIE GET YOUR GUN!” (Not literally, of course. I wish.) BUT instead of snatching up the role with glee, Annie is all “Wow guys, I totally have been waiting for this kind of role since I was in the womb, but goshdarnit if I just can’t pull it off. You know who would be EVEN BETTER? That new kid out there who has notoriously been having trouble in rehearsal! SHE’S sure got the chops!”

Now, if I hadn’t already known the very obvious plot of 42nd Street (Saccharine Ingenue Comes Out of Nowhere, Nabs Leading Role in X Broadway Show), at this point I would be going “WHAAAAAAAAT.” Annie should not be acting sweet and selfless at a time like this! She needs to seize the moment and be the diva she was born to be! DISCONTENT. But one must admit that Annie’s recommendation for the role, Li’l Miss Peggy Sawyer (appropriately played by Li’l Miss Ruby Keeler), does have an unflagging sense of earnestness (which is, god, SO ANNOYING) and is innocent and nonthreatening and just willing to work her darndest and apparently brimming with layers of unforeseen talent (?), meaning she would more likely work willingly / simperingly with a domineering, probably hypertensive director in the pressure situation they’ve got going on. Now, I personally would prefer having a plucky 1930’s gal with some moxie at my side to pull off a performance of this magnitude, but if you don’t want to be sassed out at the eleventh hour (sure, she annoys the crew, but what proper diva doesn’t?), I guess Anytime Annie might not be your girl.

At the very least, my one consolation about this GRAVE CASTING ERROR* (seriously, I would have been a way better show director than Julian Marsh) is that Anytime Annie usually gets far better clothes than Peggy throughout the movie. Just look at this portrait of fabulosity here! HER HEAD IS LITERALLY FLOATING ON A BED OF FEATHERS. She’s attempting a flashy sort of elegance (compensating for a relatively plain — but still stylish! — winter dress by misguidedly over-accessorizing to the MAX) that strikes this oddly amazing balance between ostentatious and minimalist.

Just look at that pose! I tend to regard Annie as some sort of undercover fashion genius masquerading as a dancer, for her ability to manufacture this complex a trademark “look” for herself on a Depression-era showgirl’s salary. (With maybe JUST a bit of help from a Guy Kibbee sugar daddy along the way, of course.) Suffice it to say, Anytime Annie is truly making it work. Golly, Tim Gunn would be so proud!

Although…if Tim Gunn saw any Project Runway designer actually making something like this, I bet this is how it would go down:

Tim (furrowing his brow): Just be careful this doesn’t turn into a COSTUME. Think of the judges.

Designer: Well, Tim, I was actually going for an AVANT-GARDE sort of look, like a HYPERBOLIC REINTERPRETATION of the Classic Hollywood Femme. See? It’s ironic.

Tim: How is that irony?

Designer: Retro is the new zeitgeist.

Tim (distraught): I’m going to be honest with you - all I hear is Michael Kors saying “It LOOKS LIKE you made an AIRPLANE NECK PILLOW FOR A DRAG QUEEN out of AN EMU.”

Designer: But —

Tim: Take a minute. Edit yourself. I think, if you just explore this concept of volume, but in a more innovative and interesting way, you’ll find it.

Designer: Okay, but —

Tim: DON’T BORE NINA. Because you will get pregnant, and die.

Designer: Tim, I just want to stay TRUE to my VISION: New-Wave Pre-Code Showgirl in the Wintertime!

Tim: (sighs, knowing that Busby Berkeley wins, every time)

*If you, like us, have a problem with this movie / plotline choosing Peggy over Annie (which turns out to be frickin’ Ruby Keeler being chosen over Ginger), take comfort, as we have, in remembering that Ginger’s ubiquitous stardom is IMMINENT following this film! I mean, think about it — Ruby’s career is essentially peaking through 1933-34, while GINGER in 1933 is all “oh by the way THIS PLACE ABOUT TO BLOW and by this place I mean MY CAREER.” She’s just on the heels of the Carioca and the Continental and scores of pretty dresses and beautiful music and dangerous rhythm for years to come. Ain’t that exciting? We sure think so. It’s the only thing that reassures us enough to watch 42nd Street through to the excellent finale number.

150+ TUMBLR FOLLOWERS!

callmeabsurd — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:00:00 -0800

This is a LOT for us, guys. We’re really, really excited by the presence of each and every one of you! To celebrate, we kind of want to answer/steal a question from fuckyeahgingerandfred’s ask box, because it is too much fun to resist:

If you had to pick an absolute favourite dance, which one would you pick? — Anonymous

[fuckyeahgingerandfred]: “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes,” definitely. It’s the first romantic duet Fred ever choreographed for the two of them, and basically is a love letter in dance form. It’s sublime, more romantic than any words could ever express, particularly the part where he lays her head on his shoulder and walks with her. Swoon-worthy, really.

I know nobody technically asked us, but we’re going to go ahead and add our answers to the pile anyway:

henriettabrown: By the time this is posted, it will be a LIE because my favorite dance changes, constantly. So. At this moment in time, my favorite is “Never Gonna Dance.” Even on the days when it isn’t my favorite, I think it amazing for its emotional range. Taking the relationship in Swingtime and distilling it to a 4-minute dance makes it the Annie Hall of dances, which is a neat trick. But what impresses me is how effective it is. In a short time, it moves through longing, togetherness, passion, and ends on a note of romantic despair that turns the goofy comedy of Swingtime into grand romantic tragedy. And it is SO BEAUTIFUL. Ginger’s gorgeous flowing silvery dress, the beautiful art deco set - when they both start twisting up the double stairs, it makes me gasp.

And yeah, tomorrow it’ll be “I’ll Be Hard to Handle” or something.

callmeabsurd: I have to go with “Let’s Face the Music and Dance” (but note that something like THE CARIOCA is probably a close second). In terms of pure affect, it is the number that has the most significant impact on me, EVERY TIME. I should probably attribute some of that to the music itself (oh Irving Berlin, what you do to me), but gosh, this dance is such a perfect dark fantasy counterpart to the heavenly fantasy of “Cheek to Cheek”, isn’t it? I suppose it is sort of strange that my “favorite” dance has F&G acting the most out of character, on a set within a set, and practically at their most solemn and statuesque. But! I think that is the magic underlying this number — F&G’s ability to make me love them in a cinematic mood and crafted environment that is such a departure from their usual “realm”. The whole piece has this otherworldly, highly internal sense of drama that ever so gracefully escalates through their dancing. Ugh, what a masterpiece.

What would you choose as YOUR absolute favorite dance of F&G, readers?

fuckyeahgingerandfred: Fred “Bedroom Eyes” Astaire and Ginger...

callmeabsurd — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:12:40 -0800

fuckyeahgingerandfred:

Fred “Bedroom Eyes” Astaire and Ginger Rogers do their dance. This is such a hot piece of choreography.

VERY NECESSARY CARIOCA SIDESTEP APPRECIATION POST.