The Nina Ricci debacle: Sarah Jessica Parker gets nothing for nothing

In the film "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants," a group of friends share a pair of well-worn jeans. In the realm of Hollywood celebrity, such a thing could never happen. Why? Because actresses don't like to share or be upstaged. Cathy Horyn, on her NYT "On the Runway" blog, wrote yesterday about how Sarah Jessica Parker feels duped for being loaned a dress that had been spotted on Lindsay Lohan and a socialite. (See bottom right photo of Lauren Santo Domingo at recent Met ball.) Parker notes that the house's designer, Olivier Theyskens, explicitly told her that the dress would be making its debut at the "Sex and the City" premiere in NY -- on her sculpted back, (see right).

Parker told Horyn: “In the big picture, this is not important, but there is a relationship between the entertainment industry and fashion. We’ve watched sales dwindle and we’ve watched people be less inclined to spend money on clothes.”

The Rage loves the passive-aggressive threat appliqued to Parker's statement. Yes, it was unfair of Theyskens and the house to deceive her, but wasn't this a loan? For the record, the president of the parent company of Nina Ricci explained that they didn't perceive a dress worn publicly by a socialite as competition. That's an excuse as slippery as wet marble stairs.

Still, notice that Parker alludes to the "relationship" between designers and actresses, which, in essence, is: Give me free clothes to wear on the red carpet. (Of course, certain actresses have contracts with designers and wear their looks exclusively or money gets exchanged to ensure that a label is worn on a big night.) Parker's comment about dwindling sales seems to suggest that only red carpet exposure will save a label. Um, do you really think SATC fans ran out to buy this silver gown after seeing it at the premiere?

The Rage has always liked Parker and appreciated her down-to-earth sentiments about celebrity and fashion, but this whole brouhaha is giving her hives. Why can't Parker tsk tsk the house, but also acknowledge that in this economy, a $10,000 gown merits more than one wearing. What's so dreadful about wearing a dress that someone else has donned for 5 hours?

Imagine how refreshing -- and sensible -- it would be if there were a sisterhood of the traveling red carpet gown?

Photos: WireImage; PatrickMcMullan.com

Comments

[margie]

I also read Horyn's blog post. Parker is undoubtedly working with a "team" of people that support her (read: stylists, publicists, etc.)--wouldn't one of these folks have noticed that the dress had been worn earlier? One only needs to be armed with an Internet connection to do their own due dilligence. Regardless--Parker would have been better served to bring her reaction down a notch.

[anyimage]

Umm.. is this the same Sarah Jessica Parker that filmed PSA style adverts for her clothing line, in which she complained that fashion should be more democratic and "available to everyone."

[anyimage]

Umm.. is this the same Sarah Jessica Parker that filmed PSA style adverts for her clothing line, in which she complained that fashion should be more democratic and "available to everyone."

[Andrew]

I think it's terrible that the LA Times would stoop low enough to have the file name for Lindsay Lohan's picture as "addictinaprettydress"

Shame shame shame

[Monica Corcoran]

Andrew,
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I downloaded that picture from a website that named it. I agree with you and I removed the picture.
(FYI: I think two "shame" mentions would have sufficed.)
The Rage

[Eliza]

I think there's a problem if a fashion house promises a never-been-worn dress and doesn't own up to the promise. This is a huge premier, and the fashion house stands to gain tons of free publicity. Undoubtedly, the picture of the dress will show up on countless newspapers and magazines, not to mention the cyberspace. Considering the exposure, I don't think it's too much for a someone of Sarah Jessica Parker's stature to ask for a dress that hasn't been loaned and photographed before.

[Graciela]

Nice Traveling Pants reference!

Parker's use of the word "deceive" seems harsh. Maybe "mislead" is more appropriate? I don't think Theyskens or the president of the parent company intended any harm. They seemed to have--to use a Bushism--misunderestimated the power of the internet and how irked a celebrity could be about recycled fashions. I thought SJP was pretty tight with Olivier Theyskens since she wore a lot of Rochas gowns on the red carpet. So this whole thing makes me incredulous that she can't laugh it off like a not-so-big deal that it is, but at the same time, I can almost understand why she might feel betrayed by someone whose career she supported from the beginning.

[Randall]

I agree with 'anyimage' who posted above. The entire time SJP was pontificating my mind was replaying her 'Bitten' (I think that's the name) ads with her voice congratulating herself for bringing us fashion democracy. Weird of her to be so crabby about this. Word on the street is this behavior is more SJP than Carrie Bradshaw anyway.

[danielle]

They should have at least told SJP the dress was worn twice. She was promised it had never been worn. They flat out lied to her. How rude!

[danielle]

By the way... Sarah Jessica Parker hasn't been "crabby" about this. She basically said they should have been up front with her, but it's not the end of the world. She has been very classy with handling the entire subject.