文/一刀

本来想借着鲍嘉和赫本的脸给个三星，但实在不忍心这样干。
艾森豪威尔时代的烂片是什么标准？这部片子就是了。
论演技，朱丽娅.奥蒙德和哈里森.福特的演技一点都不比赫本和鲍嘉逊色，尤其是奥蒙德，如果我敢说这是赫本人生当中演得最差的一部片子，那么我同样敢说她在对萨布里娜这个角色的演绎上，完爆赫本。
抛开演技，我们从整体对新旧版本进行分析比较。
先说说剧本。
其实光在剧本上，新版就完爆老版了。
新版本相比老版本做得最好的地方，就是它能够用一些看似无用实则点睛的铺垫对观众理解、深入剧情作非常有用的补充。比如，通过描写萨布里娜（奥蒙德）在巴黎打拼的艰辛衬托其人生观和审美观的转变，进而为她在兄弟二人间的选择埋下伏笔。在老版本中，除了老伯爵安慰萨布里娜（赫本）的那一段，我们根本不知道萨布里娜在巴黎干了些什么，这让她回归纽约之后的种种表现过于突兀。而在为萨布里娜的最终选择做铺垫时，新版本分别用了故地重游、二人野餐、异域风情晚餐和夜晚漫步（外加一些勾心斗角的商场戏），让剧情显得合情合理，于是最终的结局也就在观众的把握之中。老版本...除了形式上的晚餐和萨布里娜（赫本）在车上唱歌的那一段（那一段的确是美如画，不敢当）...似乎也没有什么了...
再说说人物刻画。
老版本中的萨布里娜不仅形象（这里的形象特指人物性格的表现）过于单薄（其时赫本演技过于稚嫩也是原因之一），而且内心活动的变化更是深不可测（这里是贬义）。比如，我们压根就不知道萨布里娜（赫本）是从什么时候对拉若比大少爷（鲍嘉）产生好感的，直到全剧终我们也不知道这种好感是如何转变为爱的。当我们看到鲍嘉那张自从《卡萨布兰卡》之后就没变过的老脸，我们只会在心中爆粗：“卧槽！高冷的女神是怎么看上这个挫脸的？！”（这里没有黑鲍嘉的意思，鲍嘉粉请勿喷）。
而《新龙凤配》里朱丽娅.奥蒙德和哈里森.福特的对手戏则是全剧最闪亮的看点，大少爷和小女仆二人从相知、相识、相约到相爱，其内心活动的丰富表现和恬淡而性感的暧昧气息美如画，进而奠定全剧缓慢的基调，并带动剧情的发展，这恰恰是老版本里最欠缺的（如果你认真观察老版本，你会发现其实在男女主角的对手戏中，感情和气氛的交流是非常少的，给人一种冰冷的感觉）。
最后，关于选角。
或许老版本最大的败笔，就在于导演选择了奥黛丽.赫本，然后又将她放在了一个与她的气质完全不搭调的角色上。不过，可以肯定的是如果没有赫本，这部片子只会更烂，而没有最烂，例如，我们就看不到赫本在火车站里那优美动人的身姿了，我们也无法听到伊迪丝·琵雅芙的成名曲《玫瑰人生》了，我们也永远不会知道赫本的歌声是这么迷人了...可惜，老版本最大的亮点，也就这些了。
而新版本的角色选择，我觉得不仅没有降低角色的格调，而且独具匠心。朱丽娅.奥蒙德作为演技派演员，其风格趋于内敛和低调，恰恰和奥黛丽.赫本光彩照人、清新脱俗的出水芙蓉类型截然相反，但这也是我认为她比赫本更适合萨布里娜这个角色的原因。萨布里娜作为仆人的女儿，本身就属于小家碧玉而非大家闺秀，如让赫本来担任这个角色，其天生白富美的高贵冷艳只会抹杀其他角色的光辉和鲍嘉的演技（事实上的确被抹杀了）。而朱丽娅.奥蒙德和哈里森.福特的组合，我只能说太登对了。成熟稳重事业男和内向闷骚文艺女，有哪种组合会比它更善于互动，更适合这样一部闷骚文艺片呢？
一部片子的好坏是将剧情、演技、角色气质和角色刻画综合在一起进行考虑，而绝不是看脸打分。个人认为老版本的《龙凤配》类似于现在流行的偶像电影，明星脸众多但剧情如渣，虽有个别亮点，但一俊难遮百丑，而《新龙凤配》与之相比，更有资格被列入经典爱情电影和男人求爱必修影片之列。


再说一点关于赫本的。
在拍摄这部电影时鲍嘉曾经嘲笑赫本是没有演技的“花瓶”。其实赫本出道时的演技，尤其是在《罗马假日》中的表现，是很不成熟的，但当时她也是以小清新面目出现，所以一鸣惊人。不过作为当年最佳，我觉得赫本名不符实，归属她也只是好莱坞当时人才凋零的偶然，她在《罗马假日》后拍出一系列烂剧，就证明了这一点。而赫本在演技上取得突破并真正实现多元化和丰富化，还是在拍摄《蒂凡尼的早餐》前后的事情。

撰于2014年9月21日

这部电影有着典型的美国模式，富家公子和灰姑娘，加上音乐和纪梵西设计的服装，没有什么高深的意义，没有人性和残忍，每个人都是好人，结局很开心。这种电影有什么不好？起码你在看的时候，不觉得时间流逝，这可是很多所谓艺术电影最难崴故的。

而且还有她。只要站在那笑着，就好了。对，现实很残酷，这我们都知道，导演们就不用再加大笔墨渲染了吧，难道非要提醒我们“别忘记人性的丑恶啊，别忘记生活的不公啊”才是真正的艺术？鲍嘉和赫本年龄上似乎不太登队，但他们的火花，却很出人意料的可爱。生活很无奈，所以我想看电影。

我不需要教导。因为我们每天的生活，比电影残忍的多。我不需要你们告诉我。我想忘记。所以，我选择在她的微笑中，继续我可怜的没梦。

见鬼的艺术电影。

很小的时候就看过sabrina这部片，当然是harrison ford和julia ormond的翻拍版本。和天性浪漫的妈妈一起在电影院看的。只记得从巴黎回来摇身一变成妙女郎的女主角，英俊花心风流可是够义气的弟弟，还有不知道哪里好，木头木脑，女主角还委身于他的老哥哥。

很久以后，我才知道原来我小时候看到的这部片是翻拍自奥黛丽 赫本的同名电影sabrina。又是很久之后，我最终看了在硬盘里呆了老长时间的sabrina。黑白电影，自然比不上新版的绚丽多彩。旧版里的sabrina是去法国学厨艺，她的司机老爸还夸张的说着，u r so lucky, it's the besting cooking school in the world.听着就让人倒胃口。新版里的sabrina就不同了，是去法国时尚杂志做助手的，这高下一下子就分出来了吧。新版本中花了大量胶卷在巴黎实地拍摄，美轮美奂，旧版本中。。。大概就搭了一个小破摄影棚吧。

可是，千不该，万不该，找任何人来代替奥黛丽。

同情julia ormond，不是她不好，人家在legend of fall里面可也是把brad pitt三兄弟搞得人仰马翻的。可是挑战经典，尤其是已逝去的经典，这败下阵来的结局简直是一定的。

天哪，奥黛丽 赫本和她的givenchy礼服，givenchy黑色小套装，givenchy little black dress，和她的givenchy黑色7分裤。原谅我小小的失态，但是奥黛丽和givenchy的搭配实在是太完美了。她在舞会上亮相那一幕戏所穿的givenchy无肩带印花礼服，背后看起来似乎是一件印花蓬裙，可正面竟是旗袍式收身裙，美得好似天使。

如果一个女人从来都不知道什么是适合她穿的，那真是灾难。同样的衣服，如果换了娇艳欲滴的伊丽莎白 泰勒，或是丰韵性感的玛丽莲 梦露，甚至是坚强倔强的凯瑟琳 赫本，千人千面，也穿不出奥黛丽带着一股随意劲的优雅，而优雅本来就是随意的。它是随意流露的品味，而不是矫枉过正的做作。作为一个银行家和男爵夫人的女儿，这些气质大概真是与生俱来。她是一个真正的贵族。

最大的看点当然是赫本和美丽的纪梵希礼服，几乎每一次亮相都堪称完美！简直就是仙女儿~

至于演技，客观评价实在是一般。看惯了现代电影里的特写，即使是三维的动画，也努力去展现每一根汗毛或细纹；所以当回首黑白电影的时候，感觉每个人都只是端着。不理解为什么爱情就在一瞬间降临，遇上一个人可以改变一生的梦想，这当然可以用缘分或命理来解释——只是从电影里，我们感觉不到情绪的暗涌，或者说很难感同身受。
剧情也是如此：司机的女儿貌似回家以后也不用干活，只用约会就可以了？富家子弟为了家族联姻，心甘情愿将美丽的女孩儿拱手相让？至于另一位富家小姐，难道也同样天真的非君不嫁么？要说孩子们是青春激情，恐怕家长也不会这么简单的答应吧~

在现代社会里，单单用天真浪漫肯定吸引不了男人，尤其发生在身份悬殊的恋人上。所以，这样美好的故事，只能发生在旧时代的荧幕上。

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.

　　三十年前的上海，一个有月亮的晚上……我们也许没赶上看见三十年前的月亮。年轻的人想着三十年前的月亮该是铜钱大的一个红黄的湿晕，像朵云轩信笺上落了一滴泪珠，陈旧而迷糊。老年人回忆中的三十年前的月亮是欢愉的，比眼前的月亮大，圆，白；然而隔着三十年的辛苦路往回看，再好的月色也不免带点凄凉。

而在一口气看了赫本的两部电影，《蒂凡尼早餐》和《龙凤配》，不由开始神往五六十年前的好莱坞。

那应该是一个有很纯真美好童话的年代。漂亮的女孩子会顺着防火梯爬到楼上房客的窗外，敲敲窗子，和落魄的作家聊天。然后爬到他旁边，问他：我们是朋友吗？得到肯定的回答后就在他怀中睡着。Tiffany的店员会满足顾客所有合理的愿望，包括在非Tiffany的产品上刻上字；学烹饪的丑小鸭女孩子会遇到善良的老男爵，把她培养成淑女，教会她爱情需要勇敢的去追求，而两年后，变成天鹅的丑小鸭回到家乡，她爱的那个人看她的第一眼就爱上了她；在那个年代，成功的商人认为钱是副产品，而他创业的理由只是可以让更多的人有工作，更多的孩子有鞋子穿；而最终，当那个商人下定决心的时候，他的弟弟会为他准备好汽船，让他来得及赶上那女孩子坐的开往巴黎的游轮。

真的，那是很老的片子。《蒂凡尼早餐》1961年，而《龙凤配》则是1954年。拍龙凤配的时候，鲍嘉55岁，赫本25岁。拍蒂凡尼早餐时，赫本32岁。现在，这些片子里的演员，导演，职员，都已经不在世上，去年，也许是去年吧，长寿的格利高里派克也终于呼出了他在人间的最后一点气息，到天堂去见他的老朋友赫本了。那个时代，终于隆重的画上一个句号。完整的，毫无遗憾的收了尾。所留下的，只是一部部流传许久并将永远流传的电影。

五六十年前，那是一个美女如云的时代，赫本，泰勒，琼.芳登，海华斯，褒曼，嘉宝，费雯丽。她们轻轻的在屏幕上出现，粉白的脸暗示着他们的温柔。即使饰演的是交际花，赫本依然像个公主。而那些即使是风情万种的性感明星，骨子里仍有她们的高贵和与众不同。

无条件的喜欢黑白片，无条件的喜欢两位主角。
《北非谍影》中的里克，《罗马假日》里的公主—不同气质派别的演员因为这部电影走到了一起。
当年的鲍嘉应该年过五旬，当年的赫本芳彩依旧—或许导演曾经有过更好的搭配。
Mr.鲍嘉戏里戏外都是个十足的硬汉，戏里的角色很尴尬，而他不柔和的风格更增强了这份尴尬。或许换成任何一个婉约些的男演员都会更符合这部早期的《麻雀变凤凰》。

在明媚早上最好看清新的美女，所以一早在看《龙凤配》
奥黛丽赫本与亨弗莱鲍嘉。
那年她25，他55.
她正是娇艳百合的露水清晨，他已是日薄西山的垂暮红日。
沙布里娜是有钱人司机的女儿，暗恋着有钱人家处处留情的二公子，但人家根本未曾留意扎马尾的小丫头。伤心的沙布里娜去巴黎学烹饪结识了位老男爵，老男爵很喜欢她，就出钱把她调教成位淑女。淑女带着华服与气质再次回家的时候不费吹灰的征服了二少。家里自然反对，派出大哥亨弗莱鲍嘉救场，几次吃饭电影之后，沙布里娜发现自己爱上了大哥，结局自然是美满大结局。
先说剧情，虽然大家都喜欢大团圆，您也请费些思量增加点说服力啊！这样的甜俗故事我得说如果没有正当年的奥黛丽赫本就只好去拍卡通片了吧！
亨弗莱鲍嘉老到看起来皮肤层层的叠在颧骨上无法再拍近景，仍然一无表情的在演。而且为迁就他导演把他弟弟也选了四十多的。导演戏份多给了奥黛丽，显得没什麽发挥，直到搞明白自己爱上人家时露出了左边第三颗上牙（这也好算是笑？）这就是本片里这位昔日帅哥第二个表情。（我看是帅哥变摔锅啦！）
没错本片的亮点全在青春逼人的奥黛丽赫本身上，所以导演也没少让她频繁换上美衣秀来秀去（这点象她的一贯风格哈）其实说到这点我对奥黛丽充满同情，这种烂剧本看来她总是优先考虑的对象（换别人一定没说服力也就没收视率）好剧本就留给没那末美貌演技出色的女人。（不知道是不是同一时期也懒得查，比如英格丽褒曼，贝蒂戴维斯~~）
奥黛丽真的长相太完美，根本不必开口，象一幅画就足够。不是好多人家都挂她镇宅末？
但是电影，
我们还是需要后者，
能够深刻到骨头的，
也许没有那末美丽的人！