DESIGN: STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE?
If you look at this dress, it showcases Beckett's fabulous collarbones...
It nips in at the waist & flairs out at the collar and in the skirt. It presents the illusion of an hourglass figure.
And it shows a little leg...
If you look at this dress, it showcases the fabric. The dress is like an artwork.
The netting on the bottom/sides is reminiscent of panniers* and it shows neither leg, nor waist, nor form...save for the low v-neckline.
You should always wear your clothes, they should never wear you.
Whilst I can appreciate the DESIGN goal - to create a couture-style wedding dress - and I can appreciate the success at the execution of that goal, I find the dress wears Beckett rather than Beckett wearing the dress.
Kate says at the start of the episode when she is looking through all the bridal magazines "They are all very girly with a lot of gauzy photos of love-struck brides looking off into the distance."
I applaud Luke Reichle for designing and creating the dress, in much the same way as I applaude the design and creation of this costume for Alexis
Or this costume for Beckett...
That is not the dress Beckett would choose for herself (and it is worth noting that she hasn't chosen it) - it reflects nothing of her character and shows nothing of her figure.
There is a difference between "runway" design and what gets distilled down to stores. The dress is statement and art. Impractical, embellished and lacking the usual elegance or style of the wardrobe on the show.
Beckett needs to pick out her own dress. Something that speaks to her. I much prefer this mini version that Luke Reichle was working on
Made from one type of fabric, the structure is the statement - it nips in at the waist & shows off the neckline and arms.
This is more "Beckett" than the one given to her in "Dressed To Kill"
This one has been a bit like Marmite. Some of the fandom love the dress & some of the fandom hate the dress.
In reference to that last tweet? No, not EVERYONE "loved it"...
I come down on the "dislike" side of the fence. That is my personal preference and opinion. If money is to be spent on something, I prefer to look at cut, fabric and the lines presented/created by the garment. Sometimes money can be spent on ostentatious embellishments that scream "tacky" not "classy." I also consider WHO the garment is intended FOR, what does it say about that person?
So the fabric is "the most expensive fabric" that Luke Reichle has ever bought? A fabric of this detail could have been used in a smaller quantity, a "less is more" principle perhaps? The sheer quantity of the fabric and HOW it has been used is where I have problems.
I am fervently hoping that, on this occasion, Luke Reichle has designed that dress (I've named it Netmageddon...or Lacepocalypse...I can't decide) for the PURPOSE of the episode not the PERSON in the episode and that it has been designed to fulfill the requirements specified by the episode.
I can appreciate the art behind its creation...I just find that the end result runs counterpoint to Beckett's character.
* Panniers (also known as side hoops) were women's undergarments made to extend the width of the skirt. They date from the 17th and 18th centuries. They look like this:
Luke Reichle did a live tweeting session during the USA airing of "Dressed To Kill", these are two tweets from that feed that I found particularly interesting:
See what he says there? "ALL" the comments about "The Wedding Dress"? Shows Luke is referring to the positive and negative range of comments and opinions reguarding to THAT DRESS.
As for the fact that he was going to make it wider? Well, that just proves the point, doesn't it? (Looks like my idea of panniers might not have been that far off the mark!) If it was going to be wider Luke was designing the dress for effect, for impact, and not to be the epitome of understated class and elegance. It was designed to be a spectacle. It achieved that goal.