Saturday, November 11, 2006

The Return Of the Unstructured Jacket

I know, you and I saw this on Eva Longoria and we were like, "Wow, if that style of jacket is coming back, I can totally plan my holiday outfits around them! And I can even maybe wear this as a vestment!"

Frumpy Housewives

Not so fast, my little candy corns. Let's think about this some more.

This jacket, while pretty fabulous, is extremely 1980's. Eva Longoria can sort of get away with it. On you and I, especially if you're of the plump brand of clergypigeon, it could just look shapeless and overly ornate, like a meatball dressed in Christmas wrapping. Some caution is required.

If you want to wear this look and you don't want to look like you just stepped out of 1983, pair it with a beautiful, dressy trouser and a high heeled shoe, preferably pointy-toed. That's the only salvation for the large, unstructured jacket. It should not be as long as Eva's unless you have a body like hers and are wearing a simple, very fitted, DRESSY outfit underneath. If it's an indoor garment and not being used as outwear, it should hit you at the hip, no lower.

And just as an aside, if that hair updo makes the likes of Eva Longoria look like Ethel Mertz, it surely can't be your best choice. Neither can the dull, old-school red lipstick. A smoky, bronzey eye and plummy gloss would be far more elegant and appropriate.

The fastest way to kill the elegance of an unstructured jacket is to wear it with Cobbie Cuddlers and with a stained t-shirt underneath. My point is: when an old fashion comes back into fashion and you want to wear it, you have to update and put some thought into the other elements. The return of the unstructured jacket, for example, does not give you permission to wear those huge, floppy cotton pants that I know you've had since that Wombyn Spirit Retreat in 1982.

And finally, remember that while the Unstructured Jacket does cover a lot of you, every time you move we can see what's underneath. What you see standing stock still in the mirror is not what we see. So --no stains, no extreme cleavage, no sloppy mcslopville cotton garments and no leaving off key undergarments.


[Thanks to the GoFugYourself girls for yet another example of celebrities setting bad fashion examples]

Labels:

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did I just see the word "trouser"? Next you're going to be saying "a stylish pant," aren't you? And then we'll be on to so-called colors like "fungus," "landscape," and "wash," and I'll have to stop reading altogether.

Please, PeaceBang, I read this blog because it doesn't read like a pretentious catalog or fashion magazine. I plead with you to re-pluralize your trousers.

Amy
(what PeaceBang is to fashion, I am to grammar, God help me)

6:57 PM  
Blogger PeaceBang said...

Amy, I cahn't, I cahn't!!

I LOVE the word "trouser," because it makes me feel like Anna Wintour!
Don't take that away from me!

P.S. If you REALLY REALLY want to die of bad grammar and pretentious writing, you gotta get LUCKY magazine!

8:13 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home