当电影开始时,那首熟悉的音乐就想起.我原先以为是David会和Sabrina在一起,其实不然,而是另外的一段更为佳话.
也许正是因为这一切一切世俗世界所带给人们的利益与障碍之间的冲突,才使得所有的至情在这些利益和障碍面前如此不堪一击.人们为了自己的所得却做着不得不做的事情.可惜一旦真的感情来了,其实是挡也挡不住的.电影教我们如何做到让自己的心不后悔,而在现实中,也许我们就学会了电影教给我们的那一套,也许,我们也只是在心里想一想.
我想,所有的女孩们都会坐着类似于灰姑娘的梦,在这里,灰姑娘的名字不再是辛德瑞拉,而是Sabrina.每个灰姑娘都在等待王子带他们逃离人间的那一刹那,去一个没有人看见他们的地方,享受只属于他们彼此的眼神.也许灰姑娘还有一点独到之处,就是他知道这个世界的残酷性以至于到失望的来临她谁也不怨,只是默默地离开,默默地承受.当然,童话故事里,王子会不忍,于是就又回去找灰姑娘,和她过上了幸福的生活.而现实呢?也许这样的王子不复存在吧.
我们都在船上等待那个人.我真希望这个世界还会有童话,会有那样的王子值得等待,否则,这个世界还会有什么呢?

        我们尝试将1954年出品的《龙凤配》和1962年出品的好莱坞爱情类型片中的经典影片《窈窕淑女》进行一个涉及意识形态层面的文本对比阅读，是否能够更为清楚的认识一个好莱坞语境中的比利•怀尔德。
        两部影片在叙事文本上均貌似严格的遵守着爱情类型的条条框框，在情节模式上都不约而同地选择了“灰姑娘”的经典本文。法兰克福的理论家们，将文化工业导致的类型化指认为“通过广大无阶级性的新神话，强有力地援助了收编工人阶级的进程，并且更加紧密的将工人阶级与发财致富的信念结合起来。” 这句话默认了好莱坞电影在意识形态上的资产阶级立场和中产阶级道德。建立在这种理论的指导上，我们是否可以对两部影片的阶级性立场进行审视，从叙事中挖掘其意识形态运作的不同方式和迥异方向。
        两部影片讲述的都是一个底层阶级的女性，如何与中产阶级男性结合。这其中的决定性事件都是她们被塑造，导致了身份的改变。而身份的改变致使她们进入了中产阶级的生活之中。这种身份的可移动性，被文化研究学者们认为是大多数工业社会阶级系统的特征。然而，我们需要审视的是，这两部影片中，底层人民身份改变的方式是不一样的。《窈窕淑女》的伊利莎，因为语言学家和一个资本家兼贵族玩笑般的打赌而被中产阶级塑造，继而进入到了中产阶级的生活中，这就是说，底层阶级如果希望改变自己的身份，必须等待中产阶级的塑造。而伊利莎改变身份的动机，既是赤裸裸的来自于对中产阶级生活的向往。而伊利莎父亲的身份改变，更是神化了中产阶级的作用，语言学家又是开玩笑的一句话，又使这个游手好闲穷的叮当响的父亲成为了“英国最优秀的道德家”，得到周围人的追捧（过去他是个人人讨厌的混蛋）。这其中的讽刺意味是直指底层人民的。但身份改变的事实，却给予中产阶级以改变和塑造底层人民的权力。
        而在《龙凤配》中，同样存在一个塑造的过程。但区别于《窈窕淑女》的是，这种身份改变的动机，是来自于女主角莎布琳娜对于中产阶级男青年大卫的爱情。她遵父命去法国学习厨艺，在法国被一个男爵塑造。这个塑造的过程在叙事中被省略，被看作一场偶遇和机缘。法国和男爵在这里扮演的角色具有深意，比利怀尔德借助欧洲和贵族阶层，是否在用一种更为古典的方式，消解中产阶级的权力？
        这意味着我们需要从叙事层面对影片的阶级状况进行分析。两部影片中都有两个被严格区分的世界。在《窈窕淑女》中，这两个世界之间只存在底层阶级对中产阶级世界的闯入，但两个世界彼此之间是不可见的。《龙凤配》中，两个世界因为主仆关系的设置，在空间位置上并不存在区分，这种区分是象征性的。不可见被打破，底层阶级的视点被承认，中产阶级的生活作为一个舞台被底层阶级观察。这种观察在两次舞会中显现得最为明确。在开片的舞会中，草丛作为象征性的界限，莎布琳娜躲在草丛后窥视着舞会上的大卫；而在第二次舞会中，莎布琳娜进入到了这场舞会中，仆人们躲在草丛后继承了这个窥视的视点。阶级划分被认为是想象性的，作为司机的父亲严格遵守这种划分，他告诉莎布琳娜“不要伸手斋月”。而颠覆性的台词是莎布琳娜的回答：“现在月要摘我了。”当想象性的阶级划分不复存在，底层人民才能够真正进入到中产阶级的世界里，这是比利怀尔德的颠覆性处理之一。即赋予底层阶级以主动性，尽管这种主动性是建立在爱情基础上的。但在《窈窕淑女》中，伊利莎连争取爱情的主动都是不存在的。
        这种主动与被动的问题涉及到了所谓的“闯入”。《窈窕淑女》中的伊利莎对中产阶级世界的第一次闯入是混乱而惊恐的，她对这个世界充满敌意，这整个闯入被表现为不伦不类，这种不伦不类被一直延续到伊利莎的父亲的闯入。他在语言学家家中的表现是“不道德”，并且唯利是图的。但语言学家的表现充满了克制，他不但给钱，且用一句话就让其父一步登天。整个影片的过程，可以看作是中产阶级帮助底层阶级女青年消除“闯入”的过程。伊利莎被语言学家逼迫学习“发音”。这种逼迫被表现为苦口婆心的。当她的发音终于标准之后，伊利莎便成功进入了中产阶级甚至贵族世界。两个世界的隔阂，被简单看作是“发音”带来的。在英国，发音被看作一个显著的身份标志，但在影片中，这个标志被简单化为身份改变的充分条件。这种简单化的背后是否含有更多的意识形态企图，即制造一个并非事实的幻觉，底层阶级想要改变身份是容易的，只需要好好练习自己的发音就可以了。阶级对立被简单化为生活方式的对立，并且中产阶级立场将这种对立建构为“底层阶级的语言是粗俗的”。这其中隐含的中产阶级道德和意识形态是赤裸而隐晦的，并且对于下层观众存在反动的询唤功能。
        而《龙凤配》中，阶级对立从未消除，莎布琳娜的“闯入”从未消解。即使她被成功塑造，成为一个“淑女”，如同所有类型片一样惊艳的来到舞会上，仍然被中产阶级玩弄。比利怀尔德意欲表现的，根本就不是阶级的消除，他根本不相信阶级是可以消除的。他始终在表现的是中产阶级家族内部的危机。所以另一个意义上的“闯入”发生了，赖恩斯因为家族利益阻止大卫与莎布琳娜的爱情，成为大卫和莎布琳娜之间的闯入者，而大卫因为赖恩斯以自己为交换品，两次闯入赖恩斯的办公室。这个意义上的闯入是比利怀尔德关注的话题。中产阶级成为观众的观看对象。如同片中莎布琳娜对于他们的观看一样。
        《窈窕淑女》将爱情的到来看作是塑造完成的结果，语言学家陈述自己爱上伊利莎的理由：“我很高兴，我将你变得自信了。”这种爱情可以被看作是一个画家对于自己作品的爱，一个生物学家对于自己克隆出来的羊的爱。影片的结尾部分是伊利莎的游走，她不满于语言学家将她作为一个作品般欣赏，离家出走。但她发现自己已经无法回到原来的阶级中，原来与自己载歌载舞的人们告诉她：“小姐，你不应该来这儿。”这种刻意的设置是中产阶级对于下层世界的想象性描述，这种无法交流被刻意放大。在这里，伊利莎面临的困境是身份的模糊。语言学家的人口报失并不能够说明伊利莎的身份，伊利沙也无法明确自己的身份，她似乎不再属于下层世界，只好回到中产阶级的世界里捉迷藏，并且最终回到语言学家身边，以完美爱情收尾。一切都是在中产阶级的掌握之中，这就是完美爱情的真相。
        《龙凤配》的爱情发展却是产生于中产阶级内部的争斗中，赖恩斯在阻止大卫与莎布琳娜的过程中爱上了莎布琳娜，但出于家族的利益他必须将莎布琳娜送回法国。莎布琳娜则选择同时放弃这两个人，回到巴黎。法国在这里成为了莎的归属，这里除了爱情的困顿并不存在其他的困境，莎布琳娜不像伊利莎无处可去，她将法国作为自己最后的归属。但最后结局的意义在于，中产阶级两兄弟被莎布琳娜改变，宣称不结婚的赖恩斯终于放手追求爱情，花花公子大卫却决定为家族利益担负责任。莎布琳娜成为了解决中产阶级家族危机的关键因素。
        但事实上，解决这一切的是法国男爵，他对于莎布琳娜的塑造是改变这一切的关键因素。而在这里，问题被重新提出，对于比利怀尔德，欧洲和巴黎，究竟意味着什么，男爵的身份设置，又说明了什么。比利怀尔德否认中产阶级对下层人民具有塑造的能力，这无疑打破了好莱坞类型电影的意识形态诉求，但他又选择一个标准的类型片文本，这本质上形成了一种分裂。类型电影始终被看作一种使用大众传播手段使不平等合法化的方式，是让“从属阶级安心于其从属阶级地位”。而好莱坞电影工业的工业特制和资本来源，就决定了其必须维护以华尔街高层为代表的大资产阶级和最广大的中产阶级的利益。这本是无须质疑的。《窈窕淑女》的意识形态运作方式正是完整的陈述了这一套道德：中产阶级有能力塑造下层人民，使他们进入到中产阶级队伍中，并获得完美爱情。而以另一套主体进行表述，即下层人民可以通过中产阶级的塑造，成为中产阶级的一员，并获得中产阶级的完美爱情。这种仪式化的集体幻觉机制是几乎所有经典好莱坞类型的法宝。然而《龙凤配》一方面颠覆中产阶级的作用，转而呈现中产阶级内部的矛盾，一方面将塑造的能力和权力交给古典意义上的欧洲贵族。事实上，在二十世纪五十年代，欧洲贵族已经成为了一个名义上的特权阶级，这就是说，资本在这之中的能力被消解，这与好莱坞的道德是背道而驰的。塑造的权力被建立在不以资本为基础的名义上存在阶级手中，是否可以看作是比利怀尔德对于这个类型模式的本质上的的反讽呢？

比利怀德是个不会让人失望的导演，即使在《龙凤配》这种富家男与小资女终成眷属的cliche故事里，也能依然秉持他那种结合微妙讽喻与恰到好处的幽默的个人风格。在这部50年代的黑白片里，你可以饶有兴致地看着赫本换衣服与谈情说爱，并轻松愉悦地记住那些俏皮而充满智慧的小段落。

“不，是月亮在追着我”

法国归来的Sabrina的气质品位直线上升，当然这个麻雀变凤凰的过程被电影省略了，只见她明眸皓齿，穿戴修身得体的套装与帽子，旁边是精致的行李箱，手里牵着一条贵妇宠物犬。这个姑娘不在乎心上人有未婚妻，并坚信一切都不同了，阶级与婚约都不是问题，她坐在摇椅上开心地说，现在是月亮在追着我。

这是一句气质略高于通俗偶像剧，却又达不到女性觉醒高度的台词。语气之自然，让你会忍不住脑补到底是什么样的经历让她产生了这样的想法。这不失为对女性成熟自信的一种赞美，但后续情节的不匹配，却渐渐让突如其来的魅力失去了应有的锋芒。这种违和感构成了一种讽刺。如果每个人的改变都可以如此轻松和简单，也许如此突兀转变的角色只有高贵美丽的赫本才能让人接受，才能让人忘记独立与成长是个多么漫长艰辛的过程。

“ 我以为我长大了，但可能只是换了个发型而已。 ”

Sabrina通过回国前的书信，展示了自己的成长结果，她说我懂得了不再只作生活的旁观者，学会了如何参与生活，如何做自己。 如果电影将角色停留在这一刻，或者截止于回来后身穿纪梵希光彩照人的那一身行头，我将误以为这种蜕变会来的更彻底些。但新潮的发型与得体的裙子在现实中并不能让灰姑娘顺理成章地成为公主，她必须逃离原本的家园，且不说无缝融入权贵的家族关系，在路上时就要经过马车上颠簸，皇宫里奔跑。而穿平底鞋的赫本天生就是公主，这个角色并未给予她太多挑战的难度，Sabrina不知道自己会爱上什么样的人，念念不忘到巴黎的第一天一定要在大雨中不撑伞的浪漫，会为成熟男人回忆伤痛恋情而心动，轻率地接受邀约，会雀跃，黯然流泪，转身如天鹅般优雅地离开，却依旧有童话的完美结局。

比利怀德很好地照顾到了大众期待皆大欢喜的心态，设置了一些冲突，引申了一点励志，抖了几个包袱，规避了一部分现实，蜻蜓点水般借上一代之口说出了逾越阶级之难，又让适合扮演硬汉的亨弗莱·鲍嘉借角色之口抱怨着身为日理万机的中年企业家，却要和20岁出头的小姑娘谈恋爱这件事的荒谬性。这些小吐槽，连同小觉醒，在玫瑰色的爱情童话里，就像蛋糕上的跳跳糖，有些俏皮的异样，但终于融入甜腻。

   我前两天差点陷入一场网络骂战，主题是“奥黛丽赫本的演技”。其中有人提到她在《龙凤配》简直一副智商偏低的模样。首先表态，我无意深究你赫表演功力什么的（不过相信几次奥斯卡金球艾美不是水的），只是联系起刚看不久的《龙凤配》，顺带回顾赫本，以及对萨宾娜这个角色的一点看法：
  观众可以从多个角度解读萨宾娜这个人物，发生在她身上的事太多了！
  她多年暗恋戴维，后来和莱纳斯相处几日后移情别恋，速度之快把她自己都吓一跳。从这个层面来说，萨宾娜有绿茶表的潜质。
  但她同时也是受害者，一家人合伙欺骗感情，她深陷其中不自知。观众很容易被萨宾娜无心计、纯情少女的形象打动，这也是赫本形象最符合也展现最多的一面。
  更深一步看，萨宾娜对自己的感情一直很坚持，无视所有阶级身份，有反抗权威的意识。不管编导们有意无意，她身上有早期女权主义者的独立思想的影子。
  所以，虽然赫本把萨宾娜演成一个纯纯的甚至蠢蠢的角色，不如女权先锋那么亮瞎狗眼，最起码最起码，她没演成绿茶表。
（换句话说，中规中矩，起码没让观众讨厌）

研究生课程论文，引用请注明作者Yayi Mo

Film as a showcase, character as a mannequin: a Givenchy/Hepburn case study examining the interconnections of fashion and film

It is difficult to define fashion, for it often has a fascinating yet perplexing aura. Fashion is “intriguing and compulsive” (Craik, 1993, p1), but also is “arbitrary, transient, cyclical” (Baudrillard, 1998, p101), like Pandora’s box, filled with colours, fabrics and adornments, entangled with dress, clothing and style (Edwards, 2011, p1). As a category of discourse, fashion has social, psychological as well as filmic significance.

From the early twentieth century through the present day, film has been used as a vehicle to sell fashion and its connotations: elite ideologies, consumerist habits and lifestyles. Begins from 1910s, fashion film has developed from the primitive non-narrative catwalk show film to the storylines-based feature film (Bruzzi, 1997, p4). Ever since then, more and more haute couture designers started to enter the Hollywood film industry, such as Coco Chanel’s design for Palmy Days (1931), which has enriched and also complicated the interconnections between fashion and films (Bruzzi, 2010, p333) and has raised the questions about the differences between costume and haute couture design, and the relation between clothing and narrative in fashion films.

Stars and fashion icons effect is another widespread phenomenon of fashion film emerged during 1930s-50s. From the silent era to classic sound era, films especially Hollywood never stopped creating stars and icons to attract the audience. With the rise of fashion films, stars become more magical and powerful. “With stars, the fashion form shines in all its glory” (Kawamura, 2004, p57). The fashion stars were donning the most fashionable clothing designed by couturiers, and the icons-designers partnerships lead the fashion trend, they tell the audiences what to wear and what to desire. In addition to the significant collaborations between Adrian with Greta Garbo (Bruzzi, 2010, p334), and Grace Kelly’s association with Dior’s New Look (Andersson, 2012), in 1950s, there was the successful and distinguishing partnership between Paris couturier Hubert de Givenchy and Hollywood fashion icon Audrey Hepburn, which has “changed everything” (Bruzzi, 2010, p334). From the flawless Parisian wardrobe in both Sabrina (1954) and Funny Face (1957), to the little black dress (which created a fever of bateau necklines LBDs and even has its own Wikipedia page) in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961), Givenchy’s design for Hepburn in fashion films created a globe fashion trend, which demonstrates that fashion designers and icons has used films as a means to showcase their design and influence the in- and off-screen world.

The Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations not only play a distinguishing role in the historical development of fashion film but also have the sociological significance. In The Fashion System and The Language of Fashion, Roland Barthes dissects the semiology of clothing and fashion, he points out not only the linguistic nature of clothing but also social and cultural forms, which has been extended and developed by Baudrillard in The Consumer Society. According to Baudrillard, the logic of consumption is ‘a manipulation of signs’ (p115) and ‘the finest object’ in the consumer package is the body (p130). Baudrillard’s assertion can be exemplified by the film works of Givenchy and Hepburn. That is to say, these Givenchy style dresses are, in essence, the commodity signs and the body of Hepburn is used to establish and reinforce the ideologies and values of fashion.

This essay uses Givenchy and Hepburn collaboration as case study, in section one, I anaylse in detail Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, namely Sabrina, Funny face and Breakfast at Tiffany’s, in the context of the historical development of fashion films during 20th century, and raise the following questions: what are the differences between costume and couture design? And what is the relation between clothing and narrative in fashion films? In section two, I explore the relationships between costume and characters, and also the interconnections between fashion stars and female spectators through the examination of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations. Ultimately this essay will focus specifically on the interaction between fashion and films, to demonstrate that during the course of the 20th century fashion films have become a showcase, with characters (especially female characters) as mannequins, to display adornments, dress and brands and sell to the spectators the most valuable commodity sign: fashion.


Section one: Film as a showcase


Clothing and narrative

The first met between Givenchy and Hepburn is quite interesting. Back in 1953, the twenty-six-year-old Paris couturier Hubert de Givenchy received a phone call that ‘Miss Hepburn’ would come to meet him about costumes for a Hollywood film Sabrina. When Audrey Hepburn showed up in his workshop dressing a knotted T-shirt and wearing flat sandals, Givenchy did not know this Hollywood actress would become his lifelong muse. As he recalls, he was busy preparing his new collection therefore had no time design clothing for her, but Hepburn had ‘impeccable sense of style’ and picked the perfect dresses for herself from his collection (Beyfus, 2015). This romantic encounter between a girl and a Paris wardrobe recalls the fairytale narrative of sartorial transformation in Sabrina as well as Funny Face – both are famous Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations.

There are striking narrative similarities between Sabrina and Funny Face. Firstly, they both depict a Cinderella-esque woman’s sartorial transition. Sabrina is about the title character (Audrey Hepburn) starts as a frumpy, plain chauffeur’s daughter, after two years sojourn in Paris, transforms into a soignée sophisticate, and similarly, Funny Face is about an ‘ugly duckling’, pedantic bookstore assistant Jo Stockton (Audrey Hepburn) transformed by a fashion magazine into a glamorous, elegant Parisian mannequin. Secondly, in both films, the Cinderella-like characters find their Princess Charming after the sartorial makeover. Lastly, the city Paris, the sacred land of fashion, functions as an important contributor to their sartorial transformation in both two films.

Though some film scholars might argue that the motif of such Cinderella tale is ‘the potential for upward mobility through work, education and/or marriage’ (Moseley, 2002), in Sabrina and Funny Face, the glorious transformation of Sabrina and Jo is achieved not through hardships but rather a whole Paris wardrobe. The evident irony within film narrative in Sabrina is that, the reason why Sabrina goes to Paris is to attend the cooking school, and yet she has no chance to show her cooking skill in the entire film. We can only see her physical transformation and ascent but not have a clue about her improvement of the inner abilities. In other words, her distinguishing quality is not ‘the self’ but the stunning clothing she wears. “What she wears” makes “what she is”.

There is always a main function of film costume: characterization. Jane Gaines (1990, p180) examines, dress can tell characters’ stories, especially woman’s story. For example, the Hollywood costume designer Edith Head is famous for her “storytelling wardrobes” which is based on the traditional cinema costumer’s formula. According to the Hollywood conventional costume design, costume is always seen as a subordinate element of mise-en-scene in the film narrative. Although encourage attention to costume, filmic analyses always associate costumes with mise-en-scene, characters and narrative, but not the dress or clothing per se (Gibson, p36). Costumes, as well as other significant formal elements of mise-en-scene, serve the higher purpose of narrative and characters (Gaines, p181). The classic Hollywood cinema sticks to the costume design code, as Alice Evans Field once said, “clothes must be harmonized to be the mood, add subtly to the grace of the wearer, …must enhance the rhythmic flow of the story. Never must they call undue attention to themselves”. That is to say, costume should remains secondary to character and narrative; otherwise it may constitute a threat to the narrative. Similarly, the Hollywood director George Cukor contended that the ideal costume was the one that most “perfectly suited the scene” and if the costume “knocked your eye out”, it would “interrupt the scene or even the entire film” (ibid: p195). In a word, in traditional Hollywood costumer’s formula, costume should functions as a servant of narrative and character.

However, in cinema history, costume is not always subordinated to narrative. According to Gaines (p203), costume designers devoted their “wildest visions and most outrageous whims” into clothes design of the melodramas produced by the major studio, during the particular periods, namely the 1920s to the1950s. Due to the distinguishing genre traits of melodrama, the costume can exceed the strict boundaries of period clothes and social class. Additionally, there was also an increasingly complex phenomenon related to traditional costume design in this period. With the development of fashion films, more and more haute couture designers were involved in Hollywood narrative fashion cinema, such as Coco Chanel’s design for Palmy Days, and Givenchy’s collaboration with Hepburn, which has complicated the interconnections between traditional costume design and haute couture design.

Sabrina, one of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, won the Academy Award for best costume design, and Edith Head, the costume designer of this film, took all the credit. There is an issue of authorship of the clothes worn by Hepburn in in this woman’s sartorial transition film. While Edith Head was responsible for the pre-transition costume design, couturier Givenchy was given the stunning Parisian wardrobe for Sabrina (Bruzzi, 2004, p6). Unlike Edith Head’s traditional “storytelling wardrobes”, Givenchy’s haute couture design has a distracting, disruptive potential to film narrative. In the case of Sabrina, there is nothing more surreal than the personal Parisian wardrobes of a chauffeur’s daughter. That is to say, traditional costume designers like Edith Head tend to choose a “safer style” to suit the characters and narrative, whereas couture designer like Givenchy might prioritises costume over the narrative, though it could distract the spectators from the film story. The divergence between Edith Head and Givenchy became a symbol of the differentiation of traditional costume designer and haute couture designer (Bruzzi, 2004, p5). Unlike the former, whose clothes designs are “in middle of the road in terms of the current fashion trends” (Head, 1983, p97 quoted from Bruzzi), couturiers are seen as agents of fashion, and make contributions in creating a style and defining the items as fashionable.

The couturiers label is the most distinguishing feature of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, while compares to other ‘makeover chick flicks’ such as Pretty Woman (1990). The haute couture designer label is equivalent to the artist’s signature, which can be distinguished from other couture and non-couture design. The studio-designed dresses in Pretty Woman “are homogenized” (ibid: p15). However, in Sabrina, the stunning embroidered organza evening gown is an embodiment of the Givenchy style, the fashion trend and Paris. It shows up in the ball scene, interrupting the film narrative and to solicit an attentive gaze. In case of Funny Face, similarly, Givenchy’s flawless haute couture design for Hepburn has the inherently spectacular quality in the rags-to-riches narrative. It does not aim to “suit” the protagonist (who initially is a bookish store assistant) but rather functions as an attraction and a visual spectacle in its own right. Apart from these two films, clothing functions even more independently of narrative and character in Breakfast at Tiffany. The publicity for this film was that “Miss Hepburn is a fashion show herself” (Moseley, 2002, p41). In a word, the couture costume is not longer subservient to film narrative and characters, but plays a more intrusive role in fashion films, pausing the flow of narrative.


Male gaze and female gaze

Sabrina begins with a ball scene takes place in the Larrabee estate. Sabrina, a British chauffeur’s daughter, is hiding outside and longing for the world she does not belong. When David Larrabee, the man she desires for, is going out from the ball to meet a nameless young girl at a secret rendezvous, Sabrina jumps down and attracts his attention. He stops, quickly and simply says, “it’s you Sabrina, I thought I heard somebody” and immediately goes away. Sabrina mumbles to herself, “no, it’s nobody.” Indeed, to this wealthy libertine, the frumpy, plain chauffeur’s daughter is invisible. In contrast, there is the second Larrabee ball scene when Sabrina returns back from Paris smartly dressed the Parisian wardrobe designed by Givenchy. Dressing in the embroidered organza evening gown, Sabrina becomes the centre of attention. And most importantly, she gains the attentive gaze of her Princess Charming. The two contrasting attitude toward Sabrina demonstrate that the sartorial transition is associated with the acquisition of certain kinds of femininity and hence the acquisition of the Prince’s gaze. From a pubescent chauffeur’s daughter to an adult with femininity, Sabrina’s transformation takes place chiefly through a variation of clothes.

The iconic clothes are significant means of the acquisition of femininity as well as the transition of social status. In Sabrina’s pre-transformation period, there is a clear social distinction between Sabrina and David Larrabee, which has indicated by the initial scene in which she is upset about David’s disregard, but her father talks to her that, “I want you to marry a chauffeur like me”, and “don’t reach for the moon”, which demonstrates their social distinction. However, in the latter part of the film, the iconic dress designed by Givenchy has blurred the social distinction between Sabrina and the Larrabees –the upper social groups. In The Language of Fashion, Roland Barthes (2006, p22) points out the social psychology of clothing and asserts that clothing function as a signifier of social distinctions. In the case of Sabrina, the flawless dress (or rather “fashion” per se) provides possibilities for the protagonist to change her social identity and also enhances her social position. From Cinderella to Cinderella with a beautiful dress, her social class has not changed, she is still the chauffeur’s daughter, yet she can attend the upper-class ball which she can only stay outside when she was wearing the frumpy clothing or rather “without a beautiful dress”, and she also succeeds in wooing the young master of the prominent Larrabee that used to be “the moon” she can never reach for.

From invisibility to the acquisition of the Prince’s gaze, Sabrina’s change of physical appearance raises a question of “looking”. Unlike Laura Mulvey’s male gaze theory, Sabrina is not depicted as an erotic object for the male characters to view. Instead, she is represented as a feminine ideal of fashion for female spectators to look at. She is a woman’s star, “classy, not sexy” (Moseley, 2002, p48). Moseley (2002, p40) argues that Sabrina as well as Hepburn’s other fashion films are, in essence, a complex statement of fashion and beauty, which produces “a gendered attractionist aesthetic” and also provides an intimate space for female spectator. In this space, the film shows the details of clothes and fashionable style to attract female gaze. A striking example is the moment when she arrives at Long Island from Paris that the film reveals her as “the most sophisticated woman at Glen Cove Station”. This is a visual glorification of Sabrina’s transformation: the camera details her sophisticated figure, including her elegant pose, the Parisian suit, ornaments. This revealing scene therefore creates a space for female gaze, as Moseley argues, this space allows and encourages the female spectators to read the details of the dress (2002, p42). Another example of female gaze is the opening sequence in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Accompanied by the theme music, this moment portrays Hepburn’s elegant image, not necessarily for the gaze of male characters or male spectators, but rather to encourage the female gaze. Especially when the camera captures the cutaway, crescent-shaped details on the back of her dress, as if to invite the female spectators to detail reading the dress and to admire the fashion and style. In a word, the Hepburn and Givenchy collaborations are in essence a discourse of fashion and feminine culture, and they provide a space or rather open up a fashion showcase for female spectators to look at.


City and fashion

Paris is not only the capital city of France but also the undisputed capital of high fashion. As Gertrude Stein wrote in Paris, France (1940), “Paris was where the twentieth century was. It was important too that Paris was where fashions were made” (quoted from Joannou, 2012, p473). This fashion capital of the world is powerfully associated with haute couture, which can be traced back to the nineteenth century (Steele, 1998). Haute couture has enjoyed the status and prestige commensurate with high art (Joannou, 2012) and also signifying the Western sophistication.

Hollywood invents a formula for representing France in the Cinderella makeover films. In both Funny Face and Sabrina, as the sacred land of fashion, Paris functions as an important contributor to the female protagonists’ sartorial transformation. In Sabrina, Paris has powerfully associated with fashion and specifically denoting the European sophistication (Moseley, 2002, p40). Similarly, Funny Face also takes place within a Parisian fashion setting. However, unlike Sabrina, this film has an ambivalent attitude to the city. On the one hand, it satirizes the hyper-feminine Parisian ‘New Look’ fashion (Cantu, 2015, p23) especially in the ending sequences when the Quality Magazine fashion show is destroyed by Jo and thus in a complete mess. The film also mocks the other cultural aspect of Paris –Existentialist philosophy, which spoofed as “Empathicalism” in film (Cantu, 2015). On the other hand, Funny Face worships the Parisian style as well as the haute couture fashion, and admires the cultural landscape of Paris. A musical number performed by Jo (Hepburn), the fashion photographer Dick Avery (Fred Astaire), and the editor of a leading fashion magazine Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson) shows their respective desire and admiration of Paris.


Section two: character as a mannequin


Clothing and body

In addition to the interactions between clothing and narrative, Hepburn and Givenchy collaboration also raises a question about the relation between clothing and body. In The Body and Society, Turner (1985, p1) notes that human beings “have bodies and they are bodies”. Entwistle (2000, p323) adds a prominent point to the relation between bodies and dresses that “human bodies are dressed bodies”. Indeed, body and clothing are constantly and intimately connected: while the body gives life to the clothing, the clothing works on the body with social identity and meanings (Twigg, 2013, p6). Barthes prioritises human body over the clothing, in his words, “It is not possible to conceive a garment without the body… the empty garment, without head and without limbs (a schizophrenic fantasy), is death” (1973, p107 quoted from Bruzzi, 2004, p31). However, fashion has complicated and enriched the relation between clothing and body. In The Consumer Society, Jean Baudrillard (1998, p196) asserts the finest object in the consumer society is the body:
its omnipresence (specifically the omnipresence of the female body, a fact we shall have to try to explain) in advertising, fashion and mass culture; the hygienic, dietetic, therapeutic cult which surrounds it, the obsession with youth, elegance, virility/femininity, treatments and regimes, and the sacrificial practices attaching to it all bear witness to the fact that the body has today become an object of salvation. It has literally taken over that moral and ideological function from the soul.
 (Baudrillard 1998, p196)

As Bruzzi (2004, p30) has argues, the interconnection and interaction between clothes and body are essential to fashion. Hepburn’s sartorial transition films, for example, do not prioritise body over clothes but rather emphasise the value of clothes themselves. In these Cinderella fantasies, Sabrina, Funny Face as well as Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Hepburn’s slim body suggests the mannequin in department stores, which is perfect for looking at and consuming. In the case of Sabrina, the protagonist remains invisible when she was wearing the plain, regular clothes but only after she has dressed the couture costume can she receive the male characters’ looking-at-ness. Likewise, Jo’s body remains “absent” when she was wearing the bookish outfits, she is noticed only because her “funny face”. That is to say, only after donning the clothing, Sabrina and Jo acquire femininity as well as the male and female gaze. In other words, the clothing makes their bodies alive. More specifically, In Funny Face, Jo is modeling the special collection designed for her in Paris, and the fashion magazine photographer captures her in freeze frames, pausing the flow of narrative and making these moments purely iconic. This display has clearly engaged the spectators’ attention in the dresses and Paris attractions, but not in Hepburn’s body. The body of Hepburn is rather used as a mannequin to display the dress and thus establishes and reinforces the ideologies and values of fashion.


Stars and self image

As is stated above, with the rise of fashion films, the icons-designers partnership becomes more magical and powerful. As fashion agents, stars and fashion designers lead the fashion trend, and tell the audiences what to wear and what to desire. They not only play a significant role in fashion film history but also influence the on- and off-screen world. Before the discussion, let us first take a look at the above-mentioned story about Hepburn’s first met with Givenchy, that she knew exactly what she want and picked the perfect dresses for herself from a whole new Paris wardrobe. This story can be read as a symbol of the establishment of Hepburn’s iconic fashion figure. Ernest Lehman, the screenwriter of Sabrina, has pointed out the significance of the “Sabrina’s look”:
The way Audrey looked in Sabrina had an effect on the roles she later played. It’s fair to say that if she had never gone to Paris she wouldn’t have had that role in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. The Sabrina clothes fixed her image forever.
(quoted from Collins, 1995)
The close association between fashion designer and star not only has defined the sartorial image of Sabrina, Jo or Holly Golightly in fashion cinemas, but more importantly, it blurs the distinction between fairytale narrative of transformation and reality per se and thus establishes Audrey Hepburn’s on- and off-screen persona.

Both in the big screen and the reality life, Hepburn is established as the embodiment of fashion, and thus becomes a perfect figure to be commodified. The most appealing part of this ‘Hepburn met Givenchy’ story to the reader (especially the female) is “she got the clothes right”. As is stated above in section one, fashion is powerfully associated with the attainment of feminine ideals and spectatorial gaze, that is to say, once you got your clothing right you establish your femininity and build your image. The on- and off-screen image of Hepburn strongly affects the female spectators. According to Moseley’s audience studies on Hepburn's ongoing appeal for young British women from the 1950s to the l990s (2002, p48), a female interviewee remembers specially the Hepburn’s style in My Fair Lady and expresses an admiration of her gloves, bags and shoes displayed in the film. In Stardom and Celebrity, Stacey (2007, p315) examines that the female spectators are closely connected with Hollywood film stars in 1940s and 1950s through the commodity consumption:
Female spectators remember Hollywood stars through their connection with particular commodities and the ways in which they were worn or displayed. Typically, this association is made in relation to clothes, hairstyle, make-up and cosmetics, and other fashion accessories. It is the commodities associated with physical attractiveness and appearance that are especially remembered in connection with female stars.
(Stacey 2007, p317)
Therefore, designers and stars function as diffusion agents of the fashion and showcase their commodity images and design labels and brands through fashion films. The musical number “Think Pink” in Funny Face offers a striking example of the fashion diffusion. Maggie, the fashion Godmother of a leading fashion magazine, announces “pink” has become the new fashion gospel. The “think pink” slogan pushes pink as a woman’s colour and thus convinces the female spectators to embrace their femininity. As Maggie sings, “I wouldn’t presume to tell a woman what a woman ought to think, but tell her if she’s gotta think, think pink”, the fashion magazine functions as persuasive agent to tell female readers (also consumers) what to think and what to purchase. Additionally, the protagonist Jo, who is initially an anti-fashion “empathicalist”, then turns into a fashion model by the magazine, and “finally becoming fully commodified” (Cantu, 2015, p25), which implicitly demonstrates the power and the danger of fashion agents’ manipulation of female consumers.

Like this satiric musical marketing slogan, fashion also uses films as a means to implicitly sell its connotations to the spectators (largely female): fashion can transform you into a new self with social status and prestige; and after become the one you desire to be, you can find your own princess charming. The consumption of fashion raises another question about the subjectivity of the female spectator. In The Consumer Society, by examining stars or rather the ‘heroes of consumption’ and ourselves (consumers) in detail, Jean Baudrillard asserts that stars mimicry is in essence self-copying:
the celebrity is usually nothing greater than a more publicized version of us. In imitating him, in trying to dress like him, talk like him, look like him, think like him, we are simply imitating ourselves... We look for models, and we see our own image.
(Baudrillard 1998, p196)
Following this line of discussion, it can be argued that female spectators are in a paradoxical position: they are both the objects and subjects of commodity. As Doane asserts that
the cinematic image for the woman is both shop window and mirror, the one simply a means of access to the other. The mirror/ window, then, takes on the aspect of the trap whereby her subjectivity becomes synonymous with her objectification.
 (Doane, 1989, p31)
That is to say, in the process of consuming the commodities (fashion icons and stars), the female spectator prepares to be “consumed” herself. According to Stacey (2007, p314), the female spectator play the combining role of a spectator as well a consumer; they tend to the fashion image in the big screen and consume the stars and ultimately produce the self as an object of the male gaze.


Conclusion

To conclude, from the early catwalk show to narrative-based, fashion film has been use as a vehicle to showcase the fashion and consumer imagery. By using the Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations as a case study, this essay explore the differences between traditional costume design and haute couture design and also examines the relation between narrative and clothes in fashion cinemas. The essay also examines the importance of the Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations within the historical development of fashion films and argues that Givenchy’s designs for Hepburn not only play a distinguishing role in filmic history but also have the sociological significance. By establishing Hepburn’s on- and off- screen images, they have influenced the female spectators.

To examine how has film been used as a showcase for fashion and consumer imagery, I conduct a detailed analysis research method of the Givenchy and Hepburn case study, and bring together materials and scholarship including fashion theories and consumption studies. The text-focused method is useful with regard to the limited investigation of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, however, if future research will be undertaken I would seek to use a broader range of approach such as audience studies. It is worth exploring how the audiences (especially female) view and interpret the fashion films in their own ways in relation to their own social and political agendas.
 



References

Andersson, T., 2012. Fashioning the fashion princess: Mediation transformation stardom, Journal of AESTHETICS & CULTURE, Vol. 4

Baudrillard, J., 1998. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, London: Sage

Beyfus, D., 2015. Hubert de Givenchy: My relationship with Audrey Hepburn was 'a kind of marriage' [online] available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11731823/Hubert-de-Givenchy-My-relationship-with-Audrey-Hepburn-was-a-kind-of-marriage.html

Bruzzi, S., 2004. Undressing Cinema: Clothing and Identity in the Movies. London and New York: Routledge

Cantu, M., 2015. ‘Clothes make an awful difference in a girl’: Mlle. Modiste, Irene and Funny Face as Cinderella fashion musicals, Studies in Musical Theatre, 9(1)

Craik, J., 1993. The Face of Fashion, Cultural Studies in Fashion. London and New York: Routledge.

Collins, A. F., 1995. When Hubert Met Audrey. [online] available at: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2014/02/audrey-hepburn-givenchy-style

Edwards, T., 2011. Fashion in Focus: Concepts, Practices and Politics. London and New York: Routledge.

Entwistle, J., 2000. Fashion and the Fleshy Body: Dress as Embodied Practice, Fashion Theory, 4(3), 323-347

Gaines, J., 1990. Costume and Narrative: How Dress Tells Woman’s Story, London: Routledge.

Gibson, P. C., 1998. Film costume.

Joannou, M., 2012. ‘All right, I'll do anything for good clothes’: Jean Rhys and Fashion, Women: A Cultural Review, 23(4), 463-489.

Kawamura, Y., 2004. Fashion-ology: an introduction to fashion studies. Berg.

Moseley, R., 2002. Growing up with Audrey Hepburn. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Moseley. R., 2002. Trousers and Tiaras: Audrey Hepburn, a Woman's Star, Feminist Review, 71, 37-51. Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals.

Mulvey, L., 1989. Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Stacey, J., 2007. With Stars in Their Eyes: Female Spectators and the Paradoxes of Consumption, in: Stardom and Celebrity: A Reader, ed. Sean Redmond，Su Holmes

Roland, B., 2006. The Language of Fashion. Oxford: Berg.

Smith, D. M., 2002. Global Cinderella: Sabrina (1954), Hollywood, and Postwar Internationalism, Cinema Journal, 41(4), 27-51. Published by University of Texas Press.

Twigg, J., 2013. Fashion and Age: Dress, the Body and Later Life. London: Bloomsbury Academic

Valerie, S., 1998. Paris Fashion: A Cultural History. 2nd ed. Oxford: Berg. [online] available at: http://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/clothing-around-world/paris-fashion

Valerie, S., 2010. The Berg Companion to Fashion. Oxford: Berg Publishers.