Toni Dockter: Filosophy with a Fuchsia Flair

Part 2 of a 3-part series about The September Issue, a documentary by R.J. Cutler

First, keep in mind: I’m no shrink—but here we go…

 

Any woman who has had the SAME HAIRDO as a teenager as she does when she’s 60 years old has a self-image issue. Calling Dr. Phil! I bet he’d back me up on this one.

Note about the hair from a hairdresser’s daughter: My Mom always said that hair is supposed to have movement. I betcha Ms. Wintour pays a pretty penny for her coiffure—but those strands are set in stone. Maybe that’s the point: Rigid hair to go with a rigid personality? (You know, like shoes matching your handbag.) Stone hair = stone face? Helmet head = protection against criticism? I could go on with the analogies. But I wonder if she takes that hair off at night and sets it on a lampshade.

And what’s the deal with the bangs? Isn’t that a right of passage from girlhood to womanhood when you ditch the bangs?

People are supposed to grow up, change their ways, mature, evolve, self-actualize. I cannot imagine that happening if every time you looked in the mirror you saw your 14-year-old self.

The juvenile “stuck in the 60’s” hairdo aside, the comments she made about her family (her father in particular) I thought were very telling.

She tells the camera that her father picked out the fashion industry vocation for her. This is significant in that her father was the editor of a London newspaper. One grandfather was a British Major-General and the other was a Harvard law professor. Her two brothers and sister have distinguished careers in journalism and public service. So when Pops tells a young Anna to write on an application that her ambition is to be editor of Vogue magazine, I don’t think it’s because he thinks he has a brainiac daughter on his hands (being the high school drop out that she is).

I think the whole Vogue deal is a way for Ms. Wintour (the inner-child with the childish hairdo) to please Daddy. But as I said, I’m no shrink.

Ms. Wintour also mentions that her siblings find her career choice “amusing.” She starts to reveal another comment about what her siblings think, but she stops herself and uses the word “amusing” again. I think her family’s opinion of her profession contributes to her defensiveness about the world of fashion.

Here’s a quote from the beginning of the film:

“I think what I often see is that people are frightened of fashion and that, because it scares them or it makes them feel insecure, they put it down. On the whole, people that say demeaning things about our world. I think that’s usually because they feel in some ways excluded or not part of the cool group, so as a result they just mock it. Just because you like to put on a beautiful Carolina Herrera dress or a pair of J Brand blue jeans instead of something basic from Kmart, it doesn’t mean that you are dumb person. There is something about fashion that can make people very nervous.”

Maybe at family dinners Brother #1—as the director of a government district in England—talks about the needs of his constituents. Maybe Brother #2—as the political editor for The Guardian—mentions he called up Gordon Brown for a chat. And maybe Sis—the Deputy General Secretary of a global union of 620 affiliates—tells how she is working with the United Nations to draft legislation for UNESCO.

Then Ms. Wintour pipes up with her commentary that the Lagerfeld Shop is showing no color in its evening wear collection this year. OMG!

I’m sure Ms. Wintour with her salary of $2 million per year (plus $200,000 for clothes and a hair and makeup allowance) earns much more than her siblings. But in the overall scope of compensation for the “entertainment industry,” she seems UNDERPAID to me.

Supposedly Ms. Wintour is THE MOST POWERFUL person in the $300 billion per year Fashion Industry. She can “make or break” a designer; give thumbs up or thumbs down to trends, etc.

Contrast that to the $3 million Julia Roberts made this year for a week’s work in the hideous movie, Valentine’s Day. She appears on screen for six minutes. (That’s $8,000 per SECOND!) But not worth the expense as even Julia Roberts couldn’t save that stinker.

I’m guessing Ms. Wintour puts in an 80-hour work week—week after week, year after year. That makes her $2 million look paltry. My theory: Fashion—although pretty to look at like a movie star—is just not that valuable of a commodity.

Or maybe the publisher, Conde Nast, is trying to send a message to Ms. Wintour, since Vogue readership is declining, she doesn’t deserve additional compensation. (There are also “rumors” that Ms. Wintour’s replacement is lurking in the wings…)

Another observation from the psychiatrist’s chair: Ms. Wintour says her father finally retired from his job—not because he disliked it—because he “got too angry.” She says she “tries to control” hers. Although the documentary shows Ms. Wintour looking cool, calm, and collected as she goes about her business, there is something “seething” about her.

Which leads to the last discussion in the psych department: the ubiquitous over-sized sunglasses. Ms. Wintour wears them more frequently than not. Obviously they’re a defense mechanism. By not letting people look you in the eye, you gain some kind of advantage in a tête-à-tête. They also help cultivate the aloofness and inaccessibility she craves.

Ms. Wintour explains about the sunglasses in a 60Minutes interview with Morley Safer (in 2009):

“They’re seriously useful…I can sit in a show and if I’m bored out of my mind, nobody will notice. And if I ‘m enjoying it, nobody will notice…. At this point they’ve become…really, armor.”

So just as the employees in the movie The Devil Wears Prada have to “gird their loins” against the fictionalized version of Anna Wintour (the delightfully prickly Meryl Streep), Ms. Wintour has to do the same in real life. How ironic…

Next up: Part 3: The Anna and Grace story at Vogue