Sarah Jessica Parker in Glamour: Once Bitten, Prices High

We’ve tried to like Sarah Jessica Parker.  We know it isn’t her fault that, sadly, Carrie Bradshaw seems to be the most influential character ever to appear on television.  According to her interview in June’s Glamour, even her husband blames her for the spread of the thong, so our feelings aren’t totally without merit.

But when we heard that she’d launched a clothing line, Bitten, wherein every item is priced below $20, our esteem for her surged.  Wow, we thought, a celeb launching an eminently affordable line?  How smart.  How thoughtful.  How…downright refreshing.

Sure, the line is pretty dull—striped tees and camouflage capri pants?  Yawn.  And the best description she can muster is this:

They’re well-made clothes that feel of-the-moment.

But, we thought, at least she’s trying.  We continued to appreciate that she isn’t (or doesn’t come off as, at least) an insipid starlet with no clue how people live outside her own pampered existence. 

And then we looked closely at the photo credits for the Glamour shoot.

In addition to a $15 hoodie and $15 jeans from her own collection, she also wears, among other designer items,  a $3,920 Louis Vuitton bag and $870 Christian Louboutin shoes.  (No Manolos?  Shocking!)  In the photo below, Sarah Jessica’s wearing a $15 denim jacket from her own collection…with a $2,255 Burberry Prorsum dress and $528 Jill Stuart boots. 

Which changed our feelings on matters completely.  To say this:

[Growing up in modest circumstances] informed my decision completely.  It’s a way of giving women without financial means access to good, simple, well-made clothes to feel proud of.

And then top off your bargain jeans and tee with a $3,635 Chanel jacket—exactly like those “women without financial means” are going to wear the stuff, right?—is more than a tad misleading.  Sure, it’s a magazine spread, but if the entire concept of your line is that it’s accessible, wouldn’t it be smart to portray the clothes in a way that’s actually attainable?

Later, SJP says:

…I don’t want to do [high fashion] for women, because that’s not really their lives.

Oh, okay.  Thanks for shedding some light on how we non-celebs live, since you obviously know so much about that.  Maybe our budget doesn’t allow for a $1,150 Oscar de la Renta top (not if we want to pay rent, that is), but it’s still mighty condescending to speak about making clothing that everyone can enjoy—and then portray it in a way that only a few can ever reach.  Not that we’ll be buying Bitten anyway:  without the designer duds, her stuff is dullsville.

What do you think?

Comments

[Stephanie]

I don't think that's fair to blame it on SJP. Glamour regularly features high-priced clothing, so it was probably the editors who mixed the high and low priced items. And I think she wants to show the versatility of the line - how even women who can afford $1000 tops can still wear this line, in addition to women who wear $20 shirts from Old Navy. I don't really think it's convincing, but at least she tried.

Anyway, love your blog.

[Glossed Over]

Stephanie: Thanks for your comment. True enough--it's hard to know exactly where the blame might lie. Even though high-low dressing is a strong theme right now, we'd like to have seen some acknowledgment of that in the article. For us, it was just another instance of the typical text/picture contradiction (you know, how mags always say to "embrace your curves" but only feature ultra-thin models)--hearing SJP talk about how average women dress and then seeing her wearing Chanel and Vuitton in the pictures created quite a disconnect.

[Kristen]

I'm impressed she was allowed to wear any of her stuff at all.

[Glossed Over]

So there's the crux of it: How much say did she have over the shoot? SJP's a major name in entertainment and in fashion, so we figure she has final say over what she wears.

But that's our conjecture. If anyone out there has experience with these matters, feel free to chime in.

[windycitypretty]

Celebrities usually have little-to-no say over what they wear in fashion spreads. It has so much more to do with which designers the magazine wants to get in that month (feature a Chanel jacket on Sarah Jessica Parker and you're more likely to get a few Chanel ads). Sometimes the celebrities have tantrums about hating things and refuse to wear them, but this happens rarely and SJP doesn't really seem like a diva. Probably her line is kind of hideous, but the only way she would agree to do the cover is if they featured it and the only way they could feature it and make it look good was to mix it with expensive, high-fashion stuff.

[you're kidding, right?]

Windycitypretty, are you kidding? Of COURSE celebrities have a say in what they wear. I work at a magazine and we deal with such requests/demands all the time. It's all negotiated, and of course the mags are going to push the clothes of their advertisers, but if SJP were to say, "I don't want to wear Burberry Prorsum—let's keep the prices under $500," she could have done that.

The clothes are hideous and cheap-looking, for what it's worth.

[windycitypretty]

that's not the way it works at my magazine....
we call stuff in with a general idea of the celebrity's style--maybe shapes/color preferences--but there's not that much negotiating at the shoots unless the person is really difficult.

[Emily]

SJP grew up pretty po'. She's spoken very frankly about it in many interviews that I've read. I find it disappointing that for whatever reason she wasn't able to get Glamour to present the range with a little more realism - I mean, Glamour's not even a high-end mag, you know? Christian Louboutin- Pshaw!

But on second thought, if they teamed the Bitten range with other low-priced pieces from other stores... well they could get in trouble, cos there actually are a lot of lower-end retailers doing a MUCH better job of producing fashion-forward stuff (and they have it made in Chinese prisons so they can get those pricepoints, but I digress).

[Stunt_Girl]

While she may have had no say in what clothes were used, and while Glamour may show a lot of high end fashion, having an article about more affordable clothing while showcasing it next to unbealievably expensive (by the "average woman's" standards, which is who this article and her clothing line is aimed at) it is ludicrous and defeats the point. Sure, SJP looks lovely in that picture. But do we think it's because of the denim jacket, or the dress and shoes? Think about it.

[gerie]

she isnt saying that no one should ever dress in expensive things, she just wants to make cute clothes available to women for day to day wear. leave her alone!

[Jess_Voguegirl]

I have this to say: I love the fact that SJP came out with a line of basics that every woman can afford, so what she threw on a Burberry dress under it? That's something she can afford, and isn't she part of "every woman"? For you to dog her simply becaue of her adhering to the magazines "glamour" standards (and I actually do work at a magazine, it's all one gigantic business deal, Lagerfield calls in, says he'll loan an exclusive jacket in exchange for a better ad, Bob's your uncle, and there's Kate Moss on the first five pages), at least she featured some of her line. And as far as the "plainness" of the line: IT'S UNDER $20 PEOPLE!! What did you expect, Gucci-inspired florals, Loboutin-replica pumps? Let's stop kidding ourselves, Parker said she set out to design a line of everyday essentials for the every-day woman, and she did. She did not once say she was going to bring Haute couture down to Target prices, so you can't penalize her for that. And if that's what you're looking for, try Target's exclusive designer lines, I got some great Proenza Schouler stuff for under $50, and I got what I paid for. You want designer duds for a fraction price? Try E-bay, if not? Shut up and let Parker do her thing, I don't see any of you guys financing a cheap couture line, do I?

[Um.]

Lagerfield, Jess?

[sahara]

sjp..seems like a nice person and a smart one too. She markets herself well..looks always glamorous..and is making millions from the "common women" who want to feel like she does in designer clothes..In reality, she is not doing "common women" a favor buy selling trendy inexpensive clothing.. but women who buy or will buy her clothing line..are doing her a favor..and are making her richer..it's just simple: if women praise her appearence..all she did was come up with a clothing line...if i make beautiful jewelry for myself and other women praise it, i can start making it and selling it... though i am conserned with cheap labor..