Fashion

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 8° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

Next time Angelina, do check the label

By Guy Adams in Los Angeles

Wrong way round: Angelina Jolie arrives at the 15th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards in Los Angeles

Getty Images

Wrong way round: Angelina Jolie arrives at the 15th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards in Los Angeles

She is one of the most glamorous women on the planet, whose every red-carpet appearance is scrutinised by an army of photographers and tooth-sucking style commentators. But Angelina Jolie stands accused of an extraordinary fashion faux pas.

The actress sparked heated debate yesterday, after it emerged that the striking, but somehow odd-looking, blue dress she wore to Sunday's Screen Actors Guild awards in Los Angeles had been worn back to front.

Sharp-eyed pundits who pored over the pictures of Jolie negotiating the event's 200-yard red carpet noticed that her dress bore a striking resemblance to a $798 (£560) ball gown showcased at catwalk previews of designer Max Azria's spring collection.

The cornflower-blue frock had the same kimono-style sleeves and waistline as the silk dress worn by Azria's wafer-thin models, they remarked, together with identical detailing on the skirt. But its plunging neckline appeared to have been reversed to show off her back.

After the influential Red Carpet Fashion Awards website noticed the dress-reversal, fashion commentators began discussing the crucial issue of whether Jolie had been aware that it was on back-to-front.

Some speculated that she had accidentally got dressed the wrong way round. In a celebrity version of The Emperor's New Clothes, they said neither her partner Brad Pitt nor dozens of domestic staff had been brave enough to tell her of her wardrobe malfunction. Others described the move as an intentional, and ingenious, way for the 33-year-old actress to wear a dress that would otherwise have exposed an enormous portion of cleavage. They also claimed that reversing the garment allowed Jolie to showcase the collection of tattoos on her back.

Jolie's stylist, Jen Rade, issued a short statement to USMagazine yesterday, saying that her client had intentionally wore the dress that way round to make the outfit "more blouson".

But not everyone was convinced, noting that when Jolie discussed the garment in a red carpet interview with the TV show E! on Sunday, she made no mention of the fact it was on backwards, commenting merely: "I just like to be comfortable, I see what comfortable options are out there."

Cynics also noted that, if she had intended to expose her tattoos, the dress was hardly an unqualified success: the v-shaped neckline actually covered up half of the artworks.

Either way, the affair left some influential fashion commentators with egg on their faces. The Los Angeles Times critic Booth Moore, for example, failed to notice that the dress was on back-to-front when composing a lengthy analysis for Monday's newspaper. "Jolie is one of the few celebrities who has developed a signature red carpet look: drapey, goddess-like dresses that show off her tattooed shoulders, natural hair, minimal make-up and jewellery. Some have criticised the look as dowdy, but I would call it self-aware," he wrote.

"She's using clothing to control her image. In a way, Jolie is telling us she's transcended fashion and won't be at the whims of whatever designer or jeweller happens to be the highest bidder. That alone sets her apart from the starlet pack, giving her integrity as an actress and mother, instead of just a mannequin."

Attention will now turn to Jolie's outfit at next month's Oscars, for which she has been nominated for the Best Actress award for her role in Changeling. Meanwhile, whether she reversed the dress deliberately or not, the actress can at least reflect that she is following in a small yet memorable show-business tradition.

During the 1990s, the adolescent rap duo Kriss Kross sparked a trend for wearing jeans and t-shirts back to front. Meanwhile, at the 1999 Oscars, Celine Dion famously wore a white Dior tuxedo, backwards. That outfit, topped-off with an extravagant white fedora hat, was variously described as "bizarre" and "unflattering", and in some quarters even saw Dion compared to a "pimp".

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Snore
[info]comradekaff wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 06:51 am (UTC)
Snore. I'd hoped the label had something to do with labels on a tin - as such I was genuinely intrigued, not any more.
omg
[info]jimmyjitt wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 07:52 am (UTC)
Help! i've just realised that i've been wearing my beanie backwards. Do you think anybody has noticed, no-one has said anything. But should i continue to wear it this way and pretend it was 'my style,man', or should i turn it round and hope that no-one notices. This is so embarrassing.
Oh dear!
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 08:22 am (UTC)
If you woke up next to these tattoos after a night on the town, you'd think you'd been pulled by bloke.
Re: Oh dear!
[info]schmice wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 05:13 am (UTC)
well said.
Woman wears dress
[info]iain39 wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 09:36 am (UTC)
Today a little over 21,000 children will die from starvation or preventable diseases. But never mind about that now! Apparently a woman has worn a dress!!
Re: Woman wears dress
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC)
I know, big news right? Whether anyone like Jolie or not, she does a lot to raise awareness for several causes throughout the world with the UNHCR, She's been on missions to refugee camps, donated money, is a goodwill ambassedor etc etc and yet this is the thing in her life that catches people's eye? Oh I despair!
Re: Woman wears dress
[info]fellie83 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 05:19 pm (UTC)
yes, but she's not only worn a dress but POTENTIALLY worn it back to front!

yawn yawn - has this paper turned into Heat magazine, please .....
Yawn
[info]peersrogue wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 10:36 am (UTC)
Pampoered star may have worn dress backwards - wish I could say it raised a smile or lightened the day. It didn't.
[info]vgnwtch wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 11:52 am (UTC)
Looks like she did check the label and made the sensible decision to wear it so that it would actually look good.
The Arizona Law.
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 11:56 am (UTC)
Don't know whether to look at her or read her.If she ever wants to audition for "Cape Fear" she should pass.
Sub-species.
[info]archibald_knox wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 01:32 pm (UTC)
It's amazing how dim these celebrities can be. A fantastic flawless body and she lets some talentless jerk with a needle and ink cover it in permanent scribbles.

Fashionable? trendy? edgy? cool?

No, she has just voluntarily joined the sub-species of celebrity who advertise to the world that they have no class.
Re: Sub-species.
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 01:51 pm (UTC)
Nothing wrong with tattoos but I bet she regrets "Billy Bob" as she divorced him.
Re: Sub-species.
[info]caladan58 wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 10:47 pm (UTC)
I remember a Tracey Ullman funny. She's playing a divorced tatooed remarried mother of 8 kids. She says " I had my tatoo changed from 'This is Dave's bitch' to 'this is Jason's bitch' because Jason is much classier name."
Re: Sub-species.
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 10:06 am (UTC)
I had to explain ACAB/ASAB to a pal yesterday.Sigh.Some folks have sheltered lives!
Angie's dress
[info]val_camps wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 06:38 pm (UTC)
C'mon!!! If you had 6 kids between 10 and 0...wouldn't you be wearing your clothes back to front?? ;) Angie is a goddess, even if she had goo on her dress's shoulder or bags under her eyes (which she hasn't).
Cheers!
from a mum of twins....
[info]sugarmagnolia53 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 05:16 am (UTC)
Ok...she wanted a blousen look to cover up her tummy....believe me, I know what that's all about.
=)
Angelina Jolie
[info]tinkerstewart wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 07:37 am (UTC)
What kind of witless nit bothers to diss
an actress' clothing? Better do something
more memorable
Angelina Jolie
[info]tinkerstewart wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 07:37 am (UTC)
What kind of witless nit bothers to diss
an actress' clothing? Better do something
more memorable
pathetic
[info]teddave wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)
youre supposed to be a bloody newspaper.
Tats
[info]bundubasher wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 12:34 pm (UTC)
I imagine, not that it is important in any shape manner or form, she did it deliberately in order to show off the back tattoos.Though quite why anyone treats their skin as a comic book I have no idea as it is seriously vile.
However she is a good person with a humanitarian conscience unlike most of them who are all narcissistic shopaholics out of boredom.

Moving on to more relevant "news"......
Next time Angelina
[info]catseyes100 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 01:04 pm (UTC)
The purpose?????
[info]thewhiteowl wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 04:41 pm (UTC)
If she'd worn it the other way round, the cleavage would have reached her navel.
a disgrace
[info]ebbi581 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 05:18 pm (UTC)
a disgrace that while millions are going hungry and homeless some of us are still busy with these low lives.
Whatever
[info]azariafan wrote:
Sunday, 1 February 2009 at 04:49 am (UTC)
For a newspaper you don't really do much research do you? Most of Max Azaria's clothes are designed to be worn multiple ways. I own several dresses and tops that can be worn back to front or vise-versa (often with one side plunging and the other with a demure neckline) by him. He's an ingenious designer who focuses on versatility. Ms. Jolie's gown was probably intended to be worn either way.
Yawn! Yawn! Yawn!
[info]christelfer wrote:
Sunday, 1 February 2009 at 11:55 am (UTC)
....Yawn! Yawn! Yawn! I thought this was meant to be a serious newspaper....
Acutally...
[info]robynne_hood wrote:
Sunday, 1 February 2009 at 06:25 pm (UTC)
The way she wears it is better
Re: Acutally...
[info]johnbonar wrote:
Monday, 2 February 2009 at 05:29 pm (UTC)
Actually
If the dress was turned around, and the zip at the same level, then her boobs would be all out.
Beware of that dress, ladies...
[info]j2thaizzo2 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:33 pm (UTC)
it WILL steal your man!
Angelina Dress
[info]albiravi wrote:
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 07:32 am (UTC)
Well it doesn't matter how she wore the dress it still looks pretty on her and infact I guess she has worn the right way and model had worn it the wrong way.
Angie J..true artist
[info]cinnamonee wrote:
Monday, 16 February 2009 at 11:16 am (UTC)
I for one congratulate Angie J for her chosen attire..it looks good whether it was by fluke or she planned to wear it so. and like a true 'artist' she chooses not to retaliate by 'dissing' those that ridiculed the way she dressed, unlike today's so called 'celebrities' who get off on media attention and pull stunts like these to attract media attention for a week until the go back to their shelf life and plot another stunt or two!

and as for this being a newspapercan i just remind everyone that you are in the fashion section of the paper, so if you want 'real' news..you'll find them in the section headed NEWS..you really can't miss it.
Ms Jolie..Good for you!
[info]cinnamonee wrote:
Monday, 16 February 2009 at 11:22 am (UTC)
I for one congratulate Angie J for her chosen attire..it looks good whether it was by fluke or she planned to wear it so. and like a true 'artist' she chooses not to retaliate by 'dissing' those that ridiculed the way she dressed, unlike today's so called 'celebrities' who get off on media attention and pull stunts like these to attract media attention for a week until the go back to their shelf life and plot another stunt or two!

and as for this being a newspaper and not writing these stories can i just remind everyone that you are in the fashion section of the paper, so if you want 'real' news..you'll find them in the section headed NEWS..you really can't miss it.
Subtle form of self-harm?
[info]kristinaeri wrote:
Thursday, 19 March 2009 at 01:09 pm (UTC)
Why do personality disordered folks like tatoos and piercings more than the average person? Is it a subtle way of self-harming or wating to have signs of Specialness? (I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with tatoos/piercings generally), but I've noticed this working with PDs,. Especially Borderlines (Jolie) seem prone to this...
Label
[info]catfishspy wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 10:46 am (UTC)
Those tattos are cool, as for the label printers well thats "bizarre" and "unflattering".

Most popular in Life & Style

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date