Tuesday, 11th May 2021
Logo Islandinfo
Mauritius in your hands            

Find in Mauritius

Sight Seeing
Eating Out
Body & Soul
Real Estate
Mauritius Map
Mauritius Online Magazine May 2017 Issue
Expatriates in Mauritius
Mauritius Discovery
Mauritius Explore
Mauritius Escape

Forthcoming Events
in Mauritius

Events & Galleries
in Mauritius
Min: 19 Max: 27
Partly Cloudy
Other regions of Mauritius
17 Mar 2011

THE movie offers may not be rolling in these days, but Lindsay Lohan is camera-ready and intent, it seems, on parlaying the traditional walk of shame en route to court into an image-boosting stroll of fame. In recent months her courtroom outfits — a succession of cleavage-baring shirts and clingy frocks — seem to have been deftly engineered to keep Ms. Lohan front and center in the minds of her fans.

Headed to a Los Angeles courtroom on March 10, where she rejected a plea deal on a charge of felony grand theft, the actress trod a fine line between propriety and provocation, squeezing her frame into a buff-colored dress that clung to her curves like a seaweed wrap. She might have been striding a catwalk, so avidly was her wardrobe scrutinized in the tabloids and by fashion bloggers who rushed to report on her $725 leather frock, designed by Raquel Allegra, her mock-croc pumps and the $2,200 Judith Ripka diamond pendant that she wore like a talisman.

But her look was demure compared with the curve-clutching, thigh-high dress she wore to court in February, a white sheath so steamy it raised questions as to whether Ms. Lohan would cross and uncross her legs as she was questioned in an evident homage to Sharon Stone’s lurid star turn in the movie “Basic Instinct.”

A chorus of self-appointed style pundits at news and gossip outlets including TMZ.com, The Huffington Post and Us Weekly frowned on her choice as unseemly at best, and unlikely to impress a jury or a judge. But the dress, designed by Kimberly Ovitz, whose father is the Hollywood mogul Michael Ovitz, was catnip to Ms. Lohan’s fans, who were rushing to place their orders within hours of her courtroom appearance. The dress, which retails for $575, was sold out within days at the online boutiques that carried it.

Clearly Ms. Lohan knows how to milk a photo opportunity. While neither elegant nor particularly flattering, the chest-compressing tan number she wore on March 10 was an evident nod to sultry, indeed campy, Hollywood notions of glamour.

“She walks into court like a movie star; apparently she hopes to be one,” said Gloria Allred, a Hollywood lawyer who has advised her high-profile clients to dress for court as if as if they were dressing for church. Ms. Lohan’s suggestive attire “may not be appropriate,” Ms. Allred noted. “But there is no law against it.”

Ms. Lohan’s sultry fashion choices mark a studied departure from her previous, seemingly haphazard, stabs at decorum. Only last October, when she faced a judge on a charge that she had violated her probation when she tested positive for drugs, she was dressed in a tightly buttoned blazer and racy boot-cut jeans. During previous court appearances she has variously worn a radically revealing top and white denims, and a biker jacket with buccaneer boots, outfits that seemed better suited to a pit stop at Starbucks or a Saturday stroll through the mall.

In contrast, her more recent looks, which also included a slate-colored Prada pantsuit, were as eye-popping as they were evidently calculated.

Ms. Allred likened her stroll past gawkers and assorted paparazzi to “a walk down the red carpet, one that leads to the courthouse rather than the Kodak Theater.”

That gambit, if it was one, appears to have been effective. “Rather than focusing on exactly why she’s in court, people talk up what she’s wearing,” Ms. Allred said. “How she looks becomes the lead in the story; much farther down are the legal consequences of what she is facing because of her conduct.”

The model for Ms. Lohan’s brash appearance may well have been Roxie Hart, the limelight-chasing murderous showgirl of “Chicago.” (“I’m gonna be a celebrity,” Roxie sings. “They’re gonna recognize my eyes, my hair my teeth, my boobs, my nose.”) “Maybe she saw the Broadway show — or the movie,” Ms. Allred added tartly.

Ms. Lohan is hardly the first celebrity to have taken her style cues from some brassy showbiz primer. Last September, Paris Hilton pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of cocaine possession, wearing a black pencil skirt and a cream-colored wrap top that plunged to her cleavage, its front pulled tight across her chest. In court last fall on a charge of disorderly conduct, Nicole Polizzi, the reality television star known as Snooki, toughed out her ordeal dressed in black leather, her signature pouf deflated. And Naomi Campbell testified last August at a war crimes trial sporting a lacquered beehive and a cardigan so snug it seemed tattooed to her chest.

In contrast, Nicole Richie’s turnout for a court appearance in 2007 was decidedly upscale; she wore a streamlined black dress that brought to mind Audrey Hepburn in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”

Unlike the courtroom attire of her celebrity peers, Ms. Lohan’s garb has been documented with relentless attention to detail. A phalanx of reporters stationed outside the courthouse last week tried to identify every item in her ensemble, from the Dior aviator sunglasses she wore to deflect unwelcome stares, to her Chanel boots. Does such exposure run the risk of tarnishing the designer’s image? Not necessarily, said Brian Ripka, the president of the Judith Ripka Company. “We cannot control what our customers choose to do with our jewelry,” Mr. Ripka said. “But the media attention has been great, as many more people have been exposed to this piece.”

Certainly Ms. Lohan can sell a look. The question is, can she sell herself? Marina Albright, a partner in Albright Fashion Library, a clothing rental service, deemed Ms. Lohan’s leather dress and white sheath tarty and aggressive. Ms. Albright’s company supplied the wardrobe for Lil’ Kim, including a prim Moschino suit, when she was tried a half-dozen years ago on a charge of perjury. She said she would have chosen “something a little sweet to take the edge off” Ms. Lohan’s appearance. An hourglass silhouette by Roland Mouret or Victoria Beckham would have been just as sexy, she said, while adding a touch of class. She said she thought Ms. Lohan’s high neckline of last week was court-appropriate, though her shoes suggested a dominatrix. “She could have worn a Manolo Blahnik kitten heel,” Ms. Albright said. “You would think she would want to dress like a lady — or at least pretend to be one.”

Ms. Allred struck a similar note, arguing that the actress’s look probably didn’t garner any sympathy from the judge. “If anything, her outfits are alienating,” Ms. Allred said. “A court wants to feel that the defendant has a proper respect for the gravity of the occasion,” she said, adding wryly after a beat, “I suppose we ought to be grateful that she’s not wearing shorts.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com

« Back
Publish your article with us for free
Home | About us | Contact Us | Advertising | Link to Us | Airport   Bookmark and Share Site by: Islandinfo & Maxuz Web Agency