Unusually Smart-Looking Men

[Baron Kurtz]

David Mitchell has made the comedy rant his own. In this one (see title of thread) he takes on formal wear and potential demise of said. The persona he takes on resembles to a large extent many of the opinions expressed by men on FLounge, making this a potential springboard for discussion.

"We'll be in the same situation as the poor women! We'll have to exercise judgement! … Women have to fall back on make-up, botox, SURGERY! The cosmetic and sartorial yoke under which they labour is terrifying!"

[video=youtube;66c7el1E11o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66c7el1E11o&feature=fvst[/video]

bk

 

[Two Types]

As my son once said of Mitchelll: "He's not wearing a tie. You shouldn't go on television in an open collar shirt!"

But I agree, I hate the idea of the demise of formal wear. The great irony is that things like formal wear - and even the wearing of suits - were one of the great targets of Punks back in the late seventies. Yet now, certainly in the UK, large numbers of people who wear vintage, in all its glory, seem to be ex-punks (or people who, like myself, shared that 'attack the establishment' mentality). I suppose that when politicians etc think it 'cool' to wear business suits without a tie, it's time to get out the formal wear.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I am certainly in the minority around here in that I hate, with a passion, formal wear. Can't stand it in any way shape or form. On reason is that I disagree with everything Mitchell (or the persona he's taken on) says in that video - essentially, men are supposed to be lazy, shouldn't look better than the women, should take the easy way out, should be happy not to think.

My other main gripe is with the notion that you should wear "X" because you are in situation "Y". This is, frankly, silly and arbitrary; a nonsense. (There, I'm sure that'll get some blood boiling)

bk

 

[Edward]

"...or just a normal tie, but black, as if they're going to a funeral."

lol

It's clearly an exaggerated and distorted take, but not without merit. Vain old peacock that I am, I love wearing the same thing everyone else is, but doing it better.

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

About seven or eight years ago, the aerospace company I work for made a new rule for managers. They had to wear pants and a sport coat, but with a polo shirt, or a button down shirt, but no tie. I told one of them that it made him look like he'd just left happy hour. He was amused, but of course embarrassed too because he DID look like he'd just left happy hour, at 9A:00 AM. I bet that most of my co-workers have NEVER been in formal wear with the possibly exception of the Prom. I can do without white tie and tails, but the tux look isn't that bad. I just don't see wearing "half a look" suit, but no tie.

Later

 

[Gin&Tonics]

I love white tie formal wear; I think it looks fantastic. I like black tie, but not quite as much. Problem is, if I owned either they would languish in my closet because I never get invited to anything where such attire would be warranted.

It seems like in the Victorian era just being invited to a friend's house for dinner was a white tie affair!

 

[Edward]

You'd be surprised how often you would wear it.... Maybe it depends where you are, but I've found it always very easy to find places and events at which to wear formal wear.

 

[Flicka]

Here, weddings are always in the afternoon and white tie is the default dress (if the invitation doesn't say otherwise, it's white tie and tails) so most people get the occasional chance.

Hi
About seven or eight years ago, the aerospace company I work for made a new rule for managers. They had to wear pants and a sport coat, but with a polo shirt, or a button down shirt, but no tie.

What a shame. It must have been much nicer before they made up that stupid rule about wearing pants.

 

[Undertow]

...My other main gripe is with the notion that you should wear "X" because you are in situation "Y". This is, frankly, silly and arbitrary; a nonsense. (There, I'm sure that'll get some blood boiling)

It is a bit arbitrary, but what routine, expectation or formality isn't?

Why wear clothing at all, really? A loin cloth may certainly protect the tender bits from splashing oil should one decide to cook, but aside from that, it's all a human effort in madness.

I think formalwear is nice, but I don't own it or plan to purchase any in the future. Semi-formal, or black tie, is a nice expression of propriety and equalization. I haven't had any events recently, but I can think of at least half a dozen in the upcoming months where semi-formal would be appreciated. [huh]

 

[Stanley Doble]

I love white tie formal wear; I think it looks fantastic. I like black tie, but not quite as much. Problem is, if I owned either they would languish in my closet because I never get invited to anything where such attire would be warranted.

It seems like in the Victorian era just being invited to a friend's house for dinner was a white tie affair!

In the Victorian era if you were of the class that dressed for dinner you dressed for dinner, even if you dined alone, even in the jungle. This may be exaggerated but not by much.

In a review of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera written in the 1930s Robert Benchley remarked that most of the audience wore evening clothes. It may not have been in the latest style but you got the impression they would have dressed for dinner even if they weren't going to the theater.

This suggests by that time evening clothes were going out of use except for the older, more traditional upper middle class group. Not surprising as during the depression a lot of upper crust customs became obsolete and in bad taste.

 

[William Stratford]

My other main gripe is with the notion that you should wear "X" because you are in situation "Y". This is, frankly, silly and arbitrary; a nonsense. (There, I'm sure that'll get some blood boiling)

Much of human behaviour, especially culture, is "arbitrary" and "irrational" in that it conforms to no universal order but rather is localised and carried out because it is shared (both with those present and with those who came before us). There is however a rational component to dress codes as well, as more formal clothing produces, in the main, less casual behaviour...befitting the less casual nature of being in public (where we are subject to codes of behaviour that do not reach beyond our frontdoors). The more that dress codes have been discarded, the more we see society dissolving and discordant, because people cease to follow the codes of behaviour that harmoniously bound us together.

This is the reason that it narks me a tad when so many who are "into vintage" are former punks seeking just a new way of being different - there being no love of the old but simply a desire for the divergent that would see them drop "vintage" items should fashion head back in its direction.

 

[Flicka]

In the Victorian era if you were of the class that dressed for dinner you dressed for dinner, even if you dined alone, even in the jungle. This may be exaggerated but not by much.

In a review of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera written in the 1930s Robert Benchley remarked that most of the audience wore evening clothes. It may not have been in the latest style but you got the impression they would have dressed for dinner even if they weren't going to the theater.

This suggests by that time evening clothes were going out of use except for the older, more traditional upper middle class group. Not surprising as during the depression a lot of upper crust customs became obsolete and in bad taste.

My mother's relatives always changed for dinner when she grew up in the 50s and 60s, but usually just to look nice. Formal/dinner jacket was only for Saturdays and when they had guests. My father and his wife still have dinner jacket as default when they "entertain".

I admit I'd feel a bit like a tool if I wore anything special for gobbling down some yogurt and cereals in the evenings, all on my lonesome self, but there's something to be said for dressing special for special occasions. Plus men look nice in formal!

I personally don't see why there has to a deeper purpose to wearing a dinner jacket or white tie ir whatever. You dress up, you feel special and festive and so does everyone around you because you never wear that for any other purpose. I don't think that's any sillier than other forms of social behaviour, and I don't really think it needs any further justification either.

 

[1961MJS]

...What a shame. It must have been much nicer before they made up that stupid rule about wearing pants.

Well, more fun to watch everyone else's expression. Actually, we probably DO have a rule that you have to wear pants, or cover the "naughty bits" because at some point, someone didn't.

Later

 

[AntonAAK]

This is the reason that it narks me a tad when so many who are "into vintage" are former punks seeking just a new way of being different - there being no love of the old but simply a desire for the divergent that would see them drop "vintage" items should fashion head back in its direction.

With respect, why should everyone be "into vintage" for exactly the same reason as you? Is there not room for differing attitudes and opinions in a community?

 

[William Stratford]

With respect, why should everyone be "into vintage" for exactly the same reason as you? Is there not room for differing attitudes and opinions in a community?

That is a bit like asking someone who loves old cars to accept people who buy them in order to hotrod them and pose. The aesthetic may be similar, but the ethic is poles apart.

 

[AntonAAK]

That is a bit like asking someone who loves old cars to accept people who buy them in order to hotrod them and pose. The aesthetic may be similar, but the ethic is poles apart.

But who has the right to say that one is 'wrong'. I wouldn't presume to do so.

 

[William Stratford]

But who has the right to say that one is 'wrong'. I wouldn't presume to do so.

Are you not implying then that saying that one of them is wrong is itself wrong, and so still judging?

 

[AntonAAK]

Merely presenting the idea for consideration.

 

[William Stratford]

Merely presenting the idea for consideration.

Thought it might be something 'like' that.

 

[Edward]

Here, weddings are always in the afternoon and white tie is the default dress (if the invitation doesn't say otherwise, it's white tie and tails) so most people get the occasional chance.

Now, by afternoon do you mean the same thing as we would down here, i.e. 12 noon - 6pm?

What a shame. It must have been much nicer before they made up that stupid rule about wearing pants.

This suggests by that time evening clothes were going out of use except for the older, more traditional upper middle class group. Not surprising as during the depression a lot of upper crust customs became obsolete and in bad taste.

I should think that was always the case, even before the depression. As Himself put it, "the poor you shall always have with you".

This is the reason that it narks me a tad when so many who are "into vintage" are former punks seeking just a new way of being different - there being no love of the old but simply a desire for the divergent that would see them drop "vintage" items should fashion head back in its direction.

On the other hand, if all we old punks and old goths deserted the British vintage scene, it would leave an awful lot less for the remaining three people to complain about.

That is a bit like asking someone who loves old cars to accept people who buy them in order to hotrod them and pose. The aesthetic may be similar, but the ethic is poles apart.

Not at all. Some folks object to what are now considered vintage cars being mechanically or structurally modified. That's a very different thing to the very considerable number of old punks and old goths on the vintage scene who wear vintage. It's a constructed, authentic look. They're not cutting up the suits, or doing anything to alter them (beyond a little necessary tailoring - cuffs down/ up, that sort of thing). Suits were butchered in the Seventies. Many of them original demob suits.... but in those days they really were just old clothes. No different than the Eighties tat at which I now sneer... except less fashionable. Nowadays, they'd never do that. Much more like someone with the audacity to buy a vintage car because they think it looks cool, then selling it (in vintage spec and condition) should they ever leave that hobby. FWIW, though, I've never met anyone from one of these tribes who wasn't deadly serious about their vintage, and most would be rather insulted at the insinuation they were just wanting to be "different" (which, on such a superficial level, was never the reason why they were punks or goths to begin with). Ironically, given the car analogy, I grew up around the vintage car scene in the Six Counties. In over twenty years of going on runs and rallys throughout the Summer, I can honestly only remember once seeing a couple who were dressed to match their car. It was a little 1920s open-top Fiat. In red and yellow. And they were dressed as Noddy and Big Ears. Those car people were interested only in the cars, and nothing else about the period. Often I suspected many of them were just not interested in clothing at all. lol