The devolution of our society through fashion in just two pictures.

[TidiousTed]

There are a lot of other dress codes here in Europe (and in the US too I'm sure) that to an outsider look just as ridiculous as the guys with their trousers down on their knees. You got the skin heads, right wing racists, in white t-shirts, blue jeans, red braces, military boots and shaved heads. Then you got the "Lord of the Rings" crowd, with their false ears to make them look like elves and clothes inspired by the movies. Then you got the "Black lot" wearing nothing but black clothes, black nail polish, even black lipstick on some. A spin off from those are the "Goth people".
All these different dress codes marks a belonging to a certain group or way of thinking and most of them wouldn't be found dead wearing anything else.

 

[TidiousTed]

Nostradamus ain't got nothin' on this...

[video=youtube;U9eAiy0IGBI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9eAiy0IGBI&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

[Edward]

I think what gives much an attraction to it, as almost a "cult" thing in nature, was in fact how the audience may dress and have their own "participation" to the story of it. To even go and see those that are participating in that, was an attraction all on it's own and you could observe the amount of careful costume and make up efforts that the majority of people would put into it.

Very much so. The funny thing is, even among the fanbase you'll find in almost equal measure people who love the film itself, and others who think it's rubbish (there are, here in the UK, a lot of fans of the stage show specifically who never cared for the film for many reasons). Some people love it precisely because they consider it rubbish. It's very much its own thing. Several efforts have been made over the years to capitalise on this - Fox themselves tried to manufacture a second cult film in 1981 with the quasi-sequel Shock Treatment, that didn't quite work. Then we have the risible Singalonga people with their utterly ghastly efforts with the likes of Sound of Music, and the appalling insult to the fandom that is their take on Rocky Horror. Thing is, nothing has ever come close to the original fan-run experience, done for the love of it. An organic beast that can never be replicated by design.

Those kind of harmless fun rituals are so lacking these days...I even went to see Rocky Horror with my mum once (who had a bit of a crush on Frank N. Furter!). So right; it was so much part of the fun to see people dressing up and participating.

lol A lot of ladies still go daft for Tim Curry's Frank'n'Furter, among many others. Any middle aged eedjit can get all sorts of attention with a good replica of that costume (speaking from long, first-hand experience here. ).

The most fascinating thing about the Rocky Horror phenomenon is how of its time it was in its origin. The stage show was a big success from it opened in 73, a surprise to all concerned as it had only ever been written as a bit of fun for three weeks while the cast were otherwise out of work. The film, released in late 75, was a flop. Critics hated it. It was only when the studio put it out on the midnight circuit in 76 in an attempt to recoup some of their losses that it caught on as a cult. NYC is recognised as the birthplace of the audience participation thing, though in those pre-internet days when news didn't spread so fast, there are so many anecdotes of people discovering the film for themselves, and beginning to make costumes, totally ignorant of what was going on elsewhere. On a global level. This only increased when the film finally came to home video in the mid Eighties. for a long time the cinema was the only place you could see it which, I fully believe, is what allowed the communal fan-participation to evolve. These days it would have gone straight to disc and while it may well have developed a cult following, the whole shadowcasting and audience participation we know today would likely never have happened.

In some places, people walk around with little more than that ever-famous fig leaf, and think nothing of it. In other places, they really see a draw in bundling from head to toe in robe after robe. There's so much variety in what people like to wear that I don't see much reason to worry about the draw. Clothes are only as meaningful as we want them to be. No matter what I wear, I rest assured somebody thinks it's a horrible choice, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Very true. It's easy for us to bemoan contemporary dress codes, but noone benefits from today's laissez faire attitude to dressing more than we do. not all that many generations ago, we'd have been considered one rung (if even) above folks who wonder round dressed as Napoleon at all times.

 

[rene_writer]

I think most clothes are meant to put their wearer in a certain group. The majority of young men in baggy pants aren't criminals any more than the majority of young men in Wranglers (at least in my area) are really cowboys. It's just a way of setting up social boundaries and gaining the approval and protection of a group. For that reason, I don't really think as much of it as I used to, except in extreme cases.

As to that video: silly fashion designers. They thought we'd still be changing from morning to evening clothes. Oh swish!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Before the late '50s, it seemed that bad guys dressed like everyone else, regardless of their position in society.

No, there were subtle differences. See the 1931 movie, "The Public Enemy". Up-and-coming gangster Matt Doyle (played by Edward Woods) goes to a swanky tailor for the first time and orders a suit. Doyle firmly tells the tailor that he wants his jacket sleeve with five buttons. (Think of "Spinal Tap"'s Nigel Tufnel and his amplifier that goes up to '11'.) In those days, no one with taste would be caught dead with a five-button sleeve: four was the maximum accepted.


The message was clear to 1931 movie audiences: gangsters, like Broadway sharpies, were flashy and rebellious in the details of their dress.

 

[Edward]

I think most clothes are meant to put their wearer in a certain group. The majority of young men in baggy pants aren't criminals any more than the majority of young men in Wranglers (at least in my area) are really cowboys. It's just a way of setting up social boundaries and gaining the approval and protection of a group. For that reason, I don't really think as much of it as I used to, except in extreme cases.

All dress is tribal to some degree, certainly. It was tribalism (metal, and then, thankfully, quite quickly punk rock, followed by psychobilly, to rockabilly....) that led me to vintage, ultimately. My experience on the UK vintage scene would suggest that at least every other person who ended up in the vintage scene is still an old punk or goth at heart. I get the impression that's not uncommon in the US either (at least in the rockabilly scene).

 

[Tomasso]

gangsters, like Broadway sharpies, were flashy and rebellious in the details of their dress.

True, though there were the exceptions like Johnny Torrio who dressed like a banker. He'd learned to dress conservatively from his mentor Paul Kelly.

 

[Feraud]

No, there were subtle differences. See the 1931 movie, "The Public Enemy". Up-and-coming gangster Matt Doyle (played by Edward Woods) goes to a swanky tailor for the first time and orders a suit. Doyle firmly tells the tailor that he wants his jacket sleeve with five buttons. (Think of "Spinal Tap"'s Nigel Tufnel and his amplifier that goes up to '11'.) In those days, no one with taste would be caught dead with a five-button sleeve: four was the maximum accepted.


The message was clear to 1931 movie audiences: gangsters, like Broadway sharpies, were flashy and rebellious in the details of their dress.

There is a funny scene in A Slight Case of Murder where Eddie Robinson admonishes one of his boys about how to dress due to prohibition being over and the gang going legit. I believe the comment was something along the lines of no flashy striped shirts!

 

[O2BSwank]

Style of dress is always a symbol of self identification. Work wear reflects the needs of the particular occupation. Manual labor requires clothing that protects, coveralls, heavy boots, hard hats, sturdy pants and shirts. Uniforms etc. Professional and managerial work usually requires suits and ties. How a person chooses to dress off the job depends of their perception of who they are and what there leisure lifestyle consists of.

I think what has occurred today is the rise of "mass culture" and the rejection of "high culture" This has been discussed before but is evident in how crude, rude and lewd popular culture has become. And unfortunately this is the culture that our youth sees idealized. Notice how many middle class suburban kids want to be gangster rappers.

 

[Travis Lee Johnston]

All dress is tribal to some degree, certainly. It was tribalism (metal, and then, thankfully, quite quickly punk rock, followed by psychobilly, to rockabilly....) that led me to vintage, ultimately. My experience on the UK vintage scene would suggest that at least every other person who ended up in the vintage scene is still an old punk or goth at heart. I get the impression that's not uncommon in the US either (at least in the rockabilly scene).

Being from the UK you're probably familiar with the, "Teddy Boy" edwardian style (with a little variation) of dress and rock and roll culture.
For those that aren't familiar, the Teds are well dressed guys and gals with an appreciation of 50's rock and roll throughout Europe since the heyday.
There are complete families and generations who are into this.
Anyway, these folks were despised by the public and were banned from dance halls and certain public places. "No crepe soled footwear". "No Edwardian clothing permitted".

 

[Deco-Doll-1928]

I found this on Facebook and had to share.

I've seen many low pants, but never that low. It looks completely ridiculous. I will always be baffled as to why some men (or boys?) would want to dress like this. Between the two pictures, I'd love to be picked up by that man on the left (1940s) picture any day. He's very handsome that man. Maybe the guy on the right has his back to the camera because he's ashamed to be seen? lol

As for the comments on gangsters fashion. The gangsters of that era (20s-30s) certainly did not dress like slobs. I think many of them were very image conscious. I also believe many of these men didn't "see" themselves as gangsters. They thought of themselves more as "business men". It also might have been like a way to show the world, who is in charge and they have made it for themselves. Take these two pictures for an example. Lets just assume that both men are of equal intelligence (which is always possible). Who are you going to take seriously? The man on the left or the man on the right?

I can understand the comment made earlier by VCB about finding 20s suits and getting a bunch of hits for gangsters suits. I don't think it's any better for women. I don't want to look like every Flapper that came out of a Halloween shop! lol I think like what they call in the movies (typecasting) happens quite a bit when it comes to fashions from past eras. They go with the most recognizable (and for women "the sexy" look) outfit that people can easily identify.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I've seen many low pants, but never that low. It looks completely ridiculous. I will always be baffled as to why some men (or boys?) would want to dress like this. Between the two pictures, I'd love to be picked up by that man on the left (1940s) picture any day. He's very handsome that man. Maybe the guy on the right has his back to the camera because he's ashamed to be seen? lol

As for the comments on gangsters fashion. The gangsters of that era (20s-30s) certainly did not dress like slobs. I think many of them were very image conscious. I also believe many of these men didn't "see" themselves as gangsters. They thought of themselves more as "business men". It also might have been like a way to show the world, who is in charge and they have made it for themselves. Take these two pictures for an example. Lets just assume that both men are of equal intelligence (which is always possible). Who are you going to take seriously? The man on the left or the man on the right?

I can understand the comment made earlier by VCB about finding 20s suits and getting a bunch of hits for gangsters suits. I don't think it's any better for women. I don't want to look like every Flapper that came out of a Halloween shop! lol I think like what they call in the movies (typecasting) happens quite a bit when it comes to fashions from past eras. They go with the most recognizable (and for women "the sexy" look) outfit that people can easily identify.

They man in the suit reminds me of a young Ben Kingsley the actor! The guy on the right with his pants on the ground reminds me of someone in need of a diaper change.....!

 

[Deco-Doll-1928]

The guy on the right with his pants on the ground reminds me of someone in need of a diaper change.....!

Someone needs to give him a bottle.

 

[bunnyb.gal]

They man in the suit reminds me of a young Ben Kingsley the actor! The guy on the right with his pants on the ground reminds me of someone in need of a diaper change.....!

Funny, at first glance I thought it was a young Gary Cooper! Then I thought, "Nah"...

Someone needs to give him a bottle.

But he's already got one in his back pocket! I assumed it was a water bottle, but maybe it's full of formula...!

 

[Feraud]

I've seen many low pants, but never that low. It looks completely ridiculous.

It does look staged.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Hey kid, you wanna make a fast ten bucks? Drop yer drawers for a minute while I get a picture."

 

[Justin B]

The picture on the left went around a while back. The story was (If I remember correctly), that the guys pants had been riding slightly higher, but as he travelled they slunk down to pool around his ankles. Being used to "saggin'" the gent failed to notice the southward migration of his denim thusly leading to the photo.

 

[TidiousTed]

"Hey kid, you wanna make a fast ten bucks? Drop yer drawers for a minute while I get a picture."

lol lol lol

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I've seen many low pants, but never that low. It looks completely ridiculous. I will always be baffled as to why some men (or boys?) would want to dress like this. Between the two pictures, I'd love to be picked up by that man on the left (1940s) picture any day. He's very handsome that man. Maybe the guy on the right has his back to the camera because he's ashamed to be seen? lol

As for the comments on gangsters fashion. The gangsters of that era (20s-30s) certainly did not dress like slobs. I think many of them were very image conscious. I also believe many of these men didn't "see" themselves as gangsters. They thought of themselves more as "business men". It also might have been like a way to show the world, who is in charge and they have made it for themselves. Take these two pictures for an example. Lets just assume that both men are of equal intelligence (which is always possible). Who are you going to take seriously? The man on the left or the man on the right?

I can understand the comment made earlier by VCB about finding 20s suits and getting a bunch of hits for gangsters suits. I don't think it's any better for women. I don't want to look like every Flapper that came out of a Halloween shop! lol I think like what they call in the movies (typecasting) happens quite a bit when it comes to fashions from past eras. They go with the most recognizable (and for women "the sexy" look) outfit that people can easily identify.

Ben Kinglsey, actor, perhaps the man in the suit?

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

You know that if you showed that picture in the rest of today's society, the picture on the Left would get the most ridicule because of the cigarette.

Just sayin'