Chloé F/W 09.10 Paris

[Mutterlein]

One of the problems with Paulo's take on Chloe was that for a brand that's always been about feminine ease- a woman who has enough command over her patriarchal expectations in society that she can summon or banish them with a simple garment, simple to get into, and simple to wear- is that his aesthetic was just too overworked, too much to swallow, you had to think too hard and not about anything smart or intelligent. That's my take on the "essence" of Chloe, smart and easy.

In that sense Hannah has gotten the brand back to it's roots, but restore it to it's former glory? Not quite. There are clothes here that are so sumptuous, so easy, so negotiable, and so chic, it's amazing. She's on to something, The trousers and outerwear are great and new. But then you have those odd duds that are just so horrid. The ruffle bib blouse, the bowties down the sleeve, WTF? I assume it's her attempt at humor "girlish naivety" and while I applaud the attempt I think people will only be laughing at and not with.

Edit out 15% percent of this and it's a fabulous collection. Seems like she's improving incrementally, would love to see Chloe in a year. Let's hope she lasts that long.

 

[helmut.newton]

The ironic thing here is that Paulo was often criticized for making his Chloe aesthetic too cold and hard; but in the end his collections for Chloe was ten times more feminine than what Hannah has produced.

Although his aesthetic was cleaner and more streamlined, it was still feminine in the end.

With this, I see allusions to femininity but its executed in a way that subverts it into a certain toughness. Leather shorts, boxy jackets, masculine-pants etc.

The shoes are the only redeeming part of this collection for me. The rest is pretty redundant. And I hate the hair/make-up. NOT Chloe at all!! Too much va va voom with that hair and smokey eye. It's perplexing to see this kind of aesthetic at Chloe, no?

 

[WilhelmF]

What is going on?! At least Paolo did a nice work for the Chloé woman rather than just pretty, boring and forgettable clothes for the Chloé girl.

I think that definitely can be argued -- I don't think he did.

Interesting... I'd like to know your point of view.

For me, he did. He didn't play with the idea of just try-it-on pretty dresses and exagerated feminine figures. His collections were more tougher, showed more strength and still feminine. It was for a woman who didn't want to be seen with a nighty and lots of ruffles, though he might injected Chloé's DNA towards the end.

Maybe he wasn't Chloé's ideal designer, but between this collection and Paolo's collections, I would definitely prefer Paolo's ones...

 

[Zazie]

Thanks Bidwell. Agreed bwith you too. I guess I'm not one of those who will buy clothes because of its label, if it's "Chloe" enough. I guess there are label afficionados who will go beserk if they don't see a "Chanel" collection as "Chanel" enough, even though it may be a good collection. I simply look at a collection and say if it's a well designed and executed collection.

To me, this is one rather terrible designer collection, there isn't a concept or a vision, just a "look" put together, blazers, coats, dresses, blouses, pants. Ok, how about special skills and techniques? None. Those ties at the shoulder or side, so badly executed. Hideous saggy shapes. The ideas for "decorating" are extremely amateur and dated, the patch pockets, the particular type of frill at the collar. There are a few pieces that do look promising, the grey jumpsuit and the black velvet coat. I'm fine with colours, all colours can look good, it's the rest, the lack of design, lack of ideas, etc. Overall, this looks like a nice collection for Michael Kors or J Crew, but not an expert designer collection. It also looks fashion "backwards" - not for the NOW, but for a Chloe wearer circa 2003.

 

[fashionista-ta]

The first part of the show was bad. Those looks were too heavy. The rest of the show was pretty, but it was boring and monotonous. It's a nice collection, but easily forgettable. And I see she brought back those MC Hammer pants AGAIN! WHY?

Besides, whether you liked Paulo for Chloe or not, you can't deny that he injected the house with a modernity and a youth. He brought life to the brand, even if it wasn't 'very Chloe'.

The problem with Hannah is that she seems to be lost in nostalgia for Chloe under Philo. With this collection she brought nothing new - it was recycled. I felt like I was watching a show from the past; a sort of 'best of' collection, but watered down.

This might be pretty and feminine but its completely and utterly boring. And I'll take interesting and modern Chloe under Paulo over Hannah's dated Chloe, any day!

But surely she is under orders to invoke Phoebe's Chloe ... or at least to invoke Chloe's past. Paolo seemed to ignore the past completely (at the beginning anyway), and wasn't very successful that way (in my view) ...

 

[kiddokiddo]

Nothing new to the table...Pass

 

[lmelanie]

meh...im underwhelmed..

 

[diorrnottwarr]

This is so soft and beautiful, I really love it. The hair and make-up is great.

It's certainly a shift in the Chloe woman but honestly I don't mind it. Though I liked Paulo, Hannah definitely made up for last season here.

 

[jjbunny79]

This collection is actually pretty cool, in terms of like cutting and the use of frabics.
But i hate the whole neutral/beige scheme.

 

[chloehandbags]

that's how his own boss has described Stella, Phoebe and is now describing her ....
and no it's not insulting ... it's just a fact ...

* just saying *

Really? Ralph Toledano said that did he?!

How rude!

That's interesting you're saying you paid attention of Chloé in some fashion magazines of the early 80s ... Because when I look at the collection that's how I feel ... Looking back at some vintage magazines (and I love this kind of styling !) ... But I'm not sure this is really good for now ...
Is it ? It seems you love the collection ... But don't you think so ? that she is looking back in the past and not 'making it now' ?

I know what you mean but, as I mentioned before, to me, this doesn't seem 100% early '80s, at all.

To me, it seems like A/W '04, with a hint of A/W '06, as well and personally, I actually prefer the pieces that are almost unadulterated early '80s, on the whole; so, if anything, it doesn't go far enough.

I don't necessarily need a designer to make it 'now', in fact, I've been getting a little tired of the x era 'with a modern twist' idea, that has prevailed for some time.

I think, whenever a current designer designs anything it becomes modern, to a certain extent, by default, due to their existence in the present and their own personal view of the past (think of films set in the past - the costume designer tries their best to make the costumes look authentically from the appropriate era and yet, they, inevitably, become heavily tinted by the present), so there is no real need for the contrived; 'Better make it a modern version.' rule.

My one exception to what I've just said is the addition of modern materials, like lycra (if they weren't yet in existence in the era of choice), to make clothing more comfortable.

Of course, some people prefer unadulterated modern all the time, I know, but it is not a necessity for every designer, or every collection, IMO.

I think what have done Stella with Chloé was much more interesting ... She had this same stuff for past but made it look more actual ...

I really liked Stella's stuff, too, although I wouldn't wear most of it now, as it looks a little too late '90s/very early '00s, to me.

I always remember this quote when she says (it was for this collection where Esther Canadas opened and there was Gisele and Esther de Jong ... well all the girls from the 90s and they had lace tunique over jeans ... some cowboy looks etc.) anyway ... she said "most of the models told me their grandmother used to wear that ...but they all loved it, because it's now !" ... well i don't feel that here ... i don't feel it's NOW ...

Well as I say, I do think it's NOW, in parts, as I feel looks from the the past can look new, again.

What I don't feel is quite so NOW (although, often very nice) are the looks from '04/'06 (especially as I feel the A/W '03 collection was more forward thinking than both of them), but I realise Hannah probably felt the need to include them for continuity (and to appease those who still want Phoebe's Chloe, with no updates, yet, at all).

Personally, as I've said before, I loved Philo's Chloe and would still love to see her back at the house, if that were possible, but I would want her back to see what she'd design now; not to regurgitate lots of recent previous season looks (although, I admit I wouldn't object to a few A/W '02 and A/W '03 regurgitations!).

 

[helmut.newton]

I HATED the first part of the collection. Those awful hiker-boots? What the heck? And those heavy wool pants!! YUCK!

But the second part of the collection gave me hope that next season she'll be done with 'refining the Chloe palette" and that she'll move into producing something exciting.

The shoes at the end were absolutely STUNNING. BEST shoes of the season after Prada!

style.com

 

[Bidwell]

IHT style march 12, 2009
Suzy Menkes

Androgyny sharpening up hippie sweetness recalled that moment when the 1970s moved to the '80s — a legitimate fashion rummaging ground for this brand, which had its heyday in that period. But it did not look as though these were specific Chloé references, more taken from the photographic images of the period.

 

[gossiping]

oh yes they are gorg

 

[mandolux]

Hm, I like it better than last season, but I still find this new designer's work rather bland. And I noticed that a lot of the looks made the girls appear wider, so they probably will not be flattering to us non-models.

I MISS PAULO!!

I agree... proportion is just wrong! 5'11 models look as if they were 5'4... what would happen when average size women wear this... I wouldn't wear something that makes me look shorter no matter how cute/lovely they are...

 

[chloehandbags]

ITA.


Am I the only one who really disliked Paolos work at Chloé?

No.

 

[cheyqua]

omg.. the shoes are really stunning!!

 

[chloehandbags]

The ironic thing here is that Paulo was often criticized for making his Chloe aesthetic too cold and hard; but in the end his collections for Chloe was ten times more feminine than what Hannah has produced.

Although his aesthetic was cleaner and more streamlined, it was still feminine in the end.

I guess femininity is in the eye of the beholder, then?

I agree there was a kind of forced femininity in the over embellishment of his last collection, but I failed to see the femininity in the other collections, personally.

With this, I see allusions to femininity but its executed in a way that subverts it into a certain toughness. Leather shorts, boxy jackets, masculine-pants etc.

This interplay between femininity and masculinity has always existed at Chloe.

The problem is, that even when Paulo tried to introduce some femininity, he got it the wrong way around - he presented a confused, slightly geeky, masculine girl, awkwardly trying to play with a femininity she didn't possess (or want to possess, it would appear!).

Whereas, the enduring Chloe woman/girl has always been a confident, strong, extremely feminine woman/girl who likes to play with masculinity, for fun, from time to time; whilst still retaining her essential femininity.

To sum up, Paulo reluctantly layered femininity over masculinity (when he added femininity, at all); whereas, to be true to the Chloe aesthetic, he should have layered masculinity (when it was required) over strong femininity.

The shoes are the only redeeming part of this collection for me. The rest is pretty redundant. And I hate the hair/make-up. NOT Chloe at all!! Too much va va voom with that hair and smokey eye. It's perplexing to see this kind of aesthetic at Chloe, no?

No, not for me, at all.

Take a look at some Lagerfeld for Chloe - very softly glamourous, or as you say; 'va va voom'.

 

[chloehandbags]

Details:

style.com

 

[chloehandbags]

style.com

 

[chloehandbags]

style.com