欢迎安装高清版[一起看]电影APP
剧照
剧情介绍
龙凤配1954电影免费高清在线观看全集。
萨宾娜（奥黛丽·赫本 Audrey Hepburn 饰）出生在富有的拉若比庄园，但她并非千金贵族，而是该庄园一介小小司机的女儿。可悲的是，萨宾娜看上了庄园里风流成性的公子哥戴维（威廉·霍尔登 William Holden 饰），而后者从来没有将她放在眼里。萨宾娜遵循父亲的旨意前往巴黎学习厨艺，在此期间，逐渐成熟起来的萨宾娜散发出了惊人的魅力。与此同时，为了促进家族企业的发展，戴维与伊丽莎白（玛莎·海尔 Martha Hyer 饰）的婚事正在如火如荼的进行中。就在这个节骨眼上，学有所成的萨宾娜回到了庄园，她的归来立刻吸引了戴维的眼球，两人不顾长辈的反对感情迅速升温。 为了维护弟弟的婚事，哥哥莱纳斯（亨弗莱·鲍嘉 Humphrey Bogart 饰）决定主动接近萨宾娜，以此来削弱她对戴维的依恋。在相处中，莱纳斯和萨宾娜之间产生了异样的感情，戴维得知此事同莱纳斯大打出手，而萨宾娜也误以为莱纳斯的感情只是一个阴谋。伤心的她逃亡巴黎，不久之后，莱纳斯也踏上了追随她的路途。爆笑先森若你安好便是晴天爱上百分百英雄阿旺新传国语摊牌了，我是医道圣手（我国士无双的身份，被妹妹曝光了）史努比上太空择天记 第四季秘密警察落井的硬币微不足道天湖女侠云巅之上第一季查理·布朗，要注意小事熄灭的日光零点爆破分流她的杀机欲望相思女子客店情遇曼哈顿能帮就帮棱镜芝加哥警署 第一季无懈可击之蓝色梦想武当II罗密欧与朱丽叶1968第七个秘密我凭本事单身马男波杰克第六季你好，普雷马·科斯梅大师泡泡剧组那边孤独的美食家第五季硫磺泉镇的秘密守护甜心!!心跳我和教授“羊粪豆”帅气的恶魔春娇救志明莉琪的异想世界海上钢琴师毒刺入喉狗血屯江湖往事燃烧的沙漠灯火黄昏两代人图派克：风华再现狂暴凶狮
萨宾娜（奥黛丽·赫本 Audrey Hepburn 饰）出生在富有的拉若比庄园，但她并非千金贵族，而是该庄园一介小小司机的女儿。可悲的是，萨宾娜看上了庄园里风流成性的公子哥戴维（威廉·霍尔登 William Holden 饰），而后者从来没有将她放在眼里。萨宾娜遵循父亲的旨意前往巴黎学习厨艺，在此期间，逐渐成熟起来的萨宾娜散发出了惊人的魅力。与此同时，为了促进家族企业的发展，戴维与伊丽莎白（玛莎·海尔 Martha Hyer 饰）的婚事正在如火如荼的进行中。就在这个节骨眼上，学有所成的萨宾娜回到了庄园，她的归来立刻吸引了戴维的眼球，两人不顾长辈的反对感情迅速升温。 为了维护弟弟的婚事，哥哥莱纳斯（亨弗莱·鲍嘉 Humphrey Bogart 饰）决定主动接近萨宾娜，以此来削弱她对戴维的依恋。在相处中，莱纳斯和萨宾娜之间产生了异样的感情，戴维得知此事同莱纳斯大打出手，而萨宾娜也误以为莱纳斯的感情只是一个阴谋。伤心的她逃亡巴黎，不久之后，莱纳斯也踏上了追随她的路途。爆笑先森若你安好便是晴天爱上百分百英雄阿旺新传国语摊牌了，我是医道圣手（我国士无双的身份，被妹妹曝光了）史努比上太空择天记 第四季秘密警察落井的硬币微不足道天湖女侠云巅之上第一季查理·布朗，要注意小事熄灭的日光零点爆破分流她的杀机欲望相思女子客店情遇曼哈顿能帮就帮棱镜芝加哥警署 第一季无懈可击之蓝色梦想武当II罗密欧与朱丽叶1968第七个秘密我凭本事单身马男波杰克第六季你好，普雷马·科斯梅大师泡泡剧组那边孤独的美食家第五季硫磺泉镇的秘密守护甜心!!心跳我和教授“羊粪豆”帅气的恶魔春娇救志明莉琪的异想世界海上钢琴师毒刺入喉狗血屯江湖往事燃烧的沙漠灯火黄昏两代人图派克：风华再现狂暴凶狮
长篇影评
1 ) 《龙凤配》与《窈窕淑女》——意识形态本质和类型模式的反讽
我们尝试将1954年出品的《龙凤配》和1962年出品的好莱坞爱情类型片中的经典影片《窈窕淑女》进行一个涉及意识形态层面的文本对比阅读，是否能够更为清楚的认识一个好莱坞语境中的比利•怀尔德。
两部影片在叙事文本上均貌似严格的遵守着爱情类型的条条框框，在情节模式上都不约而同地选择了“灰姑娘”的经典本文。法兰克福的理论家们，将文化工业导致的类型化指认为“通过广大无阶级性的新神话，强有力地援助了收编工人阶级的进程，并且更加紧密的将工人阶级与发财致富的信念结合起来。” 这句话默认了好莱坞电影在意识形态上的资产阶级立场和中产阶级道德。建立在这种理论的指导上，我们是否可以对两部影片的阶级性立场进行审视，从叙事中挖掘其意识形态运作的不同方式和迥异方向。
两部影片讲述的都是一个底层阶级的女性，如何与中产阶级男性结合。这其中的决定性事件都是她们被塑造，导致了身份的改变。而身份的改变致使她们进入了中产阶级的生活之中。这种身份的可移动性，被文化研究学者们认为是大多数工业社会阶级系统的特征。然而，我们需要审视的是，这两部影片中，底层人民身份改变的方式是不一样的。《窈窕淑女》的伊利莎，因为语言学家和一个资本家兼贵族玩笑般的打赌而被中产阶级塑造，继而进入到了中产阶级的生活中，这就是说，底层阶级如果希望改变自己的身份，必须等待中产阶级的塑造。而伊利莎改变身份的动机，既是赤裸裸的来自于对中产阶级生活的向往。而伊利莎父亲的身份改变，更是神化了中产阶级的作用，语言学家又是开玩笑的一句话，又使这个游手好闲穷的叮当响的父亲成为了“英国最优秀的道德家”，得到周围人的追捧（过去他是个人人讨厌的混蛋）。这其中的讽刺意味是直指底层人民的。但身份改变的事实，却给予中产阶级以改变和塑造底层人民的权力。
而在《龙凤配》中，同样存在一个塑造的过程。但区别于《窈窕淑女》的是，这种身份改变的动机，是来自于女主角莎布琳娜对于中产阶级男青年大卫的爱情。她遵父命去法国学习厨艺，在法国被一个男爵塑造。这个塑造的过程在叙事中被省略，被看作一场偶遇和机缘。法国和男爵在这里扮演的角色具有深意，比利怀尔德借助欧洲和贵族阶层，是否在用一种更为古典的方式，消解中产阶级的权力？
这意味着我们需要从叙事层面对影片的阶级状况进行分析。两部影片中都有两个被严格区分的世界。在《窈窕淑女》中，这两个世界之间只存在底层阶级对中产阶级世界的闯入，但两个世界彼此之间是不可见的。《龙凤配》中，两个世界因为主仆关系的设置，在空间位置上并不存在区分，这种区分是象征性的。不可见被打破，底层阶级的视点被承认，中产阶级的生活作为一个舞台被底层阶级观察。这种观察在两次舞会中显现得最为明确。在开片的舞会中，草丛作为象征性的界限，莎布琳娜躲在草丛后窥视着舞会上的大卫；而在第二次舞会中，莎布琳娜进入到了这场舞会中，仆人们躲在草丛后继承了这个窥视的视点。阶级划分被认为是想象性的，作为司机的父亲严格遵守这种划分，他告诉莎布琳娜“不要伸手斋月”。而颠覆性的台词是莎布琳娜的回答：“现在月要摘我了。”当想象性的阶级划分不复存在，底层人民才能够真正进入到中产阶级的世界里，这是比利怀尔德的颠覆性处理之一。即赋予底层阶级以主动性，尽管这种主动性是建立在爱情基础上的。但在《窈窕淑女》中，伊利莎连争取爱情的主动都是不存在的。
这种主动与被动的问题涉及到了所谓的“闯入”。《窈窕淑女》中的伊利莎对中产阶级世界的第一次闯入是混乱而惊恐的，她对这个世界充满敌意，这整个闯入被表现为不伦不类，这种不伦不类被一直延续到伊利莎的父亲的闯入。他在语言学家家中的表现是“不道德”，并且唯利是图的。但语言学家的表现充满了克制，他不但给钱，且用一句话就让其父一步登天。整个影片的过程，可以看作是中产阶级帮助底层阶级女青年消除“闯入”的过程。伊利莎被语言学家逼迫学习“发音”。这种逼迫被表现为苦口婆心的。当她的发音终于标准之后，伊利莎便成功进入了中产阶级甚至贵族世界。两个世界的隔阂，被简单看作是“发音”带来的。在英国，发音被看作一个显著的身份标志，但在影片中，这个标志被简单化为身份改变的充分条件。这种简单化的背后是否含有更多的意识形态企图，即制造一个并非事实的幻觉，底层阶级想要改变身份是容易的，只需要好好练习自己的发音就可以了。阶级对立被简单化为生活方式的对立，并且中产阶级立场将这种对立建构为“底层阶级的语言是粗俗的”。这其中隐含的中产阶级道德和意识形态是赤裸而隐晦的，并且对于下层观众存在反动的询唤功能。
而《龙凤配》中，阶级对立从未消除，莎布琳娜的“闯入”从未消解。即使她被成功塑造，成为一个“淑女”，如同所有类型片一样惊艳的来到舞会上，仍然被中产阶级玩弄。比利怀尔德意欲表现的，根本就不是阶级的消除，他根本不相信阶级是可以消除的。他始终在表现的是中产阶级家族内部的危机。所以另一个意义上的“闯入”发生了，赖恩斯因为家族利益阻止大卫与莎布琳娜的爱情，成为大卫和莎布琳娜之间的闯入者，而大卫因为赖恩斯以自己为交换品，两次闯入赖恩斯的办公室。这个意义上的闯入是比利怀尔德关注的话题。中产阶级成为观众的观看对象。如同片中莎布琳娜对于他们的观看一样。
《窈窕淑女》将爱情的到来看作是塑造完成的结果，语言学家陈述自己爱上伊利莎的理由：“我很高兴，我将你变得自信了。”这种爱情可以被看作是一个画家对于自己作品的爱，一个生物学家对于自己克隆出来的羊的爱。影片的结尾部分是伊利莎的游走，她不满于语言学家将她作为一个作品般欣赏，离家出走。但她发现自己已经无法回到原来的阶级中，原来与自己载歌载舞的人们告诉她：“小姐，你不应该来这儿。”这种刻意的设置是中产阶级对于下层世界的想象性描述，这种无法交流被刻意放大。在这里，伊利莎面临的困境是身份的模糊。语言学家的人口报失并不能够说明伊利莎的身份，伊利沙也无法明确自己的身份，她似乎不再属于下层世界，只好回到中产阶级的世界里捉迷藏，并且最终回到语言学家身边，以完美爱情收尾。一切都是在中产阶级的掌握之中，这就是完美爱情的真相。
《龙凤配》的爱情发展却是产生于中产阶级内部的争斗中，赖恩斯在阻止大卫与莎布琳娜的过程中爱上了莎布琳娜，但出于家族的利益他必须将莎布琳娜送回法国。莎布琳娜则选择同时放弃这两个人，回到巴黎。法国在这里成为了莎的归属，这里除了爱情的困顿并不存在其他的困境，莎布琳娜不像伊利莎无处可去，她将法国作为自己最后的归属。但最后结局的意义在于，中产阶级两兄弟被莎布琳娜改变，宣称不结婚的赖恩斯终于放手追求爱情，花花公子大卫却决定为家族利益担负责任。莎布琳娜成为了解决中产阶级家族危机的关键因素。
但事实上，解决这一切的是法国男爵，他对于莎布琳娜的塑造是改变这一切的关键因素。而在这里，问题被重新提出，对于比利怀尔德，欧洲和巴黎，究竟意味着什么，男爵的身份设置，又说明了什么。比利怀尔德否认中产阶级对下层人民具有塑造的能力，这无疑打破了好莱坞类型电影的意识形态诉求，但他又选择一个标准的类型片文本，这本质上形成了一种分裂。类型电影始终被看作一种使用大众传播手段使不平等合法化的方式，是让“从属阶级安心于其从属阶级地位”。而好莱坞电影工业的工业特制和资本来源，就决定了其必须维护以华尔街高层为代表的大资产阶级和最广大的中产阶级的利益。这本是无须质疑的。《窈窕淑女》的意识形态运作方式正是完整的陈述了这一套道德：中产阶级有能力塑造下层人民，使他们进入到中产阶级队伍中，并获得完美爱情。而以另一套主体进行表述，即下层人民可以通过中产阶级的塑造，成为中产阶级的一员，并获得中产阶级的完美爱情。这种仪式化的集体幻觉机制是几乎所有经典好莱坞类型的法宝。然而《龙凤配》一方面颠覆中产阶级的作用，转而呈现中产阶级内部的矛盾，一方面将塑造的能力和权力交给古典意义上的欧洲贵族。事实上，在二十世纪五十年代，欧洲贵族已经成为了一个名义上的特权阶级，这就是说，资本在这之中的能力被消解，这与好莱坞的道德是背道而驰的。塑造的权力被建立在不以资本为基础的名义上存在阶级手中，是否可以看作是比利怀尔德对于这个类型模式的本质上的的反讽呢？
两部影片在叙事文本上均貌似严格的遵守着爱情类型的条条框框，在情节模式上都不约而同地选择了“灰姑娘”的经典本文。法兰克福的理论家们，将文化工业导致的类型化指认为“通过广大无阶级性的新神话，强有力地援助了收编工人阶级的进程，并且更加紧密的将工人阶级与发财致富的信念结合起来。” 这句话默认了好莱坞电影在意识形态上的资产阶级立场和中产阶级道德。建立在这种理论的指导上，我们是否可以对两部影片的阶级性立场进行审视，从叙事中挖掘其意识形态运作的不同方式和迥异方向。
两部影片讲述的都是一个底层阶级的女性，如何与中产阶级男性结合。这其中的决定性事件都是她们被塑造，导致了身份的改变。而身份的改变致使她们进入了中产阶级的生活之中。这种身份的可移动性，被文化研究学者们认为是大多数工业社会阶级系统的特征。然而，我们需要审视的是，这两部影片中，底层人民身份改变的方式是不一样的。《窈窕淑女》的伊利莎，因为语言学家和一个资本家兼贵族玩笑般的打赌而被中产阶级塑造，继而进入到了中产阶级的生活中，这就是说，底层阶级如果希望改变自己的身份，必须等待中产阶级的塑造。而伊利莎改变身份的动机，既是赤裸裸的来自于对中产阶级生活的向往。而伊利莎父亲的身份改变，更是神化了中产阶级的作用，语言学家又是开玩笑的一句话，又使这个游手好闲穷的叮当响的父亲成为了“英国最优秀的道德家”，得到周围人的追捧（过去他是个人人讨厌的混蛋）。这其中的讽刺意味是直指底层人民的。但身份改变的事实，却给予中产阶级以改变和塑造底层人民的权力。
而在《龙凤配》中，同样存在一个塑造的过程。但区别于《窈窕淑女》的是，这种身份改变的动机，是来自于女主角莎布琳娜对于中产阶级男青年大卫的爱情。她遵父命去法国学习厨艺，在法国被一个男爵塑造。这个塑造的过程在叙事中被省略，被看作一场偶遇和机缘。法国和男爵在这里扮演的角色具有深意，比利怀尔德借助欧洲和贵族阶层，是否在用一种更为古典的方式，消解中产阶级的权力？
这意味着我们需要从叙事层面对影片的阶级状况进行分析。两部影片中都有两个被严格区分的世界。在《窈窕淑女》中，这两个世界之间只存在底层阶级对中产阶级世界的闯入，但两个世界彼此之间是不可见的。《龙凤配》中，两个世界因为主仆关系的设置，在空间位置上并不存在区分，这种区分是象征性的。不可见被打破，底层阶级的视点被承认，中产阶级的生活作为一个舞台被底层阶级观察。这种观察在两次舞会中显现得最为明确。在开片的舞会中，草丛作为象征性的界限，莎布琳娜躲在草丛后窥视着舞会上的大卫；而在第二次舞会中，莎布琳娜进入到了这场舞会中，仆人们躲在草丛后继承了这个窥视的视点。阶级划分被认为是想象性的，作为司机的父亲严格遵守这种划分，他告诉莎布琳娜“不要伸手斋月”。而颠覆性的台词是莎布琳娜的回答：“现在月要摘我了。”当想象性的阶级划分不复存在，底层人民才能够真正进入到中产阶级的世界里，这是比利怀尔德的颠覆性处理之一。即赋予底层阶级以主动性，尽管这种主动性是建立在爱情基础上的。但在《窈窕淑女》中，伊利莎连争取爱情的主动都是不存在的。
这种主动与被动的问题涉及到了所谓的“闯入”。《窈窕淑女》中的伊利莎对中产阶级世界的第一次闯入是混乱而惊恐的，她对这个世界充满敌意，这整个闯入被表现为不伦不类，这种不伦不类被一直延续到伊利莎的父亲的闯入。他在语言学家家中的表现是“不道德”，并且唯利是图的。但语言学家的表现充满了克制，他不但给钱，且用一句话就让其父一步登天。整个影片的过程，可以看作是中产阶级帮助底层阶级女青年消除“闯入”的过程。伊利莎被语言学家逼迫学习“发音”。这种逼迫被表现为苦口婆心的。当她的发音终于标准之后，伊利莎便成功进入了中产阶级甚至贵族世界。两个世界的隔阂，被简单看作是“发音”带来的。在英国，发音被看作一个显著的身份标志，但在影片中，这个标志被简单化为身份改变的充分条件。这种简单化的背后是否含有更多的意识形态企图，即制造一个并非事实的幻觉，底层阶级想要改变身份是容易的，只需要好好练习自己的发音就可以了。阶级对立被简单化为生活方式的对立，并且中产阶级立场将这种对立建构为“底层阶级的语言是粗俗的”。这其中隐含的中产阶级道德和意识形态是赤裸而隐晦的，并且对于下层观众存在反动的询唤功能。
而《龙凤配》中，阶级对立从未消除，莎布琳娜的“闯入”从未消解。即使她被成功塑造，成为一个“淑女”，如同所有类型片一样惊艳的来到舞会上，仍然被中产阶级玩弄。比利怀尔德意欲表现的，根本就不是阶级的消除，他根本不相信阶级是可以消除的。他始终在表现的是中产阶级家族内部的危机。所以另一个意义上的“闯入”发生了，赖恩斯因为家族利益阻止大卫与莎布琳娜的爱情，成为大卫和莎布琳娜之间的闯入者，而大卫因为赖恩斯以自己为交换品，两次闯入赖恩斯的办公室。这个意义上的闯入是比利怀尔德关注的话题。中产阶级成为观众的观看对象。如同片中莎布琳娜对于他们的观看一样。
《窈窕淑女》将爱情的到来看作是塑造完成的结果，语言学家陈述自己爱上伊利莎的理由：“我很高兴，我将你变得自信了。”这种爱情可以被看作是一个画家对于自己作品的爱，一个生物学家对于自己克隆出来的羊的爱。影片的结尾部分是伊利莎的游走，她不满于语言学家将她作为一个作品般欣赏，离家出走。但她发现自己已经无法回到原来的阶级中，原来与自己载歌载舞的人们告诉她：“小姐，你不应该来这儿。”这种刻意的设置是中产阶级对于下层世界的想象性描述，这种无法交流被刻意放大。在这里，伊利莎面临的困境是身份的模糊。语言学家的人口报失并不能够说明伊利莎的身份，伊利沙也无法明确自己的身份，她似乎不再属于下层世界，只好回到中产阶级的世界里捉迷藏，并且最终回到语言学家身边，以完美爱情收尾。一切都是在中产阶级的掌握之中，这就是完美爱情的真相。
《龙凤配》的爱情发展却是产生于中产阶级内部的争斗中，赖恩斯在阻止大卫与莎布琳娜的过程中爱上了莎布琳娜，但出于家族的利益他必须将莎布琳娜送回法国。莎布琳娜则选择同时放弃这两个人，回到巴黎。法国在这里成为了莎的归属，这里除了爱情的困顿并不存在其他的困境，莎布琳娜不像伊利莎无处可去，她将法国作为自己最后的归属。但最后结局的意义在于，中产阶级两兄弟被莎布琳娜改变，宣称不结婚的赖恩斯终于放手追求爱情，花花公子大卫却决定为家族利益担负责任。莎布琳娜成为了解决中产阶级家族危机的关键因素。
但事实上，解决这一切的是法国男爵，他对于莎布琳娜的塑造是改变这一切的关键因素。而在这里，问题被重新提出，对于比利怀尔德，欧洲和巴黎，究竟意味着什么，男爵的身份设置，又说明了什么。比利怀尔德否认中产阶级对下层人民具有塑造的能力，这无疑打破了好莱坞类型电影的意识形态诉求，但他又选择一个标准的类型片文本，这本质上形成了一种分裂。类型电影始终被看作一种使用大众传播手段使不平等合法化的方式，是让“从属阶级安心于其从属阶级地位”。而好莱坞电影工业的工业特制和资本来源，就决定了其必须维护以华尔街高层为代表的大资产阶级和最广大的中产阶级的利益。这本是无须质疑的。《窈窕淑女》的意识形态运作方式正是完整的陈述了这一套道德：中产阶级有能力塑造下层人民，使他们进入到中产阶级队伍中，并获得完美爱情。而以另一套主体进行表述，即下层人民可以通过中产阶级的塑造，成为中产阶级的一员，并获得中产阶级的完美爱情。这种仪式化的集体幻觉机制是几乎所有经典好莱坞类型的法宝。然而《龙凤配》一方面颠覆中产阶级的作用，转而呈现中产阶级内部的矛盾，一方面将塑造的能力和权力交给古典意义上的欧洲贵族。事实上，在二十世纪五十年代，欧洲贵族已经成为了一个名义上的特权阶级，这就是说，资本在这之中的能力被消解，这与好莱坞的道德是背道而驰的。塑造的权力被建立在不以资本为基础的名义上存在阶级手中，是否可以看作是比利怀尔德对于这个类型模式的本质上的的反讽呢？
2 ) 鲍嘉和赫本不搭调
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》。
《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》。
3 ) 原来过去从未看懂过龙凤配
原来过去从未看懂过龙凤配。
如今我终于明白主人公们各自的纠结与情绪。
比如，莱纳斯从一开始在出海的船上，到后来去餐厅吃饭，其实一直在编织谎言，用追女子的技巧（追女孩就像骑车一样简单）来俘获萨布琳娜的心。
萨布琳娜自己也说，短短几天就忘记大卫，投向莱纳斯。过去迷恋大卫的萨布琳娜是一个怀着白马王子梦想的女孩，而她现在长大了，尽管这个梦想的记忆在巴黎始终萦绕并支撑着她，但到了莱纳斯的柔情面前都轰然瓦解。其实，任何成熟一些的女子都会爱上莱纳斯这种类型。卡萨布拉卡里面完美塑造了这种沉稳冷酷的男人形象。莱纳斯是表面冷酷的生意人，与浮华花哨的二公子相比，更具有独特的人格魅力。只是莱纳斯在常人眼中，也许才是真正难以企及的月亮，他对金钱的兴趣远远大于对美女。少女纯真时代，自然对这样的男子敬而远之。
我产生了一种思路：萨布琳娜虽然让莱纳斯有丝丝动心，但我并不看好二人结局。萨布琳娜太过天真烂漫，她无法真正深入莱纳斯的内心。莱纳斯的烦恼也许能在萨布琳娜的清爽夏风中得到舒缓，但不能再根本上解决。金钱的奴役，事业施加的权欲，难道是能通过到巴黎的暂避彻底摆脱的吗？于是从巴黎一词的提出，我就预感到两人的邂逅只是一场白日梦，总有梦醒时刻。
但细节仍然给我们带来了希望。
其实，莱纳斯相比他的一家子，对底层阶级更具同情和关心。从他对他的秘书，以及对司机等维护即可看出。片子开头萨布琳娜自杀那段，如果是大卫遇到呢？不，大卫根本不可能出现，也根本不可能关心萨布琳娜。二十五年来，莱纳斯见证了萨布琳娜的成长，对这个如春花般绚烂的女子到底有着怎么样的情愫呢？
当莱纳斯代替弟弟出现在网球场时，我们大概就可以猜测出一二了。莱纳斯如果是一个冷静、淡定的利益维护者，他也许更加会站在旁观者的身份来操纵一切，而不是把自己给搭进去，这不符合一个成日算计的生意人形象吧？
我承认他可能一开始对萨布琳娜也是一副胜算在握的心态，但为何不见他之前对大卫的三任妻子有任何插手行为？对于一个从不涉及男女情爱的人来说，他对接近女性应该是条件反射地抗拒的，除非他违背自己的一贯理性，除非他对这个女子有特殊的感觉。
所以从他决定以身试险的一刻，就已经暴露了他心底的那丝柔软。他比大卫在早得多的时候，已经注意到了萨布琳娜。
到最后，他决定不再欺骗萨布琳娜的时候，他坦白地告诉萨布琳娜他的计划的时候，他对萨布琳娜已经不仅仅是当初的在意，他对自己的行为感到痛心，对欺骗萨布琳娜感到愧疚。可能有人认为这个愧疚与爱无关，然而对于生意人，欺诈是惯用手段，但他最终却不能接受自己对她做了这种事，可想而知萨布琳娜在他心中的地位。
我一开始以为莱纳斯那时并未清醒地意识到自己的感情，更未意识到萨布琳娜已经属意于他而非大卫，最后是大卫让莱纳斯看清楚了真心。后来我想了想，也许不一定，莱纳斯对他的弟弟如此的宠溺，即使是他对萨布琳娜有情，只要没有大卫的首肯，他也许就会将它埋葬在心底。而大卫也终究到了有把握分寸的年岁，他作为一个旁观者，意识到了只有这样守护哥哥的幸福才能回馈报答莱纳斯多年的照顾。
如今我终于明白主人公们各自的纠结与情绪。
比如，莱纳斯从一开始在出海的船上，到后来去餐厅吃饭，其实一直在编织谎言，用追女子的技巧（追女孩就像骑车一样简单）来俘获萨布琳娜的心。
萨布琳娜自己也说，短短几天就忘记大卫，投向莱纳斯。过去迷恋大卫的萨布琳娜是一个怀着白马王子梦想的女孩，而她现在长大了，尽管这个梦想的记忆在巴黎始终萦绕并支撑着她，但到了莱纳斯的柔情面前都轰然瓦解。其实，任何成熟一些的女子都会爱上莱纳斯这种类型。卡萨布拉卡里面完美塑造了这种沉稳冷酷的男人形象。莱纳斯是表面冷酷的生意人，与浮华花哨的二公子相比，更具有独特的人格魅力。只是莱纳斯在常人眼中，也许才是真正难以企及的月亮，他对金钱的兴趣远远大于对美女。少女纯真时代，自然对这样的男子敬而远之。
我产生了一种思路：萨布琳娜虽然让莱纳斯有丝丝动心，但我并不看好二人结局。萨布琳娜太过天真烂漫，她无法真正深入莱纳斯的内心。莱纳斯的烦恼也许能在萨布琳娜的清爽夏风中得到舒缓，但不能再根本上解决。金钱的奴役，事业施加的权欲，难道是能通过到巴黎的暂避彻底摆脱的吗？于是从巴黎一词的提出，我就预感到两人的邂逅只是一场白日梦，总有梦醒时刻。
但细节仍然给我们带来了希望。
其实，莱纳斯相比他的一家子，对底层阶级更具同情和关心。从他对他的秘书，以及对司机等维护即可看出。片子开头萨布琳娜自杀那段，如果是大卫遇到呢？不，大卫根本不可能出现，也根本不可能关心萨布琳娜。二十五年来，莱纳斯见证了萨布琳娜的成长，对这个如春花般绚烂的女子到底有着怎么样的情愫呢？
当莱纳斯代替弟弟出现在网球场时，我们大概就可以猜测出一二了。莱纳斯如果是一个冷静、淡定的利益维护者，他也许更加会站在旁观者的身份来操纵一切，而不是把自己给搭进去，这不符合一个成日算计的生意人形象吧？
我承认他可能一开始对萨布琳娜也是一副胜算在握的心态，但为何不见他之前对大卫的三任妻子有任何插手行为？对于一个从不涉及男女情爱的人来说，他对接近女性应该是条件反射地抗拒的，除非他违背自己的一贯理性，除非他对这个女子有特殊的感觉。
所以从他决定以身试险的一刻，就已经暴露了他心底的那丝柔软。他比大卫在早得多的时候，已经注意到了萨布琳娜。
到最后，他决定不再欺骗萨布琳娜的时候，他坦白地告诉萨布琳娜他的计划的时候，他对萨布琳娜已经不仅仅是当初的在意，他对自己的行为感到痛心，对欺骗萨布琳娜感到愧疚。可能有人认为这个愧疚与爱无关，然而对于生意人，欺诈是惯用手段，但他最终却不能接受自己对她做了这种事，可想而知萨布琳娜在他心中的地位。
我一开始以为莱纳斯那时并未清醒地意识到自己的感情，更未意识到萨布琳娜已经属意于他而非大卫，最后是大卫让莱纳斯看清楚了真心。后来我想了想，也许不一定，莱纳斯对他的弟弟如此的宠溺，即使是他对萨布琳娜有情，只要没有大卫的首肯，他也许就会将它埋葬在心底。而大卫也终究到了有把握分寸的年岁，他作为一个旁观者，意识到了只有这样守护哥哥的幸福才能回馈报答莱纳斯多年的照顾。
4 ) 另一种玫瑰人生
第一次写影评，不够专业，只想单纯地表达一下对这部电影的感受，希望以后能越写越好。 +++++++++++++++++++++++分割线+++++++++++++++++++++++++ 这部电影体现了上个世纪50年代美国电影的特色，浪漫中带着些许幽默。黑白的复古画质，缓慢的节奏，淡淡背景音乐，加上赫本灵动的演技，便成就了这么一部值得静下心来细细品味的艺术作品。 关于女子 电影以女主角的名字命名，可见这是一部专门刻画一个人的作品，整部电影都围绕这个名叫Sabrina的女子展开。女主角的身份是有钱人家里司机的女儿，出身贫寒的身份很容易让人联想到每个人从小都熟知的那个同样以女主角名字命名的故事Cinderella。当然，这部电影的过人之处就是它与Cinderella不同的地方，这个名叫Sabrina的女子远赴巴黎之后自身内在和外在的蜕变让人惊叹。她从一个不经世事一心暗恋二少爷的贫寒少女，蜕变成一个（用她自己的话来）most sophisticated woman。这便是这个女主人公的迷人之处，去巴黎之前，她是一个想要触碰月亮的女子，在巴黎的两年，她让自己成长，让自己变得魅力四射，光芒耀人。Let the moon reach you可以成为每个女子的人生哲学，在爱情面前不能妄自菲薄，提升自己，便能收获属于自己的那份爱情。 关于爱情 这部电影里的爱情故事在现今的物质社会里的人看来可谓剧情狗血。但是看电影的人不妨抽身我们的生活，跟着Sabrina一起投入到电影里好好感受一番那种交错复杂的内心感情。那个迷人的月亮，我们一直仰望想要去触碰，是不是就意味着我们爱上了那个月亮呢？当Sabrina发现自己爱了一辈子的人在自己心里却突然变得没有另一个人重要的时候，不安和不解又折磨着这个可爱的年轻女孩儿。这种不安不解的情绪在电影的很多细节里都体现的很好，比如她和Linus在回家的路上坐在车里，她淡淡地哼唱着La vie en rose，又比如到家后她果断拒绝Linus下次的邀约，并投向David寻求拥抱和Kiss的时候，Sabrina内心世界的挣扎都表现的淋漓尽致。 当然，最后Sabrina还是获得了她圆满的爱情，这其中的原因我个人认为很重要的是她的勇气，这个外表瘦弱的女子内心是那么勇敢，她具有很多人都不具备的勇气。可以说，整部电影，Sabrina的每一个细微的举动都深深的打动着观众，她暗恋David时的淡淡忧郁，她蜕变后的自信优雅，她与Linus在一起时的轻松自在，以及她正视自己感情时的自尊果敢。 关于La vie en rose 个人觉得，相对La vie en rose这部电影，Sabrina这部电影又赋予这首歌另一种色彩。电影里，这首歌第一次出现是Sabrina在巴黎写信告诉父亲自己要回家了，窗户外面传来别人演奏的La vie en rose，从这一刻起，便是Sabrina如玫瑰一般人生的开始，再后来每当Sabrina和Linus之间微妙的感情淡淡升温的时候，背景音乐又想起这首旋律。可以说，是Sabrina教会Linus重新去爱，他们坐在小船上，Sabrina说：“Paris is for changing your outlook, for throwing open the windows and letting in la vie en rose.”这番话令我印象深刻，想必也就是这段话重新点燃了Linus心中的爱火。 关于赫本 一直视奥黛丽·赫本为女神，相信很多人和我一样，所以最后想借此影评表达一下对赫本深深的爱。虽然看过赫本的传记里很多赫本令人尊敬的事迹，可是电影里的生动活泼的赫本才是女神最为迷人之处。赫本优雅的语调，灵动的眼睛和她曼妙的身姿，每次都在脑海里挥之不去，我要说，是赫本提升了我对美的感受！
5 ) 我不知道这句话该不该说，但我认为老版的确不如重拍版。
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
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
6 ) 电影是橱窗：时尚如何以电影兜售“时尚”
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.
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.
能把这么俗气的故事拍的这么好看！！！我们鲍嘉绝对就是那种言情片里让人招架不住的大叔啊！这样的高富帅才叫高富帅啊！哎呀好好看啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊！！！
依然迷人的黑白色调 依然牛B的台词功夫 《玫瑰人生》牛B 鲍嘉牛B 赫本可就有点傻B了。。话说赫本公主是天底下最接近女神的人 亦是最著名的花瓶啊 看她演戏真累。。而在总体上 本片也稍嫌浅薄 完全不能代表怀尔德的水平
啊啊，赫本的每一个镜头都想打五星，但在怀德的作品中，这部只能算中游。
啊，赫本的细腰啊，赫本的口音啊，赫本的la vie en rose啊，赫本的锁骨啊，赫本的下颌线啊，赫本的Givenchy啊，赫本的soufflé啊，赫本的爬树啊......头一次见双商如此之高的霸道总裁，为了塑料业，把自己玩进去了。如果你去了巴黎，不要带伞，不要带公文包，要压低帽檐，哈哈哈。【哔哩哔哩】（B.W.的片子开头的那一长段背景旁白真迷人）
怀尔德+赫本+鲍嘉+霍尔登的组合，黄金耀眼。赏心悦目的爱情喜剧，春节看这种有滋有味的电影真的是太对了。
。在相处中，莱纳斯和萨宾娜之间产生了异样的感情，戴维得知此事同莱纳斯大打出手，而萨宾娜也误以为莱纳斯的感情只是一个阴谋。伤心的她逃亡巴黎，不久之后，莱纳斯也踏上了追随她的路途
这片子最喜感之处在于，一个孤独多年的钻石级老单身汉，以为可以凭借年轻时的泡妞技艺，一举拿下时尚俏丽的妙龄可人，并相信对方会更饥渴、更先一步坠入情网，自己却能坚如磐石，做到不动心不用情，挥一挥衣袖让云彩自己飘走。到底是谁更天真一点？鲍嘉拍这片子时55了，赫本芳龄25，各种气场不合。
重看发现了不少梗 除了玫瑰人生和“情伤的女人做舒芙蕾忘开烤箱” 还有那个露屁屁塑料吊床和赫本玩转椅 remind me of 猫和老鼠 | 女主老爹的阶级意识真的很“本分”| 亨弗莱鲍嘉老了还是男神额（。
惊叹于赫本的美貌和气质
不得不再次赞叹赫本女神的美貌，但剧情是败笔，不如她其他的经典作品。
"云想衣裳，花想容" ；Audrey Hepburn跟某人好像啊；Sabrina.1954.720p.BluRay.X264-AMIABLE；
总结起来就是50年代美国版减掉穿越的《步步惊心》……全程看鲍嘉，花痴他每个定格的镜头和吐字的发音，不过明显没有和褒曼北非时般配，和赫本配各种显腿短年差大，霸道总裁的气场还是得看腿长… 赫本里面的造型也是忒牛逼，一身黑加黑平底鞋放现在也是时尚
女主性格傻傻呆呆女主光环。但男主性格竟然是心机攻先河，显得弟弟傻傻好可爱。最喜欢老爹的每一场戏哈哈哈。富人的幸福喜剧啊看完心里也好放松。
算爱情喜剧片，冲着赫本的颜看的，剧情还行，就是两位男主颜值不过关
当一个女人老了，睡思昏沉，并没有人爱她的心灵，她一切亲密的人都离她而去，陪伴她的也许只有三件东西，镜子，珠宝盒，回忆。
不提字字珠璣的對白,不提配角爐火純青演出(比如兩位老爹法國大廚優雅男爵-出場一次搶戲),不提赫本只在聖羅蘭拿了三件美服,不提節奏明快調度得宜無邂剪接,不提深情輕快配樂玫瑰人生, 只須看女孩的眼神和鮑嘉先生的眼神, 如不是鮑嘉夫人在旁盯住, 公主眼神要把大哥融掉, 大哥那雙能令褒曼小姐心碎的更不必多說, 冰冷的臺詞掩不住眼神的灼熱, 無怪說威廉迷戀赫本小姐卻一場空, 戲內戲外他注定會敗下陣來, 你看多場從容不迫安排多種事干的冷靜干練, 什麼是大佬, 什麼是男人, 才更反襯再強的男人也會在愛情面前敗下陣來.......絕代浪漫不在華衣美服, 而在那個感覺. 早在電視看過, 昨晚看大銀幕, 更多細節更感動......
偶有Billy Wilder式的金句，但这种只会爱来爱去的片整体就是boring。
怀尔德这人的心理真挺阴暗的，或者还是咱太保守了。我真不太懂怀尔德对赫本是一种什么情愫，黄昏之恋和龙凤配都是描述这个清纯的小姑娘找干爹的故事，看来巴黎的干爹特别多。然后鲍嘉那个角色，一个大资本家，说得自己要去拯救第三世界国家似的。总之这片各种毁三观啊，跟人家发达国家的观念还是比不了
鲍嘉说他拍这部片拍得难受极了。他认为赫本一点也不会演戏。
不去讨论赫本的美貌与服装问题，影片整体颇为舒服，笑点掐得很精准，鲍嘉的硬汉气质与冷面幽默也搭调；身份、语言的倒置，细节处的呼应，都很有意思。