Featured Guest:
Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén  

A Fulbright Scholar, Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén is currently the Anders Zorn Sweden-America Foundation Research Fellow at USC's School of Cinematic Arts in Los Angeles. She earned her Ph.D. in Fashion Studies at Stockholm University and focuses on Hollywood and the fashion industry in her research and teaching.

We talked to her about her new book Fashion on the Red Carpet: A History of the Oscars, Fashion, and Globalisation (Edinburgh University Press, 2023).  

Why did you feel called to write this book? Some of our readers might ask, "What is the scholarly connection to the red carpet and fashion?"

I want to start by saying that research questions sometimes come from the most mundane situations. I like to demystify the idea of the genius researcher who is constantly inhabiting some ivory tower of higher thinking. My journey began watching the Oscars with a friend in a different time zone and wondering when the ceremony would start, feeling that fashion (and the red carpet) had taken over the real focus of the event. Then I wondered when did this happen? Why did this happen? Why do we remember what someone wore to the Oscars a decade ago but struggle to remember who won Best Picture last year?

I have a public relations background and worked as a PR agent, primarily in the entertainment industry, for over a decade before returning to academia. I played a part in constructing public narratives for branding purposes and worked behind the curtains of the circulation of soft news. I am unamused and unimpressed by fame, possibly because my job was to create fame and because I have been surrounded by famous people – for other reasons – since an early age. It has always been difficult for me to understand why people are drawn to strangers or worship someone for being famous, but I have also been interested in questions of power, class, hierarchy, and geopolitics attached to this issue.

Reading Daniel Boorstin's book, The Image, was a groundbreaking moment for me. This book was published in 1962, at the peak of the celebrity culture outbreak, and Boorstin problematizes this phenomenon far before the Instagram days. I find this fascination with "the image" to be utterly dangerous because it distracts us from important matters, keeps us numb to the world's perils, and, therefore, invisibilizes the suffering of others. It is also a seemingly harmless political, social, and economic weapon.

Today, in the era of the post-truth, it does not matter if you are holding a rose in your hand as long as you scream out loud that it is an orchid. In some way, we are witnessing the dissolution of critical thinking, and I think that the media, aspirationalism, and soft power have had an enormous role in changing people's priorities away from what actually matters. The red-carpet phenomenon, with everything it represents – fame, pseudo-prestige, appearance, the focus on consumer culture, its global reach, and its geopolitically imposed stratified relevance – is an excellent metaphor for a more significant problem. Nobody really scratches under the surface of all that. We just take it in as an aspirational picture of perfection.

Explain to our readers what you mean when you use the term "synergetic kaleidoscope"?

The term synergetic kaleidoscope seemed appropriate to encompass the complexities of the red-carpet phenomenon. When I started this project, I was reading Walter Benjamin and Susan Buck-Morss while working on the idea of historical constellations. The kaleidoscope became a helpful metaphor to represent the juxtaposition of fragments, the reconstruction of history, and the shifting nature of all these traces that I was gathering in archives.

This approach was more than an attempt to deconstruct linear history in my case. There was no previous scholarly research on the topic when I started this project. The Academy was not yet out with information about itself for scholars, and its website with sources about its history was developing in tandem with my own research inquiries and findings. So, I was forced away from the idea of comprehensive histories to complete this project. It was a real case of recovering debris, so these ideas became useful even if I later tried to draw some form of timeline for readers to follow.

The most challenging task was trying to simplify some elements without compromising the complexities of the phenomenon. In other words, I presented readers with snapshots of that kaleidoscope, but I tried to carefully convey that these complexities were there.

The word synergetic came into play once I started grasping how closely Hollywood and the fashion industry developed in the twentieth century. I would not say that their success was solely interdependent on one another, that would certainly be biased, but it was definitely synergetic. These two industries fed from one another and complemented each other synergetically, mutually benefitted from their activities. 

Tell us more about the "legal aspect of endorsement practices." What should we know?

The legal aspect of endorsement practices is an exciting topic that we should be aware of and push to sustain. As critical as I am of many things, I must say the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has worked intensively on polices to ensure endorsement practices reflect the actual use of the advertised products. Let me put it simply. If a celebrity is saying she uses a particular brand, the goal of the FTC is to make sure that there is an actual use of this brand. It is basically a way to make sure that consumers are not scammed by brands using the allure of celebrities; thus, it is a way to protect the consumers. So does this mean that Andy Macdowell and Eva Longoria have been using L’Oreal all this time? Yes, according to FTC regulations, they have to do so. However, as with everything in law, there are ways around it if your legal team is sharp. There is no way to control if the results these actresses are getting come from this product or if they are using other products in parallel. Some may also be undergoing some expensive procedures that the average consumer getting the Revitalift cream from CVS will never be able to afford.

Back in the day, Lux solved the conundrum by stocking all studio dressing rooms with Lux to be able to say that 9 out of 10 Hollywood stars used their soap. Some of the most famous stars also received boxes of Lux soap at home. However, under the new regulations, endorsers must disclose if they are not buying these products themselves and make it explicit if they are being paid to promote them.

In the matter of FTC concerns regarding the red carpet, what is being discussed is the lack of a formal disclosure of these endorsements. Audiences need to know that these people are wearing these dresses or suits because they are getting them for free or receiving some economic compensation to wear them. Celebrities are supposed to make their commercial relationship with these brands explicit, which means they have to say if they have received a dress for free, if they got paid to wear it, if they have a broader contract to be a brand ambassador, and so forth. The grey area here is the argument that it can be assumed that consumers (or audiences) understand the commercial nature of these fashion choices. However, the FTC regulations approach this grey zone from the opposite perspective, arguing that disclosure is necessary under the assumption that not all audiences are aware of such commercial transactions. In other words, what needs to be made explicit is that they are being exposed to an (informal) type of advertisement and not merely a fashion choice.

This point takes us back to Boorstin's idea of "the image," and the discussion about discourses, what we see, what lies beneath, critical thinking, and the need for scratching the surface of everything we believe to be pristine. My advice would be to never buy something a famous person recommends, basically because they got it for free and are getting paid to promote it. If any, I want to buy things they are willing to pay for, right? Despite this, I think this is an initiative we should watch closely as consumers, especially now with social media, where things are more challenging to regulate.

Explain to our readers how the Academy figures into this discussion.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is central to this study as the institution that created the Oscars and as an institution that was created to sort out more local issues and managed to reach the center stage of a global industry. The Academy was originally formed to elevate the stature of filmmaking as a respectable art form, organize the Hollywood studios into a more robust national industry, finance technological development, and control the potential unionization of workers. It started as a very internal and local affair that expanded into a global presence thanks to its award ceremony, that took off as the most known and profitable of its activities, and its international media exposure became an annual platform for audiences worldwide.

All this did not happen effortlessly. One thing that I hope comes across in the book is how this was not a straightforward history of success, but also a history of internal struggles and disagreements, trials and errors, and sometimes even success by chance. It is full of contradictions, but at the core is the importance of global media exposure. For example, there was terrible reticence from the film industry and some members of the Academy to give awards to films outside the US. It was a scandal when Hamlet (1948), a British film, won the award for Best Picture that led to the industry withdrawing the economic support of the Oscars. However, if it wasn't for that, the Oscars may have remained a national rather than a global affair. Now there are best foreign film categories. Because of the magnitude of the event, other award ceremonies followed suit. Today, we have award season, red carpet season, and all of this leads to the Academy Awards as the mothership of all. Therefore, the Academy is central.  

You draw parallels between WWII and the establishment of California as a fashion center.

The United States had been desperately trying to enter the fashion business and compete with Paris since the 1910s. During the 1930s, the idea of turning Hollywood into the first American fashion capital got traction. The Hollywood Costume designers were seen as trendsetters for dressing the stars on- and off-screen, and most had a fashion design background. That is how they became the natural counterparts to compete with the fashion dominance of French couturiers when trying to establish an American fashion scene. Still, some New York supporters would not let that happen so easily, considering that much of the logistic aspects of the garment industry took place there.

So the tension between the US East and West Coast for fashion dominance can be traced back to the interwar era. In all honesty, the West Coast lost that battle in the 1940s. It lost it to the extent that many historians discuss American sportswear as a New York thing despite its Californian roots. What happened later, when couture houses entered the ready-to-wear industry in the postwar, is that the West Coast became a seductive space for branding via Hollywood's exposure. Hollywood was no longer just a way to show aspirational fashion images through grandiose design but now a space for branding and for continuing a profitable business via tie-ins. The West Coast also became a commercial outlet to cater to the rich and famous with the growth of the boutiques and department stores scene, but all these events have to do with the general expansion of the fashion industry during the postwar period.

The advent of television changes everything, doesn't it?

It certainly does. For the Oscars, it was a story of adapt or perish, yet it is so interesting to see how reticent most members of the Academy were to broadcast the ceremony on television. When the economic support was withdrawn from the ceremony, the Academy risked having to cancel the Oscars. So the Oscars may not exist today if it was not for television picking up the bill. Furthermore, the Academy may have struggled to survive without the revenue generated by the ceremony after that. I risk saying that Hollywood might not have been the same if it was not for the global prestige imposed by the Oscars as a media event.

We think about social media as globally influential, but think about it. Social media can also be very fragmented. Influencers are very famous but yet so niche. That is the fascinating thing about mass media. You know some American TV celebrities regardless of your interests, your culture, or your language because they forcefully got into your home through the transmedial capacities of television. (To be clear, I am not from the US.) Who did not know who Joan Collins or David Hasselhoff was in the 1980s or 1990s? Television helped exposure, mass exposure, but, at the same time, it was exposure that Hollywood feared the most. Think about how much control Hollywood had over their stars' image. Even when present in public, audiences would only get a curated glimpse of the stars in the printed press. Television, known then as the medium of spontaneity, risked tearing down all glamorous constructions. Additionally, there were other problems regarding contracts, payment, and using the stars' images in a new medium.

Fashion benefitted from all of this, together with its postwar renaissance. This broadcast had to ensure that all of them were presentable and fashionable to take care of the image, but fashion also became a selling point for the show, promising audiences to see the stars as (supposedly) they really were while showcasing an international fashion show free-for-all. It would be much later that the fashion industry understood the benefit of this exposure for branding purposes, but the importance of fashion for the Oscars on television was something that all PR teams understood from the get-go. Fashion became the battle horse to promote the show.  

Who are some of the most important women in your book? 

The development of the fashion industry in the United States owes a lot of credit to women, including Eleanor Lambert, but also to others such as Edna Woolman Chase, Carmel Snow, Vyvyan Donner, Hattie Carnegie, and even Eleanor Roosevelt. Lambert was a PR agent for the art scene, but her life changed once she began working at the New York Dress Institute in 1940. In fashion, she found a niche within a profitable industry on the rise because the United States was interested in elevating local designers’ status, and European designers were interested in entering the US consumer market. Lambert amassed a large clientele of designers and became a sort of gatekeeper through peripheral actions that consolidated her dominance in the scene. She started the Coty Fashion Awards, the Fashion Press Week – which was the precursor to today’s prestigious Fashion Week – and possibly became more popularly known for her syndicated columns and the compilation of the best-dressed list. In encompassing all these aspects of fashion exposure and being strategically settled in New York City, which is not a minor thing, Lambert monopolized the entry point for exposure in the United States, becoming the most powerful woman in the industry. Her reign also ended with the ideological and commercial changes that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s respectively, as she was unable to adapt to the new markets, but this is not something that erased her stature in history but something that may have gone unperceived. Her column, for example, was canceled from syndication after receiving massive complaint letters pointing at her discriminatory comments or her conservative positions regarding gender. Lambert maintained her aura as New York's fashion empress.

But if I had to pick one pivotal woman in this book, it would definitely be Hollywood costume designer Edith Head. She became the first fashion consultant for the show and the one to remain in such a position the longest. Head was not as nuanced in fashion as some might let people believe in the media, but she definitely understood the image of Hollywood that executives wanted to put out there for the world. In this sense, her most significant role was to use fashion as an excuse to be all over the media, building up for the big event. Of course, there were practical aspects of her job for the ceremony itself, but none was as crucial as the promotional one. Just as in the case of Lambert, her conservative views became outdated by the 1970s, but the central role of fashion at the ceremony is partly her legacy. 

Tell us about Fred Haymen, Rodeo Drive, and celebrity culture.

Fred Hayman is a fascinating character, a true entrepreneur who started in the hospitality business and arrived in the fashion industry by chance. His forte was understanding the importance of celebrity culture. Hayman had his own agenda: developing Rodeo Drive as a fashion promenade, possibly to profit from the real estate growth if you ask me. In his position as the middle man with connections with the East Coast fashion scene through his boutique, Giorgio Beverly Hills. Hayman brought fashion back to the Oscars by loaning dresses to the stars and, later, by officiating as the Oscars Fashion Coordinator, an updated take on what Edith Head was doing, which included a pre-Oscars fashion show to showcase the latest collections predicting upcoming red-carpet looks.

In using this exposure to promote the Oscars and the fashion brands, Hayman also enhanced his position as a fashion entrepreneur on the West Coast and reinforced the role of Rodeo Drive as the West's fashion Mecca where New York and European brands could be found. Today, we see some of the biggest luxury brands showcasing their collections in Los Angeles. The West Coast partly owes this return to the spotlight to Hayman's 1990s lobby.

Can fashion be used as a form of protest, a force for real change? 

Towards the mid-1960s and throughout the 1970s, the countercultural movements that trickled into Hollywood and fashion also did so at the Oscars. The anarchy of style contrasts the strict control that figures like Edith Head attempted to exert at the ceremony. Younger actresses were wearing whatever they wanted to wear regardless of dress codes and protocols. They refused to leave their individuality aside in pursuit of the stiff image of Hollywood feminine glamour that the ceremony had constructed as an extension of the studio system. Many were no longer under contract either and, therefore, had no fashion guidance beyond what they could get themselves, which made for a less cohesive, fashionable parade at the ceremony.

Today, the Oscars is a black-tie event, somewhat returning to the idea that existed in Head's days. It is also worth clarifying that black tie is not the stiffest and most glamorous dress code, as most people think about the ceremony. That would be white-tie, such as the Nobel Prize, for example. The Oscars have never been a white-tie event.

Anti-fashion can be a tool of protest, but most frequently, fashion is used to co-opt countercultural discourses for profits. Spaces like the red carpet are high visibility spaces and, as such, could and should be used as an opportunity to shed light on more pressing matters. Unfortunately, in a saturated era where a random celebrity may have more impact than scholars who have dedicated their entire lives to specific topics, it is essential to find voices to amplify certain issues at the risk of being overshadowed by the glitz and glamour.

People have gathered outside the Oscars to protest about many causes throughout the show's history. Nominees have also used their voices on the red-carpet and when accepting their awards to bring attention to many causes, something that is emphatically discouraged by the organization in order not to divert attention from the celebration.

Then again, can someone advocate for a better world while wearing and promoting diamonds? What is the point of a celebrity championing oppressed minorities while polluting the sea in a yacht, flying private jets, and driving a Tesla fueled by lithium batteries that directly affect indigenous populations, contaminating their water supplies and destroying their lands? Hopefully, people will wake up from the glamour-induced collective hypnosis to dedicate their efforts towards real change, but in the meantime we may have to use the resources we have at hand, such as the celebrity spokesperson.

Leslie Kreiner Wilson, Interviewer and Editor

https://americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/fall_2023/lunden.htm

Back to Top
Journal Home