These latest resort (or cruise) collections have been quite interesting, especially with the fun locations for Dior (NYC) and Chanel (Dubai). Sometimes resort collections just fall into a bunch of stereotypical, boring spring looks. But this Chanel collection looked fun and exotic, without appropriating cultures (too much-I get to that at the end). I know that sounds odd, but when I think ''exotic'' I just think of anything unusual and fun, and maybe something you'd wear traveling...to an exotic locale. The actual destination is unspecified.
I loved the shimmering metallic color of look 1, and the relaxed, white cotton fabric of the shirt. And the pants, even though they were a bit slouchy, they also looked glamorous, and not plastic. 2's jacket had beautifully sharp shoulders and clean lines, and the mismatched prints of the skirt and jacket worked. Tweed can be overdone in Chanel shows, but this one was a fabulous, modern take. How does Lagerfeld keep coming up with new ones? Sadly I did not appreciate 3 at all; it didn't make any sense to me. Why would I wear a black lace jumpsuit with squiggly patterns underneath a lumber jack jumper? 4 and 5 were disappointing for just looking like sweatshirts or slouchy tops. 6 was much more sharp, with a hot pink tweed pattern and a white border going around the jacket. Quite minimalist and simple, while having a sharp punch of color. 7 looked so plastic! And the print was way too, I don't know.. tech-y? Electronic? It also looked plain, with a flat color and absolutely no shape; I don't think it would even be fit for menswear. Maybe boxwear though (hey look I'm making up my own words like Charles James! e.g., ''bulltongue'' and ''biscuit'')
Look 8's top was incredible, with the lacy border along the shoulders and sleeve, and speckles of red, gray, and white on the front. So pretty. But I did not like the skirt. It's pretty and lacy... and then it needs a square smack in the middle? No, no it does not. 9 was a rather distressing example of gray, horrid, pale filler. The profound slouchiness didn't make matters any better. And while 10 did have a bright, vibrant red print... it came off too bright, like a so-called ''glam'' look at Marshall's. 11 was kind of the same idea of boring with a different color. 12, my friend, was fantabulous (oh, how Jamesian I am) . It was sharp, glittery, colorful, and simple. And it had shape! What an idea! It was an understated bohemian look, with the jacket being under the chest and a white shirt underneath. But with the flowers and chic-ness of the look, it didn't look ''pirate'' at all (which is a deep, deep concern for most boho looks). 13 was a rude awakening. I had no idea (ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA) that sludge colored kindergarten quilts were in! For a lack of a better word (or worse word) this was downright ugly. After quite a bit of filler came 17, which was a dusty blush pink skirt suit with matching pants underneath, and a prettily scruffy outline. Look 19 was puzzlingly beautiful; it was very relaxed, but still maintained a shape. The pure white and light pink pattern was sooo pretty.
I didn't get 22 at all. The dramatic high-low thing was a bit...absurd? An extra flap in the back doesn't look unique. It looks like a lame attempt at making it interesting (I have said this so many-LITERALLY SO MANY-times). Until 27 it was all quite boring with SPARKLES as an attempt to make it SHINY and INTERESTING. But 27's gold was extremely vibrant, bold, and accentuating. It complemented everything, from the model's shape to her hair. Certainly not for anyone shy! 28 was sad and boring. I'm not quite sure what style it was supposed to be, or what it was inspired by. It looked like...nothing. Look 30's dark plaid jacket looked very ''fall'' and sharp, and the little pinch of shape in the middle was so feminine. 31 was another sleek plaid look, and also very fall. The sheer, geometric patterned shoulders were super artsy. But the pants were the best part! So modern and stylish. These were perfect geometric patterns. 36 was too matronly. It looked flat and seemed to serve the purpose of hiding a woman's shape. And the floral pattern was such a faded shade it didn't even looked good. 43 was horrendous, because 1: filler jackets! and 2: plastic is nothing to write home about. 37 was my first knitting project (which, clue:
did not look good at all!). 42's bounty of flowers all over the dress
was very bohemian and light, especially the thin jacket. But the pants! Nononononoooo! No plastic pants, PLEASE!
44 reminded me too much of decoration garden tiles. Look 46 was too weird and scruffy, and the print was not ''Chanel'' at all. But the print with the ballooning pants was so beautiful and flowing. I would do anything (besides destroying these pants) to wear these in the spring. The long coat of 50 was gorgeously inspired by Ossie Clark and Marimekko. I know these aren't pajamaz (the ''z'' adds pizzazz, OBVIOUSLY) but it looks so comfy to sleep in. 51's bolero-style sweater had the same theme as 50, but with an aquamarine background, the flowers really popped. 52's skirt reminded me of something from Oilily, my favorite designer as a little kid. I only had one dress by them, from a thrift store (clue: its an expensive brand) and I wore it to death. 52 had the whimsical, scrap book aspects of Oilily. 54 was a gorgeous, glittering, one shouldered cloud of colored sparkles. 55's flowers in squares didn't work with the bottom of the dress. Too mismatched. I loved how the lines in 57 overlapped the floral print, and the middle cluster of blue and white flowers. The lines were very Frank Lloyd Wright-esque. Look 58 was so unique; a peplum dress, with a top of squares, and then the skirt is dark black sheer and patterned in tiny flowers. 59 came across very garish... like an 80's prom or wedding dress. Too long with jumbo-wide sleeves. Not a good look!
64's top was a nice, white, shimmery shade, and the skirt was yet another floral print, but half skirt/half pants. I'm honestly not sure what I thought of 67. It was a blue vest with big 3-D flowers and tiny white dress with circular blue flowers. Maybe I need to see it styled in a magazine. I think thats when you see all of an outfit's true colors. Look 82 was the best look of the collection. Flowing lack tulle with a city skyline in gold, silver, and black.
This collection was really awesome; I've always had a thing for moons and celestial stuff, and they did make poufy pants look good, which is no small feat. But some of the looks did veer off into a conglomeration of things considered ''foreign'' or ''tribal'', which dumbs down actual cultures and religious symbols, as was the way of the dream catcher. But aside from those looks, this collection was a great example of how good Chanel can be, even when they distance themselves a bit from their classic tweeds and pastels. Most of it was just great. (how Warholian of me!)