The seminal fashion industry satire that paved… | Little White Lies

In Praise Of

The sem­i­nal fash­ion indus­try satire that paved the way for Zoolander

10 Feb 2016

Words by Justine Smith

Woman in black dress and pearls standing on ledge, arms outstretched, against urban background.
Woman in black dress and pearls standing on ledge, arms outstretched, against urban background.
Ben Stiller’s com­ic cre­ation chan­nels the absurd charm of 60s cult clas­sic Who Are You, Pol­ly Maggoo?

Before Derek Zoolan­der, there was William Klein. A fash­ion pho­tog­ra­ph­er turned satir­i­cal film­mak­er, who mined his career in women’s mag­a­zines and on the run­ways for mate­r­i­al, Klein helped bring pop art to the screen. Using the world of fash­ion as a back­drop, Klein lam­pooned ram­pant con­sumerism with fast cut­ting, sur­re­al­is­tic imagery and design deca­dence. Part homage, part smear-piece, Who Are You, Pol­ly Mag­goo? fol­lows the tit­u­lar young mod­el through the chaot­ic fash­ion world by way of a cheap Parisian tele­vi­sion crew. An uncon­ven­tion­al hero, whose great­est virtue is that peo­ple like to take her pic­ture, Pol­ly Mag­goo has no sus­tained identity.

Who are you?” is the run­ning joke of the film. Pol­ly Maggoo’s iden­ti­ty lives and dies on her sym­met­ri­cal face and asym­met­ri­cal teeth. While the lat­ter seems to be the defin­ing char­ac­ter­is­tic that allows her to become a super­mod­el (set­ting her apart from the crowd), it is also the con­stant object of near-con­stant mock­ery. While out­ward­ly the world of fash­ion cham­pi­ons style as a mark­er of indi­vid­u­al­i­ty, rad­i­cal­ism is com­mod­i­fied and scorned by a hand­ful of tastemak­ers: if you’re a nobody, you have no chance, unless a some­body declares you a genius.

The tele­vi­sion crew seeks to be a part of that cul­tur­al of tastemak­ers, but con­sis­tent­ly fall flat. Their hack‑y tech­niques, adapt­ing each indi­vid­ual sub­ject to the same cook­ie cut­ter for­mu­la is devoid of any truth. We watch the behind the scenes inter­view where Pol­ly Mag­goo dis­cuss­es in non­sense sequiturs her life, only to watch the edit­ed ver­sion for TV where her words are even fur­ther abstract­ed. The search for truth gets lost in sur­face val­ues but as one char­ac­ter says The sur­face is real­i­ty too. That’s life.” The cyn­i­cism of Klein sug­gests that in a con­sumer cul­ture obsessed with image, the image becomes the only real­i­ty. In this world, it seems that ask­ing about what veg­etable you’d like to be might be the right ques­tion – because our inner life has been eclipsed by the bright lights of the dom­i­nant con­sumer culture.

Who are you, Pol­ly Mag­goo? is any­thing but con­sis­tent. Large sec­tions of the film don’t quite work, espe­cial­ly when over­ly focused on nar­ra­tive tan­gents and word­play. The best ver­bal gags often work in con­junc­tion with a con­tra­dic­tion of images, while the insane ram­blings of pseu­do-philoso­phers feel old-fash­ioned and off the mark. A sub­plot about a prince who hopes to mar­ry Pol­ly Mag­goo is a lit­tle dull, and it’s a shame it fig­ures so heav­i­ly in her journey.

The film often works best in staged sequences which delve into the behind-the-scenes work­ings of pho­to shoots and run­way shows. These sequences, which hold onto a cer­tain amount of rev­er­ence for fash­ion, art­ful­ly blur the line between art and cha­rade. The film’s icon­ic open­ing sequence sets the tone as we watch mod­els wrapped in sheet met­al, parade along an uncon­ven­tion­al run­way that blends mod­ernist ideals with old world majesty. Beyond imprac­ti­cal (one mod­el even slices her arm on her cos­tume), these cos­tumes are absurd to be sure, but they are also strange­ly compelling.

This ten­u­ous rela­tion­ship between real” art and objects of con­sump­tion is at the heart of what makes Pol­ly Mag­goo an endur­ing cin­e­mat­ic object. While alto­geth­er a dif­fer­ent beast than its mod­ern fash­ion com­e­dy equiv­a­lent, Zoolan­der, the films share a pen­chant for absur­di­ty. Both cel­e­brate the free­dom of cloth­ing and style as an escape from the mun­dane tired­ness of every­day life, while sim­i­lar­ly using it to bemoan how indi­vid­ual style is com­mod­i­fied and sold to the masses.

You might like