比想象要好的劇。劇本非常成熟，具有浪漫愛情喜劇片的所有元素，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)美式幽默，非?？蓯郏煽葱詷O強。亨弗萊.鮑嘉一如往常的深沉、冷峻，然而這次因為沒有追殺，懸疑，只是開足馬力談戀愛，穿插了他不常見的小幽默表情、動作，沒有太多違和感，唯一的遺憾是年齡稍顯偏大，瀟灑度不復(fù)以往，當(dāng)然風(fēng)度猶存，依然魅力不減。奧黛麗.赫本負(fù)責(zé)美麗，天真，很好的完成了任務(wù)。原來以為，赫本這樣的女性，全世界男女老少都愛她，偏偏鮑嘉不喜歡她——“只會閃著無辜的大眼睛”（果然是獨一無二的鮑嘉）。兩人都那么好看，卻完全沒有CP感。。。。不完全是年齡的問題，可見人和人之間火花這樣?xùn)|西還是有的，沒有火花再好看兩人還是不配。

研究生課程論文，引用請注明作者Yayi Mo

Film as a showcase, character as a mannequin: a Givenchy/Hepburn case study examining the interconnections of fashion and film

It is difficult to define fashion, for it often has a fascinating yet perplexing aura. Fashion is “intriguing and compulsive” (Craik, 1993, p1), but also is “arbitrary, transient, cyclical” (Baudrillard, 1998, p101), like Pandora’s box, filled with colours, fabrics and adornments, entangled with dress, clothing and style (Edwards, 2011, p1). As a category of discourse, fashion has social, psychological as well as filmic significance.

From the early twentieth century through the present day, film has been used as a vehicle to sell fashion and its connotations: elite ideologies, consumerist habits and lifestyles. Begins from 1910s, fashion film has developed from the primitive non-narrative catwalk show film to the storylines-based feature film (Bruzzi, 1997, p4). Ever since then, more and more haute couture designers started to enter the Hollywood film industry, such as Coco Chanel’s design for Palmy Days (1931), which has enriched and also complicated the interconnections between fashion and films (Bruzzi, 2010, p333) and has raised the questions about the differences between costume and haute couture design, and the relation between clothing and narrative in fashion films.

Stars and fashion icons effect is another widespread phenomenon of fashion film emerged during 1930s-50s. From the silent era to classic sound era, films especially Hollywood never stopped creating stars and icons to attract the audience. With the rise of fashion films, stars become more magical and powerful. “With stars, the fashion form shines in all its glory” (Kawamura, 2004, p57). The fashion stars were donning the most fashionable clothing designed by couturiers, and the icons-designers partnerships lead the fashion trend, they tell the audiences what to wear and what to desire. In addition to the significant collaborations between Adrian with Greta Garbo (Bruzzi, 2010, p334), and Grace Kelly’s association with Dior’s New Look (Andersson, 2012), in 1950s, there was the successful and distinguishing partnership between Paris couturier Hubert de Givenchy and Hollywood fashion icon Audrey Hepburn, which has “changed everything” (Bruzzi, 2010, p334). From the flawless Parisian wardrobe in both Sabrina (1954) and Funny Face (1957), to the little black dress (which created a fever of bateau necklines LBDs and even has its own Wikipedia page) in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961), Givenchy’s design for Hepburn in fashion films created a globe fashion trend, which demonstrates that fashion designers and icons has used films as a means to showcase their design and influence the in- and off-screen world.

The Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations not only play a distinguishing role in the historical development of fashion film but also have the sociological significance. In The Fashion System and The Language of Fashion, Roland Barthes dissects the semiology of clothing and fashion, he points out not only the linguistic nature of clothing but also social and cultural forms, which has been extended and developed by Baudrillard in The Consumer Society. According to Baudrillard, the logic of consumption is ‘a(chǎn) manipulation of signs’ (p115) and ‘the finest object’ in the consumer package is the body (p130). Baudrillard’s assertion can be exemplified by the film works of Givenchy and Hepburn. That is to say, these Givenchy style dresses are, in essence, the commodity signs and the body of Hepburn is used to establish and reinforce the ideologies and values of fashion.

This essay uses Givenchy and Hepburn collaboration as case study, in section one, I anaylse in detail Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, namely Sabrina, Funny face and Breakfast at Tiffany’s, in the context of the historical development of fashion films during 20th century, and raise the following questions: what are the differences between costume and couture design? And what is the relation between clothing and narrative in fashion films? In section two, I explore the relationships between costume and characters, and also the interconnections between fashion stars and female spectators through the examination of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations. Ultimately this essay will focus specifically on the interaction between fashion and films, to demonstrate that during the course of the 20th century fashion films have become a showcase, with characters (especially female characters) as mannequins, to display adornments, dress and brands and sell to the spectators the most valuable commodity sign: fashion.


Section one: Film as a showcase


Clothing and narrative

The first met between Givenchy and Hepburn is quite interesting. Back in 1953, the twenty-six-year-old Paris couturier Hubert de Givenchy received a phone call that ‘Miss Hepburn’ would come to meet him about costumes for a Hollywood film Sabrina. When Audrey Hepburn showed up in his workshop dressing a knotted T-shirt and wearing flat sandals, Givenchy did not know this Hollywood actress would become his lifelong muse. As he recalls, he was busy preparing his new collection therefore had no time design clothing for her, but Hepburn had ‘impeccable sense of style’ and picked the perfect dresses for herself from his collection (Beyfus, 2015). This romantic encounter between a girl and a Paris wardrobe recalls the fairytale narrative of sartorial transformation in Sabrina as well as Funny Face – both are famous Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations.

There are striking narrative similarities between Sabrina and Funny Face. Firstly, they both depict a Cinderella-esque woman’s sartorial transition. Sabrina is about the title character (Audrey Hepburn) starts as a frumpy, plain chauffeur’s daughter, after two years sojourn in Paris, transforms into a soignée sophisticate, and similarly, Funny Face is about an ‘ugly duckling’, pedantic bookstore assistant Jo Stockton (Audrey Hepburn) transformed by a fashion magazine into a glamorous, elegant Parisian mannequin. Secondly, in both films, the Cinderella-like characters find their Princess Charming after the sartorial makeover. Lastly, the city Paris, the sacred land of fashion, functions as an important contributor to their sartorial transformation in both two films.

Though some film scholars might argue that the motif of such Cinderella tale is ‘the potential for upward mobility through work, education and/or marriage’ (Moseley, 2002), in Sabrina and Funny Face, the glorious transformation of Sabrina and Jo is achieved not through hardships but rather a whole Paris wardrobe. The evident irony within film narrative in Sabrina is that, the reason why Sabrina goes to Paris is to attend the cooking school, and yet she has no chance to show her cooking skill in the entire film. We can only see her physical transformation and ascent but not have a clue about her improvement of the inner abilities. In other words, her distinguishing quality is not ‘the self’ but the stunning clothing she wears. “What she wears” makes “what she is”.

There is always a main function of film costume: characterization. Jane Gaines (1990, p180) examines, dress can tell characters’ stories, especially woman’s story. For example, the Hollywood costume designer Edith Head is famous for her “storytelling wardrobes” which is based on the traditional cinema costumer’s formula. According to the Hollywood conventional costume design, costume is always seen as a subordinate element of mise-en-scene in the film narrative. Although encourage attention to costume, filmic analyses always associate costumes with mise-en-scene, characters and narrative, but not the dress or clothing per se (Gibson, p36). Costumes, as well as other significant formal elements of mise-en-scene, serve the higher purpose of narrative and characters (Gaines, p181). The classic Hollywood cinema sticks to the costume design code, as Alice Evans Field once said, “clothes must be harmonized to be the mood, add subtly to the grace of the wearer, …must enhance the rhythmic flow of the story. Never must they call undue attention to themselves”. That is to say, costume should remains secondary to character and narrative; otherwise it may constitute a threat to the narrative. Similarly, the Hollywood director George Cukor contended that the ideal costume was the one that most “perfectly suited the scene” and if the costume “knocked your eye out”, it would “interrupt the scene or even the entire film” (ibid: p195). In a word, in traditional Hollywood costumer’s formula, costume should functions as a servant of narrative and character.

However, in cinema history, costume is not always subordinated to narrative. According to Gaines (p203), costume designers devoted their “wildest visions and most outrageous whims” into clothes design of the melodramas produced by the major studio, during the particular periods, namely the 1920s to the1950s. Due to the distinguishing genre traits of melodrama, the costume can exceed the strict boundaries of period clothes and social class. Additionally, there was also an increasingly complex phenomenon related to traditional costume design in this period. With the development of fashion films, more and more haute couture designers were involved in Hollywood narrative fashion cinema, such as Coco Chanel’s design for Palmy Days, and Givenchy’s collaboration with Hepburn, which has complicated the interconnections between traditional costume design and haute couture design.

Sabrina, one of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, won the Academy Award for best costume design, and Edith Head, the costume designer of this film, took all the credit. There is an issue of authorship of the clothes worn by Hepburn in in this woman’s sartorial transition film. While Edith Head was responsible for the pre-transition costume design, couturier Givenchy was given the stunning Parisian wardrobe for Sabrina (Bruzzi, 2004, p6). Unlike Edith Head’s traditional “storytelling wardrobes”, Givenchy’s haute couture design has a distracting, disruptive potential to film narrative. In the case of Sabrina, there is nothing more surreal than the personal Parisian wardrobes of a chauffeur’s daughter. That is to say, traditional costume designers like Edith Head tend to choose a “safer style” to suit the characters and narrative, whereas couture designer like Givenchy might prioritises costume over the narrative, though it could distract the spectators from the film story. The divergence between Edith Head and Givenchy became a symbol of the differentiation of traditional costume designer and haute couture designer (Bruzzi, 2004, p5). Unlike the former, whose clothes designs are “in middle of the road in terms of the current fashion trends” (Head, 1983, p97 quoted from Bruzzi), couturiers are seen as agents of fashion, and make contributions in creating a style and defining the items as fashionable.

The couturiers label is the most distinguishing feature of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, while compares to other ‘makeover chick flicks’ such as Pretty Woman (1990). The haute couture designer label is equivalent to the artist’s signature, which can be distinguished from other couture and non-couture design. The studio-designed dresses in Pretty Woman “are homogenized” (ibid: p15). However, in Sabrina, the stunning embroidered organza evening gown is an embodiment of the Givenchy style, the fashion trend and Paris. It shows up in the ball scene, interrupting the film narrative and to solicit an attentive gaze. In case of Funny Face, similarly, Givenchy’s flawless haute couture design for Hepburn has the inherently spectacular quality in the rags-to-riches narrative. It does not aim to “suit” the protagonist (who initially is a bookish store assistant) but rather functions as an attraction and a visual spectacle in its own right. Apart from these two films, clothing functions even more independently of narrative and character in Breakfast at Tiffany. The publicity for this film was that “Miss Hepburn is a fashion show herself” (Moseley, 2002, p41). In a word, the couture costume is not longer subservient to film narrative and characters, but plays a more intrusive role in fashion films, pausing the flow of narrative.


Male gaze and female gaze

Sabrina begins with a ball scene takes place in the Larrabee estate. Sabrina, a British chauffeur’s daughter, is hiding outside and longing for the world she does not belong. When David Larrabee, the man she desires for, is going out from the ball to meet a nameless young girl at a secret rendezvous, Sabrina jumps down and attracts his attention. He stops, quickly and simply says, “it’s you Sabrina, I thought I heard somebody” and immediately goes away. Sabrina mumbles to herself, “no, it’s nobody.” Indeed, to this wealthy libertine, the frumpy, plain chauffeur’s daughter is invisible. In contrast, there is the second Larrabee ball scene when Sabrina returns back from Paris smartly dressed the Parisian wardrobe designed by Givenchy. Dressing in the embroidered organza evening gown, Sabrina becomes the centre of attention. And most importantly, she gains the attentive gaze of her Princess Charming. The two contrasting attitude toward Sabrina demonstrate that the sartorial transition is associated with the acquisition of certain kinds of femininity and hence the acquisition of the Prince’s gaze. From a pubescent chauffeur’s daughter to an adult with femininity, Sabrina’s transformation takes place chiefly through a variation of clothes.

The iconic clothes are significant means of the acquisition of femininity as well as the transition of social status. In Sabrina’s pre-transformation period, there is a clear social distinction between Sabrina and David Larrabee, which has indicated by the initial scene in which she is upset about David’s disregard, but her father talks to her that, “I want you to marry a chauffeur like me”, and “don’t reach for the moon”, which demonstrates their social distinction. However, in the latter part of the film, the iconic dress designed by Givenchy has blurred the social distinction between Sabrina and the Larrabees –the upper social groups. In The Language of Fashion, Roland Barthes (2006, p22) points out the social psychology of clothing and asserts that clothing function as a signifier of social distinctions. In the case of Sabrina, the flawless dress (or rather “fashion” per se) provides possibilities for the protagonist to change her social identity and also enhances her social position. From Cinderella to Cinderella with a beautiful dress, her social class has not changed, she is still the chauffeur’s daughter, yet she can attend the upper-class ball which she can only stay outside when she was wearing the frumpy clothing or rather “without a beautiful dress”, and she also succeeds in wooing the young master of the prominent Larrabee that used to be “the moon” she can never reach for.

From invisibility to the acquisition of the Prince’s gaze, Sabrina’s change of physical appearance raises a question of “l(fā)ooking”. Unlike Laura Mulvey’s male gaze theory, Sabrina is not depicted as an erotic object for the male characters to view. Instead, she is represented as a feminine ideal of fashion for female spectators to look at. She is a woman’s star, “classy, not sexy” (Moseley, 2002, p48). Moseley (2002, p40) argues that Sabrina as well as Hepburn’s other fashion films are, in essence, a complex statement of fashion and beauty, which produces “a gendered attractionist aesthetic” and also provides an intimate space for female spectator. In this space, the film shows the details of clothes and fashionable style to attract female gaze. A striking example is the moment when she arrives at Long Island from Paris that the film reveals her as “the most sophisticated woman at Glen Cove Station”. This is a visual glorification of Sabrina’s transformation: the camera details her sophisticated figure, including her elegant pose, the Parisian suit, ornaments. This revealing scene therefore creates a space for female gaze, as Moseley argues, this space allows and encourages the female spectators to read the details of the dress (2002, p42). Another example of female gaze is the opening sequence in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Accompanied by the theme music, this moment portrays Hepburn’s elegant image, not necessarily for the gaze of male characters or male spectators, but rather to encourage the female gaze. Especially when the camera captures the cutaway, crescent-shaped details on the back of her dress, as if to invite the female spectators to detail reading the dress and to admire the fashion and style. In a word, the Hepburn and Givenchy collaborations are in essence a discourse of fashion and feminine culture, and they provide a space or rather open up a fashion showcase for female spectators to look at.


City and fashion

Paris is not only the capital city of France but also the undisputed capital of high fashion. As Gertrude Stein wrote in Paris, France (1940), “Paris was where the twentieth century was. It was important too that Paris was where fashions were made” (quoted from Joannou, 2012, p473). This fashion capital of the world is powerfully associated with haute couture, which can be traced back to the nineteenth century (Steele, 1998). Haute couture has enjoyed the status and prestige commensurate with high art (Joannou, 2012) and also signifying the Western sophistication.

Hollywood invents a formula for representing France in the Cinderella makeover films. In both Funny Face and Sabrina, as the sacred land of fashion, Paris functions as an important contributor to the female protagonists’ sartorial transformation. In Sabrina, Paris has powerfully associated with fashion and specifically denoting the European sophistication (Moseley, 2002, p40). Similarly, Funny Face also takes place within a Parisian fashion setting. However, unlike Sabrina, this film has an ambivalent attitude to the city. On the one hand, it satirizes the hyper-feminine Parisian ‘New Look’ fashion (Cantu, 2015, p23) especially in the ending sequences when the Quality Magazine fashion show is destroyed by Jo and thus in a complete mess. The film also mocks the other cultural aspect of Paris –Existentialist philosophy, which spoofed as “Empathicalism” in film (Cantu, 2015). On the other hand, Funny Face worships the Parisian style as well as the haute couture fashion, and admires the cultural landscape of Paris. A musical number performed by Jo (Hepburn), the fashion photographer Dick Avery (Fred Astaire), and the editor of a leading fashion magazine Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson) shows their respective desire and admiration of Paris.


Section two: character as a mannequin


Clothing and body

In addition to the interactions between clothing and narrative, Hepburn and Givenchy collaboration also raises a question about the relation between clothing and body. In The Body and Society, Turner (1985, p1) notes that human beings “have bodies and they are bodies”. Entwistle (2000, p323) adds a prominent point to the relation between bodies and dresses that “human bodies are dressed bodies”. Indeed, body and clothing are constantly and intimately connected: while the body gives life to the clothing, the clothing works on the body with social identity and meanings (Twigg, 2013, p6). Barthes prioritises human body over the clothing, in his words, “It is not possible to conceive a garment without the body… the empty garment, without head and without limbs (a schizophrenic fantasy), is death” (1973, p107 quoted from Bruzzi, 2004, p31). However, fashion has complicated and enriched the relation between clothing and body. In The Consumer Society, Jean Baudrillard (1998, p196) asserts the finest object in the consumer society is the body:
its omnipresence (specifically the omnipresence of the female body, a fact we shall have to try to explain) in advertising, fashion and mass culture; the hygienic, dietetic, therapeutic cult which surrounds it, the obsession with youth, elegance, virility/femininity, treatments and regimes, and the sacrificial practices attaching to it all bear witness to the fact that the body has today become an object of salvation. It has literally taken over that moral and ideological function from the soul.
 (Baudrillard 1998, p196)

As Bruzzi (2004, p30) has argues, the interconnection and interaction between clothes and body are essential to fashion. Hepburn’s sartorial transition films, for example, do not prioritise body over clothes but rather emphasise the value of clothes themselves. In these Cinderella fantasies, Sabrina, Funny Face as well as Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Hepburn’s slim body suggests the mannequin in department stores, which is perfect for looking at and consuming. In the case of Sabrina, the protagonist remains invisible when she was wearing the plain, regular clothes but only after she has dressed the couture costume can she receive the male characters’ looking-at-ness. Likewise, Jo’s body remains “absent” when she was wearing the bookish outfits, she is noticed only because her “funny face”. That is to say, only after donning the clothing, Sabrina and Jo acquire femininity as well as the male and female gaze. In other words, the clothing makes their bodies alive. More specifically, In Funny Face, Jo is modeling the special collection designed for her in Paris, and the fashion magazine photographer captures her in freeze frames, pausing the flow of narrative and making these moments purely iconic. This display has clearly engaged the spectators’ attention in the dresses and Paris attractions, but not in Hepburn’s body. The body of Hepburn is rather used as a mannequin to display the dress and thus establishes and reinforces the ideologies and values of fashion.


Stars and self image

As is stated above, with the rise of fashion films, the icons-designers partnership becomes more magical and powerful. As fashion agents, stars and fashion designers lead the fashion trend, and tell the audiences what to wear and what to desire. They not only play a significant role in fashion film history but also influence the on- and off-screen world. Before the discussion, let us first take a look at the above-mentioned story about Hepburn’s first met with Givenchy, that she knew exactly what she want and picked the perfect dresses for herself from a whole new Paris wardrobe. This story can be read as a symbol of the establishment of Hepburn’s iconic fashion figure. Ernest Lehman, the screenwriter of Sabrina, has pointed out the significance of the “Sabrina’s look”:
The way Audrey looked in Sabrina had an effect on the roles she later played. It’s fair to say that if she had never gone to Paris she wouldn’t have had that role in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. The Sabrina clothes fixed her image forever.
(quoted from Collins, 1995)
The close association between fashion designer and star not only has defined the sartorial image of Sabrina, Jo or Holly Golightly in fashion cinemas, but more importantly, it blurs the distinction between fairytale narrative of transformation and reality per se and thus establishes Audrey Hepburn’s on- and off-screen persona.

Both in the big screen and the reality life, Hepburn is established as the embodiment of fashion, and thus becomes a perfect figure to be commodified. The most appealing part of this ‘Hepburn met Givenchy’ story to the reader (especially the female) is “she got the clothes right”. As is stated above in section one, fashion is powerfully associated with the attainment of feminine ideals and spectatorial gaze, that is to say, once you got your clothing right you establish your femininity and build your image. The on- and off-screen image of Hepburn strongly affects the female spectators. According to Moseley’s audience studies on Hepburn's ongoing appeal for young British women from the 1950s to the l990s (2002, p48), a female interviewee remembers specially the Hepburn’s style in My Fair Lady and expresses an admiration of her gloves, bags and shoes displayed in the film. In Stardom and Celebrity, Stacey (2007, p315) examines that the female spectators are closely connected with Hollywood film stars in 1940s and 1950s through the commodity consumption:
Female spectators remember Hollywood stars through their connection with particular commodities and the ways in which they were worn or displayed. Typically, this association is made in relation to clothes, hairstyle, make-up and cosmetics, and other fashion accessories. It is the commodities associated with physical attractiveness and appearance that are especially remembered in connection with female stars.
(Stacey 2007, p317)
Therefore, designers and stars function as diffusion agents of the fashion and showcase their commodity images and design labels and brands through fashion films. The musical number “Think Pink” in Funny Face offers a striking example of the fashion diffusion. Maggie, the fashion Godmother of a leading fashion magazine, announces “pink” has become the new fashion gospel. The “think pink” slogan pushes pink as a woman’s colour and thus convinces the female spectators to embrace their femininity. As Maggie sings, “I wouldn’t presume to tell a woman what a woman ought to think, but tell her if she’s gotta think, think pink”, the fashion magazine functions as persuasive agent to tell female readers (also consumers) what to think and what to purchase. Additionally, the protagonist Jo, who is initially an anti-fashion “empathicalist”, then turns into a fashion model by the magazine, and “finally becoming fully commodified” (Cantu, 2015, p25), which implicitly demonstrates the power and the danger of fashion agents’ manipulation of female consumers.

Like this satiric musical marketing slogan, fashion also uses films as a means to implicitly sell its connotations to the spectators (largely female): fashion can transform you into a new self with social status and prestige; and after become the one you desire to be, you can find your own princess charming. The consumption of fashion raises another question about the subjectivity of the female spectator. In The Consumer Society, by examining stars or rather the ‘heroes of consumption’ and ourselves (consumers) in detail, Jean Baudrillard asserts that stars mimicry is in essence self-copying:
the celebrity is usually nothing greater than a more publicized version of us. In imitating him, in trying to dress like him, talk like him, look like him, think like him, we are simply imitating ourselves... We look for models, and we see our own image.
(Baudrillard 1998, p196)
Following this line of discussion, it can be argued that female spectators are in a paradoxical position: they are both the objects and subjects of commodity. As Doane asserts that
the cinematic image for the woman is both shop window and mirror, the one simply a means of access to the other. The mirror/ window, then, takes on the aspect of the trap whereby her subjectivity becomes synonymous with her objectification.
 (Doane, 1989, p31)
That is to say, in the process of consuming the commodities (fashion icons and stars), the female spectator prepares to be “consumed” herself. According to Stacey (2007, p314), the female spectator play the combining role of a spectator as well a consumer; they tend to the fashion image in the big screen and consume the stars and ultimately produce the self as an object of the male gaze.


Conclusion

To conclude, from the early catwalk show to narrative-based, fashion film has been use as a vehicle to showcase the fashion and consumer imagery. By using the Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations as a case study, this essay explore the differences between traditional costume design and haute couture design and also examines the relation between narrative and clothes in fashion cinemas. The essay also examines the importance of the Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations within the historical development of fashion films and argues that Givenchy’s designs for Hepburn not only play a distinguishing role in filmic history but also have the sociological significance. By establishing Hepburn’s on- and off- screen images, they have influenced the female spectators.

To examine how has film been used as a showcase for fashion and consumer imagery, I conduct a detailed analysis research method of the Givenchy and Hepburn case study, and bring together materials and scholarship including fashion theories and consumption studies. The text-focused method is useful with regard to the limited investigation of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, however, if future research will be undertaken I would seek to use a broader range of approach such as audience studies. It is worth exploring how the audiences (especially female) view and interpret the fashion films in their own ways in relation to their own social and political agendas.
 



References

Andersson, T., 2012. Fashioning the fashion princess: Mediation transformation stardom, Journal of AESTHETICS & CULTURE, Vol. 4

Baudrillard, J., 1998. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, London: Sage

Beyfus, D., 2015. Hubert de Givenchy: My relationship with Audrey Hepburn was 'a kind of marriage' [online] available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11731823/Hubert-de-Givenchy-My-relationship-with-Audrey-Hepburn-was-a-kind-of-marriage.html

Bruzzi, S., 2004. Undressing Cinema: Clothing and Identity in the Movies. London and New York: Routledge

Cantu, M., 2015. ‘Clothes make an awful difference in a girl’: Mlle. Modiste, Irene and Funny Face as Cinderella fashion musicals, Studies in Musical Theatre, 9(1)

Craik, J., 1993. The Face of Fashion, Cultural Studies in Fashion. London and New York: Routledge.

Collins, A. F., 1995. When Hubert Met Audrey. [online] available at: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2014/02/audrey-hepburn-givenchy-style

Edwards, T., 2011. Fashion in Focus: Concepts, Practices and Politics. London and New York: Routledge.

Entwistle, J., 2000. Fashion and the Fleshy Body: Dress as Embodied Practice, Fashion Theory, 4(3), 323-347

Gaines, J., 1990. Costume and Narrative: How Dress Tells Woman’s Story, London: Routledge.

Gibson, P. C., 1998. Film costume.

Joannou, M., 2012. ‘All right, I'll do anything for good clothes’: Jean Rhys and Fashion, Women: A Cultural Review, 23(4), 463-489.

Kawamura, Y., 2004. Fashion-ology: an introduction to fashion studies. Berg.

Moseley, R., 2002. Growing up with Audrey Hepburn. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Moseley. R., 2002. Trousers and Tiaras: Audrey Hepburn, a Woman's Star, Feminist Review, 71, 37-51. Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals.

Mulvey, L., 1989. Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Stacey, J., 2007. With Stars in Their Eyes: Female Spectators and the Paradoxes of Consumption, in: Stardom and Celebrity: A Reader, ed. Sean Redmond，Su Holmes

Roland, B., 2006. The Language of Fashion. Oxford: Berg.

Smith, D. M., 2002. Global Cinderella: Sabrina (1954), Hollywood, and Postwar Internationalism, Cinema Journal, 41(4), 27-51. Published by University of Texas Press.

Twigg, J., 2013. Fashion and Age: Dress, the Body and Later Life. London: Bloomsbury Academic

Valerie, S., 1998. Paris Fashion: A Cultural History. 2nd ed. Oxford: Berg. [online] available at: http://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/clothing-around-world/paris-fashion

Valerie, S., 2010. The Berg Companion to Fashion. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

最大的看點當(dāng)然是赫本和美麗的紀(jì)梵希禮服，幾乎每一次亮相都堪稱完美！簡直就是仙女兒~

至于演技，客觀評價實在是一般。看慣了現(xiàn)代電影里的特寫，即使是三維的動畫，也努力去展現(xiàn)每一根汗毛或細紋；所以當(dāng)回首黑白電影的時候，感覺每個人都只是端著。不理解為什么愛情就在一瞬間降臨，遇上一個人可以改變一生的夢想，這當(dāng)然可以用緣分或命理來解釋——只是從電影里，我們感覺不到情緒的暗涌，或者說很難感同身受。
劇情也是如此：司機的女兒貌似回家以后也不用干活，只用約會就可以了？富家子弟為了家族聯(lián)姻，心甘情愿將美麗的女孩兒拱手相讓？至于另一位富家小姐，難道也同樣天真的非君不嫁么？要說孩子們是青春激情，恐怕家長也不會這么簡單的答應(yīng)吧~

在現(xiàn)代社會里，單單用天真浪漫肯定吸引不了男人，尤其發(fā)生在身份懸殊的戀人上。所以，這樣美好的故事，只能發(fā)生在舊時代的熒幕上。

無條件的喜歡黑白片，無條件的喜歡兩位主角。
《北非諜影》中的里克，《羅馬假日》里的公主—不同氣質(zhì)派別的演員因為這部電影走到了一起。
當(dāng)年的鮑嘉應(yīng)該年過五旬，當(dāng)年的赫本芳彩依舊—或許導(dǎo)演曾經(jīng)有過更好的搭配。
Mr.鮑嘉戲里戲外都是個十足的硬漢，戲里的角色很尷尬，而他不柔和的風(fēng)格更增強了這份尷尬?；蛟S換成任何一個婉約些的男演員都會更符合這部早期的《麻雀變鳳凰》。

在明媚早上最好看清新的美女，所以一早在看《龍鳳配》
奧黛麗赫本與亨弗萊鮑嘉。
那年她25，他55.
她正是嬌艷百合的露水清晨，他已是日薄西山的垂暮紅日。
沙布里娜是有錢人司機的女兒，暗戀著有錢人家處處留情的二公子，但人家根本未曾留意扎馬尾的小丫頭。傷心的沙布里娜去巴黎學(xué)烹飪結(jié)識了位老男爵，老男爵很喜歡她，就出錢把她調(diào)教成位淑女。淑女帶著華服與氣質(zhì)再次回家的時候不費吹灰的征服了二少。家里自然反對，派出大哥亨弗萊鮑嘉救場，幾次吃飯電影之后，沙布里娜發(fā)現(xiàn)自己愛上了大哥，結(jié)局自然是美滿大結(jié)局。
先說劇情，雖然大家都喜歡大團圓，您也請費些思量增加點說服力啊！這樣的甜俗故事我得說如果沒有正當(dāng)年的奧黛麗赫本就只好去拍卡通片了吧！
亨弗萊鮑嘉老到看起來皮膚層層的疊在顴骨上無法再拍近景，仍然一無表情的在演。而且為遷就他導(dǎo)演把他弟弟也選了四十多的。導(dǎo)演戲份多給了奧黛麗，顯得沒什麼發(fā)揮，直到搞明白自己愛上人家時露出了左邊第三顆上牙（這也好算是笑？）這就是本片里這位昔日帥哥第二個表情。（我看是帥哥變摔鍋啦?。?br>沒錯本片的亮點全在青春逼人的奧黛麗赫本身上，所以導(dǎo)演也沒少讓她頻繁換上美衣秀來秀去（這點象她的一貫風(fēng)格哈）其實說到這點我對奧黛麗充滿同情，這種爛劇本看來她總是優(yōu)先考慮的對象（換別人一定沒說服力也就沒收視率）好劇本就留給沒那末美貌演技出色的女人。（不知道是不是同一時期也懶得查，比如英格麗褒曼，貝蒂戴維斯~~）
奧黛麗真的長相太完美，根本不必開口，象一幅畫就足夠。不是好多人家都掛她鎮(zhèn)宅末？
但是電影，
我們還是需要后者，
能夠深刻到骨頭的，
也許沒有那末美麗的人！

這部電影有著典型的美國模式，富家公子和灰姑娘，加上音樂和紀(jì)梵西設(shè)計的服裝，沒有什么高深的意義，沒有人性和殘忍，每個人都是好人，結(jié)局很開心。這種電影有什么不好？起碼你在看的時候，不覺得時間流逝，這可是很多所謂藝術(shù)電影最難崴故的。

而且還有她。只要站在那笑著，就好了。對，現(xiàn)實很殘酷，這我們都知道，導(dǎo)演們就不用再加大筆墨渲染了吧，難道非要提醒我們“別忘記人性的丑惡啊，別忘記生活的不公啊”才是真正的藝術(shù)？鮑嘉和赫本年齡上似乎不太登隊，但他們的火花，卻很出人意料的可愛。生活很無奈，所以我想看電影。

我不需要教導(dǎo)。因為我們每天的生活，比電影殘忍的多。我不需要你們告訴我。我想忘記。所以，我選擇在她的微笑中，繼續(xù)我可憐的沒夢。

見鬼的藝術(shù)電影。