January 13, 2006

"They often looked as though they had coordinated their ensembles in the manner of a family heading off to the Sears photo studio."

WaPo's Robin Givhan analyzes the Alitos from the fashion standpoint:
He and his wife of almost 21 years wore similar wire-rimmed glasses. His were only slightly more angular than hers. They both have short-cropped brown hair....On the first day of hearings, her red suit with its contrasting piping matched his red tie. On the second day, she echoed his pale blue shirt with her blue sweater, which fell discreetly to mid-thigh. On the fourth day, her white jacket over a red dress mirrored his white shirt and red tie.

Givhan skirts very close to sneering, but in the end, she seems rather admiring. Or is that patronizing?

14 comments:

jeff said...

...and most importantly, why do we care?

The next significant event we see Sam Alito in, he'll be wearing a black robe.

And deservedly so.

DEC said...

His wife should start shopping for black dresses to match his robe.

The Drill SGT said...

I'm a WaPo subscriber. It's my local paper. Having said that, Robin is biased ass. Remember when John Roberts went to the White House with his wife and 2 young children? Robin did a snarking article on the dress of the kids, and asked why they weren't dressed at the GAP. My take on their apparel was that they were dressed by their mother in what middle America used to call "Sunday Best". Totally appropriate for a 4 and 5 year old in a trip to the White House.

David said...

It is refreshing to see happily married couples support each other. My wife and I still coordinate our ensembles as a celebration of our 35 years of marriage.

I think Ms. Ghivan is admiring given her attention to detail.

reader_iam said...

Oh, man, is this trend in analyzing the fashion choices of people in/seeking serious job going to continue?

There must be a market, so I guess so. But how ... peripheral it seems to me.

And Ann, with the references to Sears Portrait Studio, Brooks Brothers, Redbook, and the cable-knot cardigan, I don't think Givhan "skirted" sneering. I'm probably being obtuse, or blinded by my dislike of Givhan's work, but I'm not seeing the rather admiring part. What are you perceiving that I'm missing?

Now patronizing--yeah, I'd sign on to that

DEC said...

I wear Oxxford suits, Gucci shoes, and Hermes ties. To me, all of the journalists at the Washington Post dress like bums.

XWL said...

It's not a trend, it's one columnist.

Robin Givhan gave us the dissection of Sec. Rice's boots, Justice Robert's children's outfits, and Firt Lady Laura's pantsuits, and most outrageously Saddam's saucy tieless unbuttoned shirt.

She seems to use her fashion column to inject yet more political digs at the Bush Administration, cause there aren't enough barbs directed their way in the rest of the Washington Post.



Verification Word:

Micew

what you think to yourself when you find 'evidence' of mice along your baseboards

CCMCornell said...

I read the article to try and detect it's tone, but was, instead, caught wondering who would think that writing on such a topic would be of any interest (except to make fun of it on a blog), let alone of enough interest to be published in a major paper.

Anyway, if it's sneering or patronizing, it reminds me of some criticism shot at Cheney when he attended a ceremony at Auschwitz a few years ago - apparently everyone thought it more important to write about what that dastardly Republican VP wore than, say, the events that made Auschwitz significant. I somewhat recalled a piece in the NYT and even a remark by the Manolo (who probably is the only one to acceptably make such remarks), but googling just now comes up with an article by the same author of today's piece.
A sneering or patronizing tone in today's piece would fit the pattern.

God forbid we New Jerseyans look like we're going to Sears at one of our many malls - how middle class of us!

A few years ago, my family went to Sears for some portraits. My only regret was not going to Walmart instead.

reader_iam said...

ccmcornell: My sisters-in-law swear by JC Penney. Apparently there are two--strike that--three kinds of people in the world ...

Me, I'm meek on that issue and go along to get along.

I like candids (or do-them-yourselves, which are basically the same thing) better, under the theory that if God had wanted us to be frozen portrait-style, He would have made us actually look that posed and polished in real life.

(Hmmm. Strike out html not allowed in comments. Didn't know that.)

XWL said...

ccmcornell, you just reminded me, how could I forgotten that one too. Should have googled and linked each of the articles I mentioned, but it's Friday and I'm lazy.

Robert said...

He wanted her to cry... but later that night he would beat her for failing to get the timing just right.

knoxgirl said...

I think the line about the binky definitely falls in the "sneering" category.

knoxgirl said...

And speaking of fashion: Where's the Project Runway post from last Wednesday???

Ann Althouse said...

Knoxgirl: I had to reTiVo the episode after an older episode wiped out the new one, what with all the rebroadcasts. I got the DVD of the first season in the mail yesterday so I switched to that. I'll get to the new episode soon.