For those who have ventured, executed, and excelled within the world of equestrianism, riding astride is well akin to riding “half assed” if you excuse my language. Side Saddle: the saddle that possesses more than meets the eye. You are on the verge, the fringe, the farthest point of extreme; on an animal that is hurdling towards a 1 metre hedge with a ditch to greet you on the other-side. That is if you are lucky enough to be hunting. It is the hardest way to ride a horse, the corset of saddles, and yet women rather than be constrained, have mastered the tack for centuries.
Side Saddle, to ride aside rather than astride, was introduced in 1382 to fashion a modest way for a woman to ride a horse. Anne of Bohemia {1} historically attributed to the side-saddles’ inception created an apparatus that made it difficult for the woman to ride let alone control the horse. Catherine de’ Medici, improved the British Queen’s model, allowing for more comfort and independence for a woman to have control over her own steed rather than be led about. Isabelle Queen of Spain “without tiring, giving the impression of being in all places at the same time, Isabel rode her horse from one side of the kingdom to the other exhorting her people…she rode between 100 and 200 miles per day, crossing frozen mountain passes in order to convince some lukewarm nobleman to send her 500 soldiers.” [1]
Women for five centuries, rode either in cortège with delicacy, defeated the recalcitrant saddle- Elizabeth I known for her penchant of intense hunts or, spurned the rules all together (usual suspects included – Catherine the Great, Marie Antoinette) and rode astride. It was Jules Pellier who in 1830 created the second pommel, the greatest addition to the side-saddle, it gave woman a leg up (pardon the pun).
The second pommel, the leaping horn,
{1} A little tid-bit regarding Anne of Bohemia, was the birth of the Chess Queen on the chess board.
Margaret Thatcher was the female form of the “Churchillian” bulldog. A force of personality who stirred controversy overbreakfast, lunch, tea and dinner across the world that led the Russian press to ironically bestow her with the moniker “Iron Lady” – a mystery wrapped in an enigma was our M.T. And don’t forget, (Aunt Spiker cried), she was our first female P.M! (M.P. would have rhymed better but that position was filled by Lady Nancy Astor in 1919)
An Iron Lady before the Russians knew her, her determination and stamina knew no bounds – beginning as grocers daughter, earning a degree at Oxford in chemistry, dabbling as a barrister, elected as MP in 1959 and finally achieving what no woman had done before her. She possessed the keys to No.10 Downing street.
She was a British bulldozer – our own Cold War Warrior; with her iron fists she accomplished lifting the “Iron Curtain” proving she would not desist, no matter the obstacle. Meeting with President Gorbachev in December 1984, was the catalyst to begin negotiations with the Soviet Union and bring about the end of the Cold War. Her words, “we can do business together” formed a catalyst, bringing the United States and Soviet Union to the negotiation table. The latter exhibits her savoir faire to act on initiative and appreciate the interests of both countries. Without Mrs. Thatcher its unlikely that President Reagan would have considered the thought of deliberations with General Secretary Gorbachev, who ruled what the U.S. President referred to as the “evil empire”.
Her domestic achievements included revitalising the British economy, emphasized deregulation, and lessened the authority of the trade and labor unions. Back over on the continent, she adamantly tried to prevent the very plague that is occupying Europe today, the Euro. Her support of the European Union was to ensure free trade and effective competition. One could say she was an augur who had her reasons and at times those reasons seemed harsh and cruel and resulted in negative situations. But she was of the people, for the people and like all humans, especially when placed into politics, people change and not always by choice.
Margaret Thatcher was no fool nor a monster and was, I believe, demonstrably misunderstood and under-appreciated when she was in office and out. While at No. 10, she not only battled those within Parliament, the Soviet Union, Falkland terrorism, the British economy, the people and lastly the press. Never before had a Prime Minister been the bunt of umteenmillion gaffes, cartoons, the monikers – the Milk Snatcher, Maggie, Attilla the Hen… a fetid of verbal and physical abuse. Yet she kept at her post and strove on as she had promised when elected. Her skin was akin to a medieval suite of armor – surviving the both Nazi and IRA bombs. Perhaps that was her undoing, that compromise was not a consideration.
Mrs Thatcher was Great Britain’s 77th Prime Minister, succeeding James Callaghan (1976-1979), known for his little mess known as the “Winter of Discontent“. What comes as a shock is not the fact that she passed away, she was 87 and had been of poor health for sometime, but rather the British public’s reaction. Did people throw parties when Sir Anthony Eden died (ignited Suez Crisis), or Neville Chamberlain (Invasion of Poland) and while I’m at it, Stanley Baldwin and his major WW2 Hiccup. Politicians who could have perhaps help prevent World War 2, died without much more than a few hurrumps from some, and rather tainted images that are vaguely mentioned in the history books.
Its saddening to think, especially after such great unity and equanimity that we have shown as a country over the last few years (save for a few riots and other misconducts) that the world see’s how poorly certain citizens have reacted to the passing of one of our past Prime Ministers. Rather than mourn or be respectful, rejoicing proliferates. In Brixton, Glasgow and Bristol street “death” parties took place – arrests were made, police officers injured and businesses damaged, all of which reveals nothing of her legacy but of the mind-state of those involved.
The ANC (African National Congress) for whom Mrs. Thatcher had previously refused to recognise, as well her rebuff to isolate apartheid, published this statement which I believe says it all:
“[Mrs. Thatchers] passing signal the end of a generation of leaders that ruled during a very difficult period characterized by the dynamics of the cold war. Her tenure as Prime Minister redefined British politics and public administration and these impacted greatly on the European politics and governance. The ANC was on the receiving end of her policy [...] however we acknowledge that she was one of the strong leaders in Britain and Europe to an extend that some of her policies dominate discourse in the public service structures of the world. Long after her passing on, her impact will still be felt and her views a subject of discussion.[1]
For the people of Great Britain, and the rest of the world
may her passing call to mind a quote she once said:
Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope.
-St. Francis of Assisi
History of Mrs. Thatcher’s Downing Street Years in Film
PPR (Pinault-Printemps-Redoute) changed its official name to Kering. Not old news, but, it’s been palaver, and I’ve been scratching my brain to understand the refashion of their image. The world of fashion has always been known for its un-kering demeanor – no one has ventured into the business knowing that there were going to be fluffy puppies, rainbows and people gushing “its ok to make a mistake poppet, don’t you fret, have a cup of tea” if you didn’t get a second to iron a crucial piece before it’s strut down the runway. No. Fashion is an iron fist, wrapped in chain mail within in a silk couture glove. Vintage of course. PPR, or my moniker for it, Power, Power, Roar – holds major subsidiaries such as, Gucci, Bottega Veneta, Saint Laurent, Alexander McQueen, Balenciaga, Brioni, Christopher Kane, Stella McCartney, Sergio Rossi, Boucheron, Girard-Perregaux, JeanRichard, Qeelin, Puma, Volcom, Cobra, Electric and Tretorn….I say again Power, Power, Roar.
Unless you read François-Henri Pinault’s reasoning behind the company’s metamorphosis – which won’t be solidified until June 18, 2013- one wonders where the flip originated from. Regardless the entire transformation just prompts my recollection of ITV’s Twenty Twelve.
(Siobhan in Marketing)
The Name: Kering
“First and foremost, Kering can be pronounced as ‘caring’ in English, which expresses our company culture of taking care of our brands, people, stakeholders and the environment. The suffix ‘-ing’ expresses the idea of movement, one of the constants in the Group’s history, as well as its international dimension. The stem ‘ker’, meaning home in Breton, is a proud reminder of our origins in the Brittany region of France.” - That’s touching, if you’re a non-profit.
The Image: The Owl “[...] the owl, represents vision, as well as being a sign of wisdom. A discreet and protective animal, it is a powerful symbol for a Group that spots potential and guides and nurtures its brands and people.“ To be honest I thought it was a fairy – or a flower with a face. Side-note: Owls sleep through the day, and then parties at night.
The Signiture (tag line): Empowering Imagination
“[...]places imagination at the heart of our business, enabling us to create value in the widest sense. At Kering, we encourage and take care of imagination to push our brands and teams to new limits, to create, innovate and realise their artistic and financial potential – in the most sustainable manner.”
- Why hire a doctor to write it? Find someone whose penmanship can be coherently read. Otherwise one just reads Sug@mation.
Sustainability
PPR/Kering is the forefront of questioning regarding their transformation and not their “consultants”
Brand strategy and signature: Dragon Rouge
Visual identity (name, logo), graphic universe and website: Havas Lifestyle
Launch campaign: TBWA\Corporate
If you know the marketing world, then one is familiar with the phrase “the client is God”.
If you aren’t familiar, watch a few episodes of Mad Men.
Many companies have been revamping their image as of late; trying to change the old into something new but, that isn’t always needed. Nor does it produce positive results.
Have we truly become a vexatious society that when the BBC, which has served not just the British Isles but around the world, wants to take 1 hour to say goodbye to the home its lived at since 1964, we all take up arms in annoyance that they dare waste precious airtime?
Yes, the BBC hasn’t quite been quite the innocent party; what with the salacious Johnny Saville scandal (which included the sacking of Frank Bough, formerly news of the world deputy editor), the suicide of Dr. David Kelly after being named a BBC source for “sexing up” government files on weapons of mass destruction, security correspondent Frank Garders inability to report accurately what the Queen said, Jeremy Clarkson (not enough space to cover all his verbal carnage), and BBC director generals resigning all over the place. To sum up: men behaving badly.
This isn’t an excuse for the BBC’s mishaps but, a play at devils advocate. The present at times makes us forget what the past produced (no pun intended) whether it was drama, comedy, knowledge, news. The BBC has given us, the public, entertainment. How would we react if Pinewood had to pack up and leave? Most of us have never been to Pinewood, nor hold any attachment to the place except through the films that it has made, but I am sure none of us would mind a 1 hour documentary about the studio and it’s history.
The BBC isn’t closing up shop; its on the move but leaving a place that’s been it’s home for almost 40 years creates nostaligia. Actors, directors, producers, writers and all those employed past and present all share in the twinge of sadness and uncertainty of what happens next, and where will it happen?
If they were the ones who gave us the Kardashians, and all the reality rubbish out there, I’d be all for letting them have it. But they have spared us. So, let us retract our claws and sheath our vocal firearms, and allow the BBC to look back at it’s last 40 years.
It’s been confirmed, Bond Street is to be transformed into the into version of the Dubai Mall (minus the aquarium). While there are some that cannot wait to explore the insides of the super-sized multistory stone-and-glass walls’ of the new Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Dior, Fendi, Ermenegildo Zegna and Belstaff stores, I for one could wait. For a very long time. Do we need to install a Causeway Bay, Last Vegas strip in London? There is already Knightsbridge, Sloane street, Oxford Street, Regent street, Harrods?
Are we catering to those who own Harrods and Harvey Nicks? Who could in a shot could jet out and fly out have an aperitif whilst orbiting the moon, and be back in time for dinner?
Look how it turned out for 101 Champs-Élysées. Catastrophe.
Films are created by people, for people. However, lately, (mainly in Hollywood – excluding Argo and a few other productions) another entity has taken over: money. Mr. Franklin has been partaking in some extreme multitasking: directing, writing, producing and, making a bit of a mess of things (along with 3D, but I’ll leave that for another day).
Within the cinematic world to create a film various variables must come together: a story, patience, connections – family or otherwise, creativity, and most importantly, talent. Money of course plays a significant part but, its the story and how its told, that truly creates cinema.
Sophia Coppola. She is lucky enough to have all the above but, rather than squander she has with substantial deftness, harnessed all together. Proof being, Virgin Suicides, Marie Antoinette, and feasibly with her latest creation, The Bling Ring. Only two people could have made this story, (which is a bit trite), into a piece of cinema possibly worth seeing: the late Tony Scott, and Sophia Coppola. With Sophia you get a visceral feast, accompanied by an eclectic soundtrack, and actors who seem to just melt into their characters. It almost makes you want to join in on the fun.
With money, opulence, greed as the vital characters in this film, it will be interesting to see what Ms. Coppola has created.
Only can the final verdict be made when it hits the theatres June 14th.
Till then,view the trailer, and decide for yourself.
And on a side note – who else could take Emma Watson and whisk her away from being rendered “Immobulus” as Hermione Granger? It will be interesting to see what Emma Watson does with what Ms. Coppola has given her.
J.Crew, a melange of fashion that continues to wander about the fashion world aimlessly – like a child who has just stepped into Harrods for the first time. This season, it certainly exhibited its diffidence and inability to draw upon the already established fashion houses as inspiration. There was a reason why Liberty and Lilly (Pulitzer) never merged, courted, or even met. And the reason is all within J.Crews “Collection” for Spring 2013.
To recreate what has already been done for decades is a difficult feat to take on, but its knowing whether one should, there in lies the question.
FAUX-PAS
The Embroided Daisy Shirt: Five words: PLEASE DON’T WEAR THE DAISIES. There is perhaps person in the world could pull it off: Doris Day. (and I mean, perhaps) And it just reminds me of an old ladies swim cap.
The Bright Hydrangea – Hummingbird Print – The models face says it all.
Color Block Print – One could jockey in the Palio di Siena with these trousers. All that’s missing is the horse and a bridle (no saddle in this race!) The Swiss Guard wear more symmetry.
Bazaar Print - No point in beating that into the ground.
What perhaps muddles J.Crew, is not the cuts or the styles, but their choice of madcap prints, sequenes, and colours. J.Crew was always the store to rely on if you needed a simple Oxford blouse, Chino blazer, some nice capris (remember the Minnie pant?) – items that you could then add to with accessories or other brands. You could mix and match, but most of all it was reliable. Ask any prep-school(er) and they’ll tell you that at least 1/4 of their closet was J.Crew.
Secondly, or thirdly (I’ve lost count) by selling classics, that are well known, as “uncommon finds” propels an air of naiveté on their part. Solodus, Comme des Garçons, Barbour, Saint James, Tretorn – are not surreptitious discoveries. They are already somewhat commonplace and, for those who know their salt, are already somewhere in our closet.
I charge J.Crew to dig deeper, don’t reveal the pyramids, we know they are there, but go beyond. If its a boutique they want to be and the idea is there then they must try harder at discovering brands that perhaps are not already established but are on the cusp. Discovering their niche is akin to the undoing of a Gordian knot. But it must be done.
Bron/Broen
Produced by Danmarks Radio (DR) and Sveriges Television (SVT)
Series 1 aired 2011
(You should have seen it last year, if not do so ASAP)
Series 2 set to air late 2013
(absolutely bursting with anticipation)
Sky Atlantic and Canal + will be airing The Tunnel. Produced by Kudos and Shine France
Plot: British and French police joining forces to solve the death of a French politician in
(you guessed it ) the Chunnel.
The Tunnel could prove to be an interesting take on the original; in Bron the body was cut on the Øresund Bridge, and the Øresund region is a transnational region that essentially connects the cities of Copenhagen and Malmo. Whereas, the Straight of Dover, (or at least the Chunnel) where exactly does British or French jurisdiction begin and end within the 50.5km stretch? And then there’s the Schengen Area that Britain is not part of. And as its a French politician where do the British come in to play?
So there is much to be discovered and to look forward to with this forthcoming series, to say the least see how the stars of the show connect.
Clemence Poesy will star as Elise Wasserman for the French side
Stephen Dillane will play DC Karl Robuck
Additional remakes of Bron/Broen/The Bridge are: FX with Diana Kruger. Concerning the Mexican and US border.
Not sure that will take off as hoped.
Now just think, if Russia decides to pick up the story line as well, they have 14 countries to choose from, including China.
What better country to handle a crime committed in order to reveal moralities insolvency. That show could go over forever.
For More information on TV you should be watching click here
