Quantcast
Channel: "Tweedland" The Gentlemen's club
Viewing all 3437 articles
Browse latest View live

Mark Powell: An artist with a needle and thread / A Soho Story (Mark Powell)

$
0
0





Mark Anthony Richard Powell (born London November 11, 1960) is a British fashion designer whose emphasis on bespoke tailoring has gained a celebrity clientele with custom from actors George Clooney, Daniel Radcliffe and Martin Freeman, rock stars and style icons Bryan Ferry, Mick Jagger and Paul Weller and supermodel Naomi Campbell.

Powell's dandyism, keen sense of fashion history and mix of references from the Edwardian era to the present day has been recognised as contributing to the resuscitation of "great British bespoke .

Powell - who has produced collections for Marks & Spencer and collaborated with fashion brands Mulberry, PPQ and Michiko Koshino - is associated with London's Soho area, having operated from the locale for more than 25 years; his latest venture is the shop Mark Powell Bespoke in Marshall Street, London, W1.

Powell started his fashion career at King's Road retro boutique Robot in the late 1970s and developed an interest in made-to-measure when commissioning garments from the Robot outlet in Floral Street, Covent Garden.

In 1984 Powell opened his first shop, Powell & Co, in Soho's Archer Street, stocking suits and menswear in the style of the sharp East End characters of his childhood. This was the first manifestation of what was later to become known as "gangster chic"; among Powell's clients were the incarcerated Krays.

By the early 90s, when he was operating from a top-floor studio in D'Arblay Street Powell had a customer base including Jagger, Ferry, Vic Reeves, who sported Powell's neo-Edwardian suits for his TV appearances, and George Michael, who wore a Mark Powell suit for his performance at The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert.

Powell's suits have been worn by Mel B of The Spice Girls, for the group's meeting with Prince Charles in 1997, Naomi Campbell, notably for her court appearances, and Keira Knightley.

In 2000 Powell was installed at a studio in Brewer Street where visitors for fittings included the DJ/actor Goldie, the Earl Of Stockton Daniel MacMillan and singer-songwriter Kevin Rowland, who commissioned Powell outfits for the 2003 live reunion of his group Dexys Midnight Runners.

In this period - when his work was noted for its "attention to detail" - Powell also created collections for Marks & Spencer's Autograph range and his clothing has featured in such films as Absolute Beginners, Shopping and Gangster No. 1.

Powell's shop opened at 2 Marshall Street in June 2010.

Powell has participated in several Department of Trade & Industry-organised international fashion shows, and staged four of his own during London Fashion Weeks.

A three-piece Powell suit is part of the Victoria & Albert Museum's permanent collection and was featured in the museum's 1997 Cutting Edge exhibition.

Powell also contributed garments to the British Fashion Council's 21st Century Dandy exhibition of 2003 and appeared in the accompanying book.

Powell's work was also covered in Eric Musgrave's book about tailoring, Sharp Suits.



Mark Powell: An artist with a needle and thread

Renowned for his classically inspired tailoring, Mark Powell’s clothes have attained iconic status via a successful combination of bold, experimental cuts and historically-informed styling.

Established in 1985, Powell is now one of London’s most influential bespoke tailors and a one-off in the world of international haute couture. He’s a man who has maintained an independent, unique vision for more than three decades, a sartorial vision that remains focused on the marriage of street style and flare to the traditions of Savile Row.

His is a high style and, to borrow a quote from American man of letters Gay Talese, Powell is an “artist with a needle and thread”. It’s the sharp end of menswear, realised with old world panache.

And if style is the perfection of a point of view, then Powell’s continues to be sought as players from the worlds of film, television, music and sport come knocking, including George Clooney, Harrison Ford, Mick and Bianca Jagger, David Bowie, George Michael, Bryan Ferry, Naomi Campbell, Tom Jones, Jonathan Ross, Vic Reeves, Usher, Frank Lampard, Goldie, Morrissey, Kevin Rowland, Keith Flint from The Prodigy, The Killers, film director Joe Wright, Keira Knightley, Phil Daniels, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Sean Bean and, more recently, Sir Bradley Wiggins, Martin Freeman and Paul Weller.

Magazines and journals such as Esquire, Arena, GQ, L’Uomo Vogue and The Huffington Post and books such as The Look, The New English Dandy and Savile Row: The Master Tailors of British Bespoke by James Sherwood and Tom Ford have documented Powell’s rise to the position of pre-eminent London stylist, and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then it’s a fact of which Powell is only too aware.

“There are others who try to copy what I do,” he says, “but they don’t know how to get the right balance between exaggeration, subtlety and styles. It all comes down to detailing, while keeping a dandy edge. I’m firstly about style, and then I’m about the craft of tailoring.”

As an uncompromising stylist, modernist and educator, he’s a man to whom details will always matter.


Renowned for his classically inspired tailoring, Mark Powell’s clothes have attained iconic status via a successful combination of bold, experimental cuts and historically-informed styling.

Established in 1985, Powell is now one of London’s most influential bespoke tailors and a one-off in the world of international haute couture. He’s a man who has maintained an independent, unique vision for more than three decades, a sartorial vision that remains focused on the marriage of street style and flare to the traditions of Savile Row.

His is a high style and, to borrow a quote from American man of letters Gay Talese, Powell is an “artist with a needle and thread”. It’s the sharp end of menswear, realised with old world panache.

And if style is the perfection of a point of view, then Powell’s continues to be sought as players from the worlds of film, television, music and sport come knocking, including George Clooney, Harrison Ford, Mick and Bianca Jagger, David Bowie, George Michael, Bryan Ferry, Naomi Campbell, Tom Jones, Jonathan Ross, Vic Reeves, Usher, Frank Lampard, Goldie, Morrissey, Kevin Rowland, Keith Flint from The Prodigy, The Killers, film director Joe Wright, Keira Knightley, Phil Daniels, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Sean Bean and, more recently, Sir Bradley Wiggins, Martin Freeman and Paul Weller.

Magazines and journals such as Esquire, Arena, GQ, L’Uomo Vogue and The Huffington Post and books such as The Look, The New English Dandy and Savile Row: The Master Tailors of British Bespoke by James Sherwood and Tom Ford have documented Powell’s rise to the position of pre-eminent London stylist, and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then it’s a fact of which Powell is only too aware.

“There are others who try to copy what I do,” he says, “but they don’t know how to get the right balance between exaggeration, subtlety and styles. It all comes down to detailing, while keeping a dandy edge. I’m firstly about style, and then I’m about the craft of tailoring.”

As an uncompromising stylist, modernist and educator, he’s a man to whom details will always matter.

Mark Powell Bespoke Tailoring
2 Marshall Street, Soho,
London
W1F 9BA

shivaun@markpowellbespoke.co.uk

020 7287 5498



The mod squad... meet the tailor to Bradley Wiggins, Paul Weller and Martin Freeman
Cyclist Bradley Wiggins, singer Paul Weller and actor Martin Freeman have one thing in common — their tailor. Nick Curtis talks to Mark Powell about the return of the Brit look

4 years ago

The mod squad... meet the tailor to Bradley Wiggins, Paul Weller and Martin Freeman
As tailor to Bradley Wiggins, Martin Freeman and the Modfather himself, Paul Weller, Mark Powell is the suitmaker for the new Mod revolution. Powell, 52, made the dapper outfits that Freeman wore to the New Zealand, New York and Tokyo premieres of The Hobbit, and the gorgeous double-breasted velvet number that Wiggins carried off with such aplomb at the Sports Personality of the Year Award.

“Martin is very pernickety, a perfectionist who knows exactly how he wants things made and has a very strong look,” says Powell, his growly East End geezer’s accent unsoftened by decades in Soho. “Paul is that way too. Bradley is lovely to dress because he’s tall and slim and he looks very smart, but also a bit edgy. With his shape you can put more of a waist and more of a skirt into a jacket and make it more elegant. A subtle boot-cut looks better on a long, slim leg. But he don’t make much fuss: he didn’t even want to try on the blue suit to check it looked okay, but I made him.”

Wiggins sought out Powell 18 months ago — “I barely knew who he was back then,” says the tailor — after hearing an online sartorial show called The Modcast, on which Powell mentioned that he dressed Weller. Four years ago Weller asked Powell to make him some double-breasted grey pinstripe suits based on a 1967 fashion spread in a magazine called Rave, which in turn were a homage to the outfits for the film Bonnie and Clyde. Around this time, Powell also started making clothes for Freeman, including a short-jacketed, slim-trousered pinstripe based on a suit worn by Miles Davis circa 1962.

This was just after Powell had opened a shop offering dandyish bespoke suits from £2,700, made-to-measure from £1,300 and ready-to-wear from £800 just off Carnaby Street, where the Vince Man shop and the tailor John Stephen dressed the first mods in the late 1950s. And where shops like The Face (and, until recently, Merc London, now online) sell two-tone tonic suits and bullseye T-shirts to the faithful.

Today, with mod favourites John Smedley and Ben Sherman showing at the second ever London Collections: Men this week, alongside Liam Gallagher’s take on the movement’s casualwear through his Pretty Green label, it seems Powell is surfing a zeitgeist-y wave. There are even mod-influenced music acts like Jake Bugg and The Strypes picking up cues from Weller and the Who. Arguably, the mod values of seriousness and sobriety (the early mods were pill-poppers rather than boozers) sit well with our straitened times.

“Mr Weller, Mr Wiggins and Mr Freeman are all basically following the philosophy of the early mods,” says Powell. “Everyone was wearing suits back then [in the late 1950s], so what the mods did was add more detailing and styling but in an understated way. They were influenced by Italian tailoring and by the Ivy League, preppy look, knitwear and bow ties. But it was never a generic look, it was always changing, always evolving. These three guys are putting more of a contemporary spin on it.”

Powell thinks there may also be an element of urban aspiration to mod: he is from Romford, Weller from Woking, Freeman from Aldershot, Wiggins from Kilburn, and they are all now “men about town”.

Indeed, the mod look — derived, fittingly enough, from the word “modernist” — has been through several incarnations, the smart-suited, clean-cut style of aspirational working-class lads who listened to US jazz and soul shading later into the ska-loving, pre-racist skinhead look, with its Harrington jackets and Ben Sherman shirts. Then it was, in Powell’s words, “f***ed up” by the Who’s 1979 film Quadrophenia, which dramatised the mod vs rocker battles of the 1960s and established the cliché of mods as scooter-riding, parka-wearing clones. He points out that the flamboyant late-1960s looks of Terence Stamp, Twiggy’s manager Justin de Villeneuve and Lord Lichfield were every bit as “mod” as Pete Townshend in his Union Jack suit or Phil Daniels on a Lambretta.

POWELL thinks the new flowering of a personalised, stylish version of the look is “a reaction to the homogenisation of clothes. If you walk down Savile Row, everyone’s doing the same one-button, slim-fit cut — that hedge-fund manager style. And people have slowly got bored with over-branded clothing. They want to express their individuality.”

Powell’s own influences are too eclectic to be tied to a single genre of fashion. At this point I should probably declare an interest: he made me a shadow-striped, gauntlet-cuffed suit for my wedding 13 years ago, and both suit and marriage are still going strong. He’s made clothes for Bowie and Bryan Ferry too, for the films Absolute Beginners, Shopping and Gangster No 1, designed an Autograph range for Marks & Spencer in 2007 and dressed Naomi Campbell for several public appearances, including in court.

His own look is a blend of Edwardian gent, riverboat gambler and East End gangster: when I first knew him he had crayon drawings by Ronnie Kray, a client, on his wall.

Powell was born in the East End and raised in Romford — his father worked in textiles and his mother for the theatrical costumier Charles Fox. Even at a young age he was taking oddments of cloth from his dad to a tailor. He learned to measure and cut properly in the 1970s at the outfitters Washington Tremlett on Conduit Street. He opened his first shop on Archer Street in 1985, selling “unworn suits from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s that I’d found in a warehouse” and began his tailoring business from there.

He has daughters aged 22 and 15 and a 19-year-old son, and since the break-up of his marriage five or six years ago has lived in Soho, first in Frith Street, latterly in Wardour Street. “It was the place I knew I’d never feel lonely, and I love it,” he says.” The only trouble is you do become insular and don’t leave the place much, because everything is here. Even walking to Mayfair or Covent Garden is a big thing.”

A past Evening Standard article about modern rakes saw Powell talking happily about the joys of gambling, drugs, underground drinking dens and lapdancing clubs. “I’ll always be a bit of a hellraiser, but I’ve calmed down with age,” he says blithely. He is single and shares his flat with his son Max, who hopes this year to apprentice himself to one of Powell’s friends in Savile Row as a cutter. “I’ve tried to persuade him not to become a personality tailor, and to concentrate on being a good cutter,” says the proud dad. “But he wants to be the next Mark Powell. Or whoever.”






Discovering King Tut - The Life of Lord Carnarvon

Tutankhamun (four-part TV series) TRAILER

Tutankhamun / 2016 adventure-drama miniseries / Highclere Castle ... Lord Carnarvon ... More ... Much more than Downton Abbey

$
0
0

Tutankhamun is a 2016 adventure-drama miniseries based on the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb by Howard Carter, directed by Peter Webber from a screenplay by BAFTA award-winning writer Guy Burt.


Tutankhamun review – they could have called it Down-tomb Abbey
It’s a Sunday-evening ITV costume drama festooned with side-partings, moustaches and awkward love-triangles. The only twist? It’s set in Egypt. Plus, real-life tomb raiding in China

Sam Wollaston
@samwollaston
Monday 17 October 2016 07.00 BST

The Valley of the Kings, Egypt, and a British archaeologist has a team of turbaned locals scratching and brushing away underground for him. “Mr Carter, sir!” one of them suddenly shouts excitedly. “There is a door!”

Mr Carter – Howard Carter – follows him back into the entrance, sets to work enthusiastically with his crowbar to make an opening, holding up his oil lamp. Can he see anything? I think I know this …

Hold the bus, though. It’s only 1905. There are 17 years, a world war, and four episodes of Tutankhamun (ITV, Sunday) to get through before any “wonderful things”. So this time there’s nothing, another empty chamber, looted centuries earlier.

Carter is played by Max Irons, whose father (Jeremy) made his name being tweeded, side-parted and oiled in an ITV (people forget that about Brideshead) costume drama 35 years ago. You can certainly see it, the family resemblance. Sam Neill plays Carter’s backer, Lord Carnarvon, whose home back in Blighty was Highclere Castle, which would later become the most famous ITV costume drama home of all: Downton Abbey.

Anyway, how to fill in those 17 years? Well, more digging of course. But it can’t just be Time Team with side-partings and turbans. This is Sunday-evening costume drama: where’s the love interest, where are the pretty ladies in period frocks? Here’s one. Maggie Lewis (Catherine Steadman, who was in Downton), from the Met. As in the New York museum, not the London feds. She’s a hot Egyptologist, and she digs Howard, in that way, but he’s more interested in Nefertiti than Maggie. In the end, it takes the assassination of an Austrian archduke, Maggie’s impending departure and a couple of large whiskies for her to strike lucky. “Heaven forfend that you’d miss your chance,” she says, taking his glass, and kissing him. Before leading him to her own oil-lit chamber to show him wonderful things, presumably. Tut tut.

Oh, and there’s Evelyn too, the female variety (unlike Waugh), Carnarvon’s flame-haired daughter, who clearly carries a torch for Howard too. Perhaps there’ll be love rivalry, a love triangle (pyramid?) in the coming episodes. For now she can admire him from the back seat of daddy’s splendid silver Rolls, toot toot, on a trip to Amarna, with the actual pyramids receding in the oval rear window. It’s a journey a young pharaoh made in the opposite direction over 3,000 years earlier.

Tutankhamun doesn’t require an awful lot of thought; more Downton than Brideshead, if we’re going to get snooty about our costume drama – Down-tomb Abbey … you can do better than that, please. Plus, if you haven’t had your head in a sand dune your entire life, then you’ll know exactly where it’s going. With a few extra jollities thrown in along the way, and if they’re not 100% historically accurate, then so what? It’s just a bit of fun. And it is fun.

It’s an archeology special today, because here’s The Greatest Tomb on Earth: Secrets of Ancient China (BBC2, Sunday). Quite a claim, the title, given what came out of the Valley of the Kings almost a century ago. But then this site – the tomb of China’s first emperor in Xian – is 200 times bigger. Great in that sense, certainly. And 8,000 soldiers, a terracotta army, came out of it, in 1974. They’re pretty bloody great.

And, unlike the Valley of the Kings, which really must be dug out by now, this one is still giving up secrets. Historian Dan Snow, anthropologist Alice Roberts and explorer/engineer (basically he’s good at finding ancient buried roads with a drone) Albert Lin are especially interested in the idea that China may not have been as cut off from the rest of the world (the west, specifically) as was thought.

Dan, tall everywhere, is especially tall in China, pretty much a terracotta warrior himself. Or Howard Carter, and Dr Alice would clearly like to measure some of his bone structure, after a couple of whiskies on their last night there. Trouble is Albert – Dr Drone – is in love with her ... all made up, I’m afraid. It doesn’t happen in real life, or if it does, it doesn’t make it into the documentary.


It’s still fascinating. And their conclusion, backed up with DNA evidence, is a bombshell: that there were Europeans around these parts way before Marco Polo showed up. Meaning the terracotta army might have been made by… ancient Greeks! That’s a massive dis to the Chinese isn’t it? But it does go some way to explaining how their ceramic work improved so dramatically and so quickly – from doing Morphs to life-size Dan Snows, almost overnight.


Tutankhamun: how ITV's follow up to Victoria has already courted controversy
Gabriel Tate
16 OCTOBER 2016 • 8:00AM

The reign of Victoria is over for now and, as many of those that had to follow Downton Abbey discovered, the lot of any series launching in the wake of a period smash is often an unhappy one. Might ITV’s Tutankhamun, created by Guy Burt (writer of The Bletchley Circle), provide the channel with another hit?

Telling the story of Howard Carter (Max Irons, giving us the most dashing archaeologist since Indiana Jones), his patron Lord Carnarvon (Sam Neill) and their unlikely discovery of Tutankhamun’s tomb and treasures in 1921, it walks a line between overly camp and tiresomely solemn. With Peter Webber’s artful direction and South Africa doubling evocatively for early 20th-century Egypt, it feels sweeping rather than bloated.

“When ITV asked me if I wanted to do something about the dig, there was a knee-jerk reaction from my inner eight-year-old,” says Burt, who was born in 1972, the year the British Museum opened its highly successful exhibition of King Tut’s artefacts.

“It was about treasure in the sand, which has to be good, but beyond that it was the three-way relationship between these two outsiders, one driven and difficult, the other a gambler and bon viveur, and Carnarvon’s daughter, Evelyn.”

The characterisation itself has already stoked controversy. If Tutankhamun had been intended as a canny way for ITV to maintain links with Highclere Castle, setting for Downton Abbey and home to the current Lord Carnarvon, it’s backfired.

The latter has already seized upon the trailer to attack the series for sexing up the story (by depicting an affair between Carter and Evelyn [Amy Wren]), and harbours “considerable reservations about it being a fair portrait of my great-grandfather”.

Burt is ready for the debate. “Carnarvon is lifted fairly easily from the history books. He knew nothing about archaeology when he set foot in Egypt: without Carter he’d have been lost in the desert, although he informed himself briskly. As for the affair, I’ve taken a degree of creative licence but it’s not a random speculation – it comes from reading between the lines of the letters, the notebooks and the diaries.”

In spite of the series documenting events almost a century ago and containing neither iconic young monarchs nor loyal, stentorian retainers, Burt maintains that there is plenty to appeal to a modern audience.

“It was an intriguing time, when social mores, sensibilities and values shifted from Victorian to modern. Out in Egypt, there’s that sense of people creating their own oasis and sipping gin and tonics while trying to ignore a nation that wanted its independence, had been promised it and was on the verge of fighting for it.

“While everybody knows that Carter finds the tomb and it contains what he called ‘wonderful things’, most of us don’t know how he found it. It was a fantastic piece of deductive precision work, backed by intuition that went against all expert opinion. Then there’s what happened afterwards. Did everyone live happily ever after? They certainly didn’t…”

Burt isn’t, he hastens to add, hinting at the so-called Curse of the Pharaohs (“all nonsense – a newspaper invention”). There will be no lurch into Hammer Horror territory where nuance is sacrificed for sensationalism. In fact, Burt argues that his piece never talks down to its audience or makes a naked pitch for the international market, primarily because it doesn’t need to.

“Audiences today are used to watching sophisticated shows. We rather handily had a genuine reason to have American characters among the cast without shoehorning them in, as the largest contingent of archaeologists in Egypt was American.”

There is even something rather moving about the reverence with which Carter treats the priceless objects he finds, in stark contrast to the deliberate destruction of ancient monuments in Syria and Afghanistan in recent years. “Previous archaeologists had been much more cavalier, treating it more like a treasure grab,” Burt explains.


“Carter insisted on photographing and documenting everything. Much of what he did comes under that umbrella of gentlemanliness that existed, and which was starting to come apart because of the First World War. It’s heartbreaking to see how the world has changed sometimes.”

Highclere Castle ... Lord Carnarvon ... More ... Much more than Downton Abbey

George Edward Stanhope Molyneux Herbert, 5th Earl of Carnarvon (26 June 1866 – 5 April 1923) was an English aristocrat best known as the financial backer of the search for and the excavation of Tutankhamun's tomb in the Valley of the Kings.

Born at the family home, Highclere Castle, in Hampshire on 26 June 1866, George Herbert was educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, succeeding to the Carnarvon title in 1890. On 26 June 1895, at St. Margaret's Church, Carnarvon married Almina Victoria Maria Alexandra Wombwell. daughter of Marie Wombwell née Boyer, the wife of Captain Frederick Charles Wombwell, but her real father was believed to be Alfred de Rothschild, the unmarried member of the prominent Rothschild banking family of England who made Lady Carnarvon his heiress.

Exceedingly wealthy, Lord Carnarvon was at first best known as an owner of racehorses and as a reckless driver of early automobiles, suffering - in 1901 - a serious motoring accident near Bad Schwalbach in Germany which left him significantly disabled.

In 1902, the 5th Earl established Highclere Stud to breed thoroughbred racehorses. In 1905, he was appointed one of the Stewards at the new Newbury Racecourse. His family has maintained the connection ever since. His grandson, Henry George Reginald Molyneux Herbert, 7th Earl of Carnarvon, was racing manager to Queen Elizabeth II from 1969, and one of Her Majesty's closest friends.

Egyptology

The 5th Earl was an enthusiastic amateur Egyptologist, undertaking in 1907 to sponsor the excavation of nobles' tombs in Deir el-Bahri (Thebes). Howard Carter joined him as his assistant in the excavations. It is now established that it was Gaston Maspero, then Director of the Antiquities Department, who proposed Carter to Lord Carnarvon.

Lord Carnarvon received in 1914 the concession to dig in the Valley of the Kings, in replacement of Theodore Davis who had resigned. It was in 1922 that they together opened the tomb of Tutankhamun in the Valley of the Kings, exposing treasures unsurpassed in the history of archaeology.

Death
On 5 April 1923, Carnarvon died in the Continental-Savoy Hotel in Cairo, in the Kingdom of Egypt. This led to the story of the "Curse of Tutankhamun", the "Mummy's Curse". His death is most probably explained by blood poisoning (progressing to pneumonia) after accidentally shaving a mosquito bite infected with erysipelas. His colleague and employee, Howard Carter, the man most responsible for revealing the tomb of the young king, lived safely for another sixteen years.

Carnarvon's tomb, appropriately for an archaeologist, is located within an ancient hill fort overlooking his family seat at Beacon Hill, Burghclere, Hampshire.

Carnarvon was survived by his wife Almina, who re-married, and their two children:







The curse of the pharaohs refers to the belief that any person who disturbs the mummy of an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh is placed under a curse.

There are occasional instances of curses appearing inside or on the facade of a tomb as in the case of the mastaba of Khentika Ikhekhi of the 6th dynasty at Saqqara. These appear to be more directed towards the ka priests to carefully protect the tomb and preserve ritual purity rather than a warning for potential robbers. Though there had been stories of curses going back to the nineteenth century, they multiplied in the aftermath of Howard Carter's discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamun. There was no actual curse found in the Pharaoh's tomb. The evidence for such curses relating to King Tutankhamun has been considered to be so meager that it is viewed as "unadulterated clap trap" by Donald B. Redford.




Tomb curses
Curses relating to tombs are rare, perhaps through the idea of such desecration being unthinkable and dangerous to record in writing. They most frequently occur in private tombs of the Old Kingdom era. The tomb of Ankhtifi (9-10th dynasty) contains the warning: "any ruler who... shall do evil or wickedness to this coffin... may Hemen [a local deity] not accept any goods he offers, and may his heir not inherit". The tomb of Khentika Ikhekhi (9-10th dynasty) contains an inscription: "As for all men who shall enter this my tomb... impure... there will be judgment... an end shall be made for him... I shall seize his neck like a bird... I shall cast the fear of myself into him". Curses after the Old Kingdom era are less common though more severe in expression, sometimes invoking the ire of Thoth or the destruction of Sekhemet. Zahi Hawass quotes an example of a curse: "Cursed be those who disturb the rest of a Pharaoh. They that shall break the seal of this tomb shall meet death by a disease that no doctor can diagnose."

Modern accounts of curses
Hieroglyphs were not deciphered until the beginning of the 19th century by Jean-François Champollion so any reports of curses prior to this are in the domain of perceived bad luck associated with the handling of mummies and other artifacts from tombs. Louis Penicher wrote an account in 1699 in which he records how a Polish traveler bought two mummies in Alexandria and embarked on a sea journey with the mummies in the cargo hold. He was alarmed by recurring visions of two specters and stormy seas that did not abate until the mummies were thrown overboard.

Zahi Hawass recalled that as a young archaeologist excavating at Kom Abu-Bellou he had to transport a number of artifacts from the Greco-Roman site. On the day he did so his cousin died, on the anniversary of that day his uncle died and on the third anniversary his aunt died. Years later when he excavated the tombs of the builders of the pyramids at Giza he encountered the curse: "All people who enter this tomb who will make evil against this tomb and destroy it may the crocodile be against them in water, and snakes against them on land. May the hippopotamus be against them in water, the scorpion against them on land." Though not superstitious, he decided not to disturb the mummies. However, he later was involved in the removal of two child mummies from Bahariya Oasis to a museum and subsequently reported how he was haunted by the children in his dreams. These phenomena did not stop until the mummy of the father was re-united with the children in the museum. He came to the conclusion that mummies should not be displayed though it was a lesser evil than allowing the general public into the tombs. Hawass also recorded an incident relating to a sick young boy who loved Ancient Egypt and was subject to a "miracle" cure in the Egyptian Museum when he looked into the eyes of the mummy of King Ahmose I. Thereafter the boy read everything he could find on Ancient Egypt, especially the Hyksos period.

The idea of a mummy's curse was developed in The Mummy!: Or a Tale of the Twenty-Second Century, an early work combining elements of science fiction and horror, written by Jane C. Loudon and published anonymously in 1827. Louisa May Alcott is thought to have been the first to use a "mummy curse" plot in her 1869 story "Lost in a Pyramid".




Opening of King Tutankhamun's tomb
The Anubis figure which guarded the entrance to Tutankhamun's treasury room.The belief in a curse was brought to many people's attention due to the deaths of the members of the team of Howard Carter, who opened the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62) in 1922, launching the modern era of Egyptology.

The famous Egyptologist James Henry Breasted worked with Carter soon after the first opening of the tomb. He reported how Carter sent a messenger on an errand to his house. On approaching his home he thought he heard a "faint, almost human cry". On reaching the entrance he saw the bird cage occupied by a cobra, the symbol of Egyptian monarchy. Carter's canary had died in its mouth and this fueled local rumors of a curse. Arthur Weigall, a previous Inspector-General of Antiquities to the Egyptian Government, reported that this was interpreted as Carter's house being broken into by the Royal Cobra, the same as that worn on the King's head to strike enemies (see Uraeus), on the very day the King's tomb was being broken into. An account of the incident was reported by the New York Times on the 22nd December 1922.


The death of Lord Carnarvon six weeks after the opening of Tutankhamun's tomb resulted in many curse stories in the pressThe first of the "mysterious" deaths was that of Lord Carnarvon. He had been bitten by a mosquito, and later slashed the bite accidentally while shaving. It became infected and blood poisoning resulted. Two weeks before Carnarvon died Marie Corelli wrote an imaginative letter which was published in the New York World magazine in which she quoted an obscure book that confidently asserted that "dire punishment" would follow an intrusion into a sealed tomb. A media frenzy followed with reports that a curse had been found in the King's tomb, but this was untrue. Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, suggested at the time that Lord Carnarvon's death had been caused by "elementals" created by Tutankhamun's priests to guard the royal tomb and this further fueled the media interest. Arthur Weigall reported that six weeks before Carnarvon's death he had watched the Earl laughing and joking as he entered the King's tomb and his saying to a nearby reporter (H. V. Morton), "I give him six weeks to live." The first autopsy carried out on the body of Tutankhamun by Dr Derry found a healed lesion on the left cheek, but as Carnarvon had been buried six months previously it was not possible to determine if the location of the wound on the King corresponded with the location of the fatal mosquito bite on Carnarvon.
In 1925, the anthropologist Henry Field, accompanied by Breasted, visited the tomb and recalled the kindness and friendliness of Carter. He also reported how a paperweight given to Carter's friend Sir Bruce Ingham was composed of a mummified hand with its wrist adorned with a scarab bracelet marked with, "Cursed be he who moves my body. To him shall come fire, water and pestilence." Soon after receiving the gift, Ingram's house burned down, followed by a flood when it was rebuilt.

Howard Carter was entirely skeptical of such curses. He did report in his diary a "strange" account that in May 1926 he saw jackals of the same type as Anubis, the guardian of the dead, for the first time in over thirty-five years of working in the desert.

Skeptics have pointed out that many others who visited the tomb or helped to discover it lived long and healthy lives. A study showed that of the 58 people who were present when the tomb and sarcophagus were opened, only eight died within a dozen years. All the others were still alive, including Howard Carter, who later died of lymphoma at the age of 64 in 1939.

Possible causes
Arthur Conan Doyle speculated in the press regarding the death of Lord Carnarvon so soon after opening of Tutankhamun's tombSome have speculated that deadly fungus could have grown in the enclosed tombs and been released when they were open to the air. Arthur Conan Doyle favoured this idea, and speculated that the mold had been placed deliberately to punish grave robbers.

A newspaper report printed following Carnarvon's death is also believed to have been responsible for the wording of the curse most frequently associated with Tutankhamun – "Death shall come on swift wings to him who disturbs the peace of the King"– a phrase which does not actually appear among the hieroglyphs in KV62, even though it was said to appear in several different places.

While there is no evidence that such pathogens killed Lord Carnarvon, there is no doubt that dangerous materials can accumulate in old tombs. Recent studies of newly opened ancient Egyptian tombs that had not been exposed to modern contaminants found pathogenic bacteria of the Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas genera, and the moulds Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus. Additionally, newly opened tombs often become roosts for bats, and bat guano may harbour histoplasmosis. However, at the concentrations typically found, these pathogens are generally only dangerous to persons with weakened immune systems.

Air samples taken from inside an unopened sarcophagus through a drilled hole showed high levels of ammonia, formaldehyde and hydrogen sulfide; these gases are all toxic, but are easily detected by their strong odours. Hydrogen sulfide is detectable at low concentrations (Up to 100PPM) beyond which it acts as a nerve agent on the olfactory senses. At 1000ppm it will kill with a single inhalation.





Highclere Castle has been home to the Carnarvon family since 1679. Built on an ancient site, the original house was recorded in the Domesday Book.

The present day Castle was designed in 1842 by Sir Charles Barry, the architect also responsible for building the Houses of Parliament in Westminster.

The Castle’s history also includes a fascinating connection with ancient Egypt, as the 5th Earl, with Howard Carter, discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun in the Valley of the Kings in 1922. The Castle now houses an exhibition that commemorates this historic event, including some rare antiquities from the 5th Earl's earlier Egyptian excavations.

We welcome many visitors each year to view the Castle, the Egyptian Exhibition and the surrounding Grounds and Gardens.

This unique setting is also available for private events, corporate events and film locations. We welcome individual enquiries regarding weddings, parties and other celebrations.

We hope that the photographs, videos and information on our web site inspire you to visit us or to enquire about an event.

We look forward to welcoming you to the Castle.

Highclere Castle


Remembering The Egyptian Exhibition in 2009
Egyptian Exhibition opens at Lord Carnarvon's Highclere Castle
Submitted by Ann on Fri, 07/24/2009

Highclere Castle where since July the Egyptian Exhibition is open to the public. Photo by JBUCK PlanetLord Carnarvon, the man who funded the discovery of KV-62 - the tomb of Tutankhamun - and died five months later in mysterious circumstances before he could actually see the mummy's face, was a superstitious man who wore the same lucky bow tie all his life. Such anecdotes are part of the 'Egyptian Exhibition' at Highclere Castle.

Rising in the Berkshire Hampshire countryside south of Newbury, England, the castle kept many secrets on its own. As the old Earl did not want to talk about Egypt, the collection was hidden away until 1987. But the long-hidden collection of Egyptian antiquities is now presented in its full glory - bigger room, better lighting, new cabinets - in the cellars of the castle, along with hundreds of unpublished photographs taken by Lord Carnarvon between 1907 and 1914, photographs from the discovery in 1922 of the Tomb of Tutankhamun and letters, notes and drawings from Lord Carnarvon and Howard Carter. They were discovered two years ago in the family archives by Fiona, the Eighth Countess of Carnarvon who recently published 'Egypt at Highclere' and has also written 'Carnarvon & Carter'.

"These pictures reveal the enormous scale of excavations that Lord Carnarvon and Carter carried in the decade before their most sensational finding. They tell the story of two amazing men, who have never been fully recognized in England for the discovery they have made," the Countess of Carnarvon told Discovery Channel News.

Among the antiquities on display, are a splendid 3,500-year-old painted coffin of a woman named Irtyru, from Deir el-Bahri, a calcite shabti showing the head of Amenhotep III, silver bracelets from the Delta, faience bowls, a 5,000-year-old calcite dish used in priestly offerings, coffin faces carved in wood and alabaster vessels found at the entrance to the tomb of King Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II and the razor that caused the Fifth Earl of Carnarvon's death.

Does the Highclere castle looks strangely familiar to you? Don't worry, this could be perfectly normal, as the castle's front was used for exteriors of the orgy scenes in the Stanley Kubrick film Eyes Wide Shut. We do advise to adhere the rules of proper and decent behaviour when visiting! ;)

Highclere Castle, it's Grounds, Gardens and the Egyptian Exhibition are open Sunday to Thursday each week the 3rd of September 2009. From 11am until 4.30pm. Last admission is at 3.30pm.





Fiona, 8th Countess of Carnarvon

Fiona, 8th Countess of Carnarvon
Author and Expert on Ancient Egypt
Fiona, 8th Countess of Carnarvon is no ordinary peer. Born Fiona Aitken, she has already had a colourful career encompassing a number of positions and professions. She is married to George Herbert, 8th Earl of Carnarvon; thus making her the 8th Countess.

A former auditor at Coopers & Lybrand, Fiona is perfectly suited to running affairs at Highclere Castle, where she and her husband reside. Fiona has also runs her own fashion label, Azur, which operated in the States from 1995 to 2004. Fiona's guardianship of the estate extends to its grounds and gardens, events and the Egyptian Exhibition - around which she and her husband regularly take visitors.

Fiona has also written two books on the most famous character in her lineage - the 5th Earl of Carnarvon who discovered King Tutankhamun's tomb with Howard Carter in 1922. The first, Carnarvon & Carter, examines the illustrious duo, their early work together and the extraordinary tale of their relationship and search for the hallowed tomb.


Viceroy's House review – soapy account of India's birth agonies / Fatima Bhutto on Indian partition film Viceroy’s House: ‘I watched this servile pantomime and wept’/ Gurinder Chadha: My film has been wilfully misrepresented as anti-Muslim / VICEROY'S HOUSE - Official Trailer - Hugh Bonneville, Gillian Anderson. ...

$
0
0


Viceroy's House is British-Indian historical drama film directed by Gurinder Chadha and written by Paul Mayeda Berges, Moira Buffini, and Chadha. The film stars Hugh Bonneville, Gillian Anderson, Manish Dayal, Huma Qureshi, and Michael Gambon. It has been selected to be screened out of competition at the 67th Berlin International Film Festival.
The film was released in the United Kingdom on 3 March 2017

On 30 April 2015, it was announced that Hugh Bonneville and Gillian Anderson would star in the historical drama film Viceroy's House to be directed by Gurinder Chadha, which Chadha scripted along with Paul Mayeda Berges and Moira Buffini.The film set in 1947 during the Partition of India, and the life inside the Viceroy's House, would be produced by Chadha, Deepak Nayar, and Paul Ritchie.[4] Pathé and BBC Films would be co-financing the film. On 1 September 2015, more cast was announced including Manish Dayal, Huma Qureshi, Tanveer Ghani, Denzil Smith, Neeraj Kabi, Om Puri, Lily Travers, Michael Gambon, and Simon Callow.

Principal photography on the film began on 30 August 2015 in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India, where it was shot for eight weeks.

The film was released in the United Kingdom on 3 March 2017.

Chadha described the film as the Upstairs, Downstairs view of the Partition of India. She defended her film against criticisms of historical heterodoxy, guided by Narendra Singh Sarila's 2009 book The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India's Partition, based on secret documents discovered in the British Library.

Viceroy's House review – soapy account of India's birth agonies
3 / 5 stars
Hugh Bonneville and Gillian Anderson play the Mountbattens in Gurinder Chadha cheekily Downtonised but watchable version of history

Peter Bradshaw
@PeterBradshaw1
Sunday 12 February 2017 18.45 GMT

Our time frame for leaving won’t work!” exclaims Lady Mountbatten, for a moment overwhelmed by the task of quitting India in 1947. Something familiar about that? As well as an enjoyably soapy and cheekily Downtonised view of history, director Gurinder Chadha could be offering a satirical stab at what Indexit meant to a country about to split into two as a punitive condition of liberty; maybe the UK will also have to contemplate partition of its own, north and south. With co-screenwriters Moira Buffini and Paul Mayeda Berges, Chadha creates a watchable costume drama from India’s birth agonies. And with its streak of subversive humour, it even reminded me weirdly of Spike Milligan’s Puckoon, about the division of Ireland.

Hugh Bonneville plays Mountbatten of Burma, brought in to oversee the running down of the union jack in India. (Maybe he can play Chris Patten if Chadha fancies a follow-up film set in Hong Kong.) He is a breezy, charming and clubbable Mountbatten, occasionally switching to stern rebuke in private in high Granthamesque style, but of course only with his own family or staff. Gillian Anderson is very good as Edwina Mountbatten, straining to repurpose her natural memsahibish hauteur into high-mindedly favouring India and Indians.

Tanveer Ghani is an excitable Nehru, and Denzil Smith is the cool and self-possessed Jinnah. Simon Callow is Cyril Radcliffe, the bewildered functionary charged with creating partition with his pen across the map, despite knowing nothing about the country. The late Om Puri gives a performance of great warmth as Ali Rahim Noor, a former rebel, once imprisoned, now blind. His daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is on the viceroy’s staff and drawn into a Capulet-Montague love affair with a Hindu named Jeet (Manish Dayal) despite being engaged to a careerist Muslim who is partisan for the new state of Pakistan. This love affair is offered as an emollient to the geopolitical agonies of division that are playing out on the larger stage.

The movie is about the intrigue and gossip of the Viceroy’s House itself, the imperial seat of administration in Delhi and its microcosmic symbolism for the country as a whole. As the split dawns, the house and its contents are to be divided between the new states of India and Pakistan, including the silverware and the books in the library – India and Pakistan quarrel about who gets Charlotte Brontë and Jane Austen.

The movie does not respond quite so readily to the tragedy of mass migration and massacres, an anguish whispered about at receptions and glimpsed on newsreels, at one move away from the tailored drama. (There is an interesting anachronism when the Ascot Gavotte from the musical My Fair Lady is played at an official soiree, music that was composed 10 years later: it could be an intentional, playfully surreal touch from Chadha.) The movie also does not touch on Lady Mountbatten’s rumoured affair with Nehru, a subject still painful enough for the Indian government to have effectively objected to a planned movie on the subject, Indian Summer, which was to have starred Cate Blanchett as Lady Mountbatten.

Viceroy’s House may not have a whole lot of depth, but Chadha always shows her irrepressible and good-natured flair for storytelling, and sharp observational eye for the clenched unease of Britain’s patrician ruling class. The film is also interesting in that this is one of the very few historical dramas that shows Winston Churchill as the bad guy. Everyone knows about Churchill’s dig at Gandhi the “fakir”; this goes further and suggests Churchill’s bad faith in secretly contriving at partition as a self-serving trick.

Pakistan was avowedly created as a Muslim state to prevent the victimisation of a Muslim minority. But, as one character angrily remarks, divide-and-quit was a well established British technique in Ireland and Palestine (Cyprus lying in the future). And it could have been Churchill’s planned bishop sacrifice in the Great Game with the Soviet Union: the creation of a state distinct from the left-leaning India, more amenable to British interests and a strategic stronghold against the Russians. It is a line that Chadha has developed from Narendra Singh Sarila’s 2009 book The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India’s Partition. Meanwhile, Anderson and Bonneville show India’s outgoing first couple as increasingly disorientated and out of their depth.


At one stage, Lord and Lady Mountbatten earnestly promise each other that they will “stay on” after independence. Of course they didn’t, but it is a moment that recalls the expatriate melancholy of Paul Scott’s Raj Quartet. Viceroy’s House is no very profound work, but it is a nimble and watchable period drama.




 Fatima Bhutto on Indian partition film Viceroy’s House: ‘I watched this servile pantomime and wept’
Gurinder Chadha’s film is a glossy imperial version of India’s traumatic partition that scandalously misrepresents the historical reality
Gurinder Chadha’s Raj film Viceroy’s House begins with an ominous warning: “History is written by the victors.” It sure is. The empire and its descendants have their fingerprints all over this story.

Fatima Bhutto
Friday 3 March 2017 07.00 GMT

Viceroy’s House, the story of the Mountbattens’ arrival in India and the subcontinent’s subsequent breakup, opens to the sight of bowing, preening and scraping Indians at work on the lawns, carpets and marble floors that are to greet the last viceroy of colonised India, Lord Louis Mountbatten – or Dickie, as he was known – played by the rosy Hugh Bonneville. In one of his first scenes, Mountbatten instructs his Indian valets that he never wants to spend more than two minutes getting dressed – fitting for the man who dismembered India in less than six weeks. As always, it is the Indians, not the British, who fail in the simplest of tasks set out for them (they take 13 minutes).

The benevolence of the Mountbattens and, by association, the British Raj is laced throughout Chadha’s film. The second world war, we are told at the start by another pair of Indian valets, has exhausted the British and that is why they have “announced” they will be leaving India. There is no mention of the freedom struggle, Gandhian civil disobedience and resistance that brought the empire to its knees without firing a shot. Nor of the persecution and imprisonment of India’s independence leaders, successful economic boycotts of the industrialised British behemoth or the savagery and theft of imperialism (at least three million Indians died in the Bengal famine, a man-made disaster). It is simply that the British were “exhausted” – and that, too, by the Germans.

Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal), our resident Hindu valet – because Viceroy’s House is cognisant of India’s multiculturalism only in the way that census–takers and bureaucrats are, one Hindu, one Sikh, one Muslim, counting each group so they may assess their value as well as their threats – has arrived at the viceroy’s house from his former job as a police officer. He wastes no time in announcing: “Mountbatten sahib is a heroic man, he has freed Burma, and now he’s coming to free India.” Freedom is not something fought and won by Indians; it is a gift from the Mountbattens and the empire they represent.

At the same moment, the Mountbattens are descending through the clouds as Dickie looks out of an aeroplane window and bemoans the task ahead of him. “You’re giving a nation back to its people,” his daughter Pamela reminds him, as though India had been colonised by some other, alien force those past 300 years.

This theme is repeated throughout Chadha’s elegy to her former colonisers. “We have come to give India its freedom, not to tear her apart,” whispers Edwina Mountbatten (Gillian Anderson). As though it were the Nazis or the Ottomans who had held India and its people captive, subordinating their will and their liberty, for all these centuries. “How can it be getting worse under us?” Edwina asks, in a distress that would be genuine but for the insidious message cloaked behind every line in this unctuous and craven film: India’s suffering is India’s fault.

India’s revolutionaries and leaders are portrayed with a comic disrespect. Not once can they be counted on to hold a civilised conversation with each other (or even turn up to the same meetings) and are, in turn, sneering, smug and silly. Mountbatten spends the entirety of this film lecturing and condescending to finer men than he. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s finest orator and architect of the modern Indian state, is continually patronised by Mountbatten – who reminds every Indian leader he comes across that they went to Cambridge and that made them clever and Cambridge is in fact English, so thank you Great Britain.

It would be criminal to compare the two men’s intellect or vision, but it is always with a downward gaze that the subaltern is rendered in Viceroy’s House. Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Denzil Smith), the founding father of Pakistan, is scolded by the viceroy every time he turns up at his damn house and even Mahatma Gandhi – who, with rotten teeth is depicted like some mad old uncle – smilingly feeds the Mountbattens goat curd the first time they meet, as though that is the extent of his meditations at the time.

Britain gave us railroads, their language and cutlery (these people eat with their hands, Lady Mountbatten is warned as she announces her desire to entertain native guests at Viceroy’s House, the couple’s official residence). We would be mindful, as Chadha studiously is, to ignore the bloodletting.

Communal violence between Hindus and Muslims is spoken of by the Mountbattens and other Raj imperialists as though it were a cyclone, arriving in India from some unknown provenance, moved by an unknowable science. Divide and rule, a staple of British colonial administration, is given no credence. Three hundred million Hindus and Sikhs want a united India, she informs us via Raj interlocutors; it is 100 million Muslims who do not. Mirroring the fractures of modern nationalism wrought by India’s partition, Chadha seems to take pleasure in laying the bloodshed and brutality of 1947 at the feet of two particular villains: Muslims and Jinnah.

Jinnah is at his Bela Lugosi finest, dark circles around his eyes and his silver hair roguishly slicked back. To divide India is a tragedy, Mountbatten sighs, how can we convince Jinnah not to? Well, according to Chadha, you can’t. Jinnah, a successful barrister and leader of the Muslim League, is simply introduced to us as a “trouble maker”. The American ambassador, Mountbatten, Cyril Radcliffe (the man who drew up the new borders between India and Pakistan), every rotund and sweating Englishman lays the onus of partition at Jinnah’s feet, as though centuries of colonialism had been peaceful and joyful and British rule had not been built on a systematic and brutal communalism designed to pit brother violently against brother.

Not once do you witness any violence on behalf of India’s foreign rulers; they are serene and encouraging, weighed down with the heavy burden of soothing these wild, intemperate people. The valets, cooks and servants of Viceroy’s House can be counted on to turn viciously against each other, so much so that Mountbatten must convene a meeting. “No violence is tolerated in Viceroy’s House,” he reprimands the barbaric natives. By this point in the film, sadly, the audience cannot count on the director – or scriptwriters – to inform us that the very foundations of the viceroy’s residence were built on violence. The only Indians in this film are servants – or politicians – as though no other kind of subaltern existed. Chadha imagines this an innovation and has called Viceroy’s House the “Upstairs, Downstairs” of partition, as though there has ever been any other kind of Raj film. However, even Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi depicted the injustice, savagery and shame of the Raj more honestly than Chadha dares.

All the riots in Chadha’s film seem to be caused by Muslims. Riots in the Punjab interrupt the Mountbattens at a party and, though the disruption is delivered breathlessly, there is still time to announce that they have been carried out by Muslims. Dilip, a Sikh valet who spends the whole film fighting his countrymen instead of his occupiers, leaves to check on his village in the Punjab, only to return dusty and dishevelled. It’s gone, all of it burned to the ground by Muslims who, in this film, are always the perpetrators of violence, never its victims.

We have some brushes with symmetry regarding the violence that Muslims, like Hindus and Sikhs, also suffered, but they are all false alarms. Jeet’s love interest is Aalia (Huma Qureshi), a Muslim, and as they walk to her servants’ quarters one evening they find it set ablaze. Aalia’s home is filled with smoke and her blind father – played by the late Om Puri – isn’t there. Aalia is distraught and we, too, are gripped with fear. But don’t worry! Her father didn’t die; he’s just sitting at a neighbour’s house. No harm, no foul.

Pakistan is a place so nasty it even destroys Aalia and Jeet’s love when she is forced to migrate there (not even her strapping fiancé can thwart Jeet and her romance the way my country can). Towards the end of the film, Jeet is told that Aalia’s train has not made it to Lahore – Chadha’s begrudging mention of the ghost trains that left stations filled with migrants only to arrive at their destination filled with corpses. He has a bit of a cry, but, again, no need to worry! Aalia is alive. Muslims don’t die in Viceroy’s House. They are too busy killing, even their own.

Amid the chaos of partition, Chadha shows a kindly elder Sikh lady who has brought a Muslim woman to the police. The Muslim woman is black and blue. Her father, the old woman tells the cop, threw her under a train, but she would like to adopt her. The crudeness of this moment is painful and sad to behold. Even a (pointedly non-Muslim) stranger is more nurturing than a Muslim parent.

Chadha, who describes herself as a British Indian film-maker, was born in Kenya, but her family originally hail from Rawalpindi and Jhelum in what became Pakistan. Speaking in London ahead of the film’s release, Chadha described these cities as ending up on the “wrong side” after partition. I wasn’t aware there was a right or wrong side.

It is true that India and Pakistan were one people with millennia of history uniting us, but the forces that broke India and divided us are the very ones that Viceroy’s House is at pains to exonerate. “This tragedy is not of your making,” Lady Mountbatten warmly soothes her husband as the couple preside over the destruction of India.


Lord and Lady Mountbatten (in white at rear) celebrate India’s first independence day with prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, 1947. Photograph: AP
As the fires of 1947 rage, the Mountbattens dress up in khaki kit and busy themselves feeding the fleeing poor (“Feed the children first!” Edwina cries) and breaking up bloody skirmishes between Indians. It was with a deep wound that I watched Chadha depict Jawaharlal Nehru being slapped by a fellow Indian for “breaking the country” while the British, who laid waste to our country, are celebrated for nothing and pardoned for everything.

The lie of this pernicious scene, wilfully ignorant of history if one is generous and purposely defamatory if one is not, points to a sorrowful truth: the psychological damage wrought by colonialism festers deeply among some south Asians.

Viceroy’s House betrays the profound inferiority complex that plagues colonised people, a trauma as severe as the physical assaults and violence done to the land and bodies of subjugated people. It is exactly this kind of thinking that infected those who rioted and murdered their compatriots – a sense of fully absorbing the coloniser’s claims of racial, moral and civilisational superiority. How else to explain the damage to the colonised psyche, whose imagination is so deeply corroded that it can believe that white skins are superior to brown skins, that the British are greater than Indians, that one religion prevails over another? It is in accepting these tragic untruths that nations are crippled with a paralysing fear of others and sincere loathing of the self.

Viceroy’s House is the film of a deeply colonised imagination. Its actors are collateral damage; no ill can be spoken of their talent or their craft. But as a south Asian I watched this film in a dark cinema hall and wept. This August will mark the 70th anniversary of the largest migration in human history. Fifteen million Indians were displaced and more than a million killed as the subcontinent was torn asunder. What value was freedom if it did not empower people to think without chains?

If this servile pantomime of partition is the only story that can be told of our past, then it is a sorry testament to how intensely empire continues to run in the minds of some today.

Fatima Bhutto is the author of memoir Songs of Blood and Sword and novel The Shadow of the Crescent Moon.



Gurinder Chadha: My film has been wilfully misrepresented as anti-Muslim
The director of Viceroy’s House argues that her film about India’s partition of 1947, far from ignoring the freedom struggle, celebrates it

Gurinder Chadha
Friday 3 March 2017 17.53 GMT

Fatima Bhutto, in reviewing my film Viceroy’s House, has every right to express her opinion about it. Everyone sees history through their own lens; some only see what they want to see. My film is my vision of the events leading up to India’s partition. It is not the first and it will not be the last interpretation, and I am delighted that it is provoking such heated public debate.

What saddens me is that a film about reconciliation should be so wilfully misrepresented as anti-Muslim or anti-Pakistan.

Viceroy's House review – soapy account of India's birth agonies

In reviewing my film, Bhutto makes a series of statements that are wildly inaccurate. I would normally let this pass – the audience will see from the very first scene that her description of my film is false. However, Bhutto seems intent on inflaming the racial and religious divisions that my film is intended to challenge, and it feels irresponsible to let that pass.

My film does not ignore the freedom struggle – it celebrates that struggle. (“The British empire brought to its knees by a man in a loincloth,” as Lady Mountbatten comments.) It does not ignore the colonial policy of divide and rule, but challenges it. (As Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru comments to Lord Mountbatten: “You have divided us and now you ask us for a solution.”) Above all, it does not show the Muslim community as sole perpetrators of violence.

In her most inflammatory allegation, Bhutto writes that the film depicts a Muslim father throwing his daughter from a train, only for her to be saved by a Hindu woman. She asserts that I do this to show that “a (pointedly non-Muslim) stranger is more nurturing than a Muslim parent”. In fact, what the film depicts is a Hindu mob attacking a train of Muslim families – the father pushes his daughter from the train to save her, not to kill her.

In making the film, I took infinite care to show that responsibility for the violence lay on all sides, and all communities were victims of the violence, irrespective of race or religion. Part of that process was to share the script and the film with many Muslim, Hindu and Sikh academics and historians to ensure that the scenes I depicted were a fair and reasonable representation of events.

I made Viceroy’s House so that this key moment in our shared British-Asian history – the 70th anniversary of the independence of India and the birth of Pakistan – would not be lost. The events of 1947 are largely forgotten in the UK, and they were and continue to be of huge importance. I do not for one minute expect every person watching the film to agree with my take on history. However, what alarms me most about Bhutto’s piece is that it plays straight into the hands of those who promote communal division – something that plagues India and Pakistan to this day.


Sunday Images/ Gentlemen of the World, Unite!

The Two Princes, the Française and the perfect murder … How Marguerite Alibert became Princess Fahmy and shot her husband at the Savoy …

$
0
0



The cover-up that saved the Prince of Wales' murderess lover from the gallows
Prince of Wales had a relationship with Marguerite in the First World War
The Parisian courtesan went on to marry Prince Ali Fahmy of Eqypt
She shot him dead in the Savoy Hotel in 1923

By TONY RENNELL FOR MAILONLINE
 
Shady character: Princess Marie Marguerite Fahmy, French wife of late Prince Ali Fahmy of Egypt, was a lover of the Prince of Wales
Late-night diners at the Savoy Hotel in London paused between mouthfuls and stared at each other in amazement.
At one of the tables an unseemly row had broken out — shrieks of rage from a bejewelled French woman in a chic satin Chanel gown, howls of anger from her youthful white-tie-and-tailed Middle Eastern husband.
‘Shut up, or I’ll smash this bottle of wine over your head,’ she screamed at the top of her voice.
‘And I’ll do the same to you,’ he hurled back, until waiters intervened to try to calm them down.
To those in the know, this was just another everyday argy-bargy in the volatile six-month marriage of 32-year-old Marguerite, high-class Parisian hooker and notorious gold-digger, and 22-year-old Prince Ali Fahmy, effeminate, filthy-rich Egyptian playboy, besotted with her and intensely jealous.
They were forever clawing and scratching each other, biting and kicking.
But it was more than that this time. A few hours later during a violent thunderstorm, that night in July 1923, there was more loud cursing and rowing in the corridor outside their suite — followed by the sound of three pistol shots fired in rapid succession.

Enigmatic: Madame Marguerite Fahmy who was accused of murdering her husband, Aly Bey Fahmy, in the Savoy Hotel, pictured in Paris

A hotel porter who rushed to investigate found Ali slumped against a wall in a pool of blood, a bullet through his head, and a hysterical Marguerite bending over his body and crying out, ‘J’ai lui tiré’ — ‘I’ve shot him.’

Murdered: Egyptian Aly Bey Fahmy was shot dead by his wife Marguerite Fahmy in 1923
If ever there was an open-and-shut murder case, this seemed it. The ambitious Marguerite — who had slept her way out of the gutter by selling her sexual favours, reeled in scores of wealthy lovers and landed a prince — seemed certain to be heading for a date with the hangman.
And yet, ten weeks later, after an Old Bailey trial that had Press and public agog at all the lurid sexual details unearthed, she was acquitted. It was one of the most sensational turnarounds in British legal history. How could this have happened?
The answer, according to author and barrister Andrew Rose in a new book, is equally sensational. He argues that friends of the then Prince of Wales — the hapless Edward VIII-to-be —  conspired to get her off the hook.
Why? To hush up the fact that she, a prostitute, had bedded the Prince on numerous occasions during the last 18 months of World War I while he was serving with the Army in France. Moreover, she had racy love letters from him to prove it.
The moment the news came out that Marguerite was under arrest in Holloway prison, a secret, high-level damage-limitation exercise was set in motion. The Prince’s intimate entourage of toffs, toughs and old Army chums went into overdrive to save him from embarrassment and ridicule.
They knew that in his early 20s the young and immature heir to the throne had enjoyed her delights — some of them had even dallied there too and discovered how well versed she was in the tricks of her trade.
Cover up: Prince of Wales, here in 1925, had met Marguerite in the last 18 months of the First World War while he was in the army in France
The Prince, a newcomer to such arts, had been initiated, bewitched and then become more than a little obsessed with the shapely body, auburn hair and sensuous mouth of the woman he knew as Mme Maggie Meller. She was adept at playing the dominatrix. He pursued her with slavish devotion at every opportunity, lavishing gifts on her.
She sent him an erotic novel with a strong lesbian theme. Foolishly he wrote letters to ‘mon Bebe’, as he called her, 20 of them at least, intimate, possibly rude about his father, King George V, often indiscreet about the conduct of the war, and definitely not the sort he would ever want the world to see.
And when in 1918 he dumped her for the arms of Mrs Freda Dudley-Ward, the first of his long-term mistresses, she pointedly reminded him she still had them, with a hint that she wanted money for their return.
Why Marguerite pulled back from blackmail at this point is unclear, but in time the Prince seemed reassured that, though ‘IT in Paris’ (the ungentlemanly term he now used for the woman he’d once adored) had not given up his billets-doux, she was not going to make trouble.
Now her arrest in London on a capital murder charge punctured that hope. The real possibility loomed of almost limitless public scandal descending on the Royal Family.
The first thing the Prince’s men did, according to author Rose, was to make a discreet approach to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Archibald Bodkin, explain the delicacy of the situation and get him on board. He guaranteed a date for the Old Bailey trial in September, and they arranged for the Prince to be well out of the way then on a two-month tour of Canada.
But that wouldn’t stop Marguerite spilling out from the dock details of her boudoir activities with the royal rake or producing those incriminating letters if it suited her. There would have to be a deal to silence her — and the go-between for that transaction, Rose claims, was one Major Ernest Bald.
The debonair Bald had been one of Marguerite’s ‘intimates’ back in France, as had the man who now enlisted his help, his old commanding officer, ‘Bendor’ Grosvenor, the dissolute Duke of Westminster. ‘Bendor’ was a  disreputable womaniser and heavy drinker, and among the Prince’s closest confidantes.
Bald was sent to visit his old flame in Holloway jail and, though there is no record of what they discussed in frequent meetings in a white-washed room with barred windows over the next five weeks — talking in French so the watching wardress could not understand — Rose believes they horse-traded the Prince’s bedroom secrets for some sort of guarantee that she would get off.
From her cell, it seems Marguerite instructed her lawyer to arrange for the Prince’s letters to be handed back. She had stored them in Cairo and they were duly given to the British High Commission there and  dispatched to London.
But were they the real thing? Rose believes the Prince interrupted his summer holiday in Scotlandto dash to Londonto check their authenticity and that they were all accounted for. They weren’t. Marguerite had wisely kept some back for insurance.
The crucial part of the deal, however, was that she would make no mention of the Prince’s name in court, and that part of the bargain she kept in full.
A few days before the trial opened Lord Curzon, Foreign Secretary at the time, confided to his wife some gossip he’d heard: ‘The French girl who shot her so-called Egyptian prince in London and is going to be tried for murder, is the fancy woman who was the Prince’s “keep” [kept woman] in Paris during the war, and they were terribly afraid that he might be dragged in. [But] his name is to be kept out.’
In return, Rose claims, all the other details of her racy past would be left out of the court proceedings, too. And that, he adds, would undermine the prosecution’s case that she was a wicked, foul-tempered, violent woman who had killed her husband to get her hands on his fortune.
Caught with the smoking gun in her hand, Marguerite’s only possible line of defence was that she was a much-battered wife in fear of her life from a vicious and perverted husband. When she told him she was going to divorce him, he had gone berserk and she had shot him in self-defence.
And, says Rose, with the help of the Prince’s connections and the connivance of some leading Establishment figures, that is what her side set out to argue.
‘This was to be a show trial,’ he states, ‘but one with a difference. The authorities wanted Marguerite to be acquitted. A murder conviction would have been catastrophic for the Crown.’
The ground had been prepared. An inexperienced judge was assigned to hear the case and Rose believes he may well have been nobbled from the outset into steering the court away from Marguerite’s steamy past.
The prosecuting counsel was lacklustre and less than forensic in his approach, as if he knew the case was somehow stacked against him, whereas the defence lawyer, pleading Marguerite’s innocence, was the biggest legal star of the age. The theatrical, eye-catching Sir Edward Marshall Hall, orator and advocate extraordinaire, was widely hailed as the ‘Great Defender’.
Marshall Hall’s tactic was to besmirch Ali Fahmy’s reputation, appealing unashamedly to every evil racial stereotype to do so. Playing on prejudice common at the time, he conjured up an image of a respectable white woman  falling into the clutches of an unprincipled Arab with perverted sexual tastes.
The young Egyptian was presented as a cruel, promiscuous, bisexual. Driven by lust, he had forced her to have ‘unnatural’ intercourse that left her ‘torn’ in the most intimate of places. He beat her and threatened to kill her. For all his sophisticated  outward appearance, he was a beast, a devil.
The judge should have stopped Marshall Hall’s flow of unsubstantiated accusations against the dead man, but the lawyer was allowed to proceed with his rhetoric.
In the dock, Marguerite — a consummate actress as ever — sat with her head hanging limply forward and her black gloved right hand supporting her forehead. Her eyes were closed and tears trickled down her cheeks.
Similarly, Marshall Hall got away with muddying the waters over basic facts that damned Marguerite — that Ali had also been shot in the back and that she had pulled the trigger three times.
As for her own copious sins, her promiscuous past (and present), her naked ambition, her greed, her violent temper which had led her to horse-whip one ex-lover, the phalanx of wealthy men she had snared, exploited and cast aside — these were simply never mentioned. Witnesses who would have given evidence of her own threats to kill her husband were never called.
Instead, she was this ‘poor, wretched woman’, declaimed the Great Defender, ‘suffering the tortures of the damned’, who had fired the pistol in desperation as Ali ‘crouched like an animal, crouched like an Oriental . . .’
In his closing speech, his oratory soared to even greater heights as he invited the jury ‘to open the gates where the Western woman can go out, not into the dark night of the desert, but back to her friends, who love her in spite of her weaknesses.
‘Open the gate and let this Western woman go back into the light of God’s great Western sun.’
The judge’s summing-up took up the same theme. ‘We in this country put our women on a pedestal: in Egypt they have not the same views,’ he told the jury.
He declared Ali’s alleged sexual tastes ‘shocking, sickening and disgusting’. And he steered them towards a conclusion of justifiable homicide. ‘If her husband tried to do what she says, in spite of her protests, it was a cruel and abominable act.’
The jury took less than an hour to pronounce her Not Guilty and set her free. She was in the clear. So too was the Prince of Wales, his frolics with her wiped from the slate, thanks to his friends.
Also wiped clean, Rose admits, was much of the confirming evidence of the scheming he reckons had taken place to secure her release.
Her surprise acquittal is a matter of record. That it was achieved by a deliberate cover-up at the highest level has to rest on circumstantial evidence, and perhaps not surprisingly. ‘Smart plotters do not leave a paper trail,’ Rose writes. ‘Finding out what has been carefully concealed by clever people is challenging.’
Yet he remains convinced that ‘the Establishment, in the form of the Royal Household, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the trial judge, agreed to do whatever was necessary to preserve the reputation of the Prince of Wales, even if this meant interfering with due process of law. ‘Arguably,’ he says, ‘this created a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.’
Freed, Marguerite returned to France and cheekily tried to claim a slice of the vast wealth left by the husband she had gunned down. It didn’t work and she returned to her life-long trade of trapping wealthy men.
As for the Prince of Wales, he continued his pursuit of unsuitable women — with consequences, as the world knows, that cost him not only his reputation, but his crown, too.

The Prince, The Princess And The Perfect Murder by
Andrew Rose is published by Coronet on April 4


 "Andrew Rose first published the tale of Marguerite Alibert 12 years ago, in a book called Scandal at the Savoy. As crime stories go, it ticked all the right boxes: a sexy French adventuress shoots dead her creepy Egyptian husband at London's smartest hotel, stands trial for his murder and is acquitted." But Craig Brown in the Mail on Sunday had problems with Rose's updated version, The Prince, the Princess and the Perfect Murder, published because in the earlier book "he had missed an essential detail. The then Prince of Wales" had been one of the Marguerite's many lovers, as detailed in her "1934 memoir, which Rose describes as 'an essential source previously overlooked by Royal biographers'. And by you, too, matey!" In the Spectator, Selina Hastings felt that the "story of Marguerite … is fascinating not only for what it reveals of this far from appealing personality but for the social history of the time." But according to the Sunday Times's Peter Conradi, "However painstakingly he puts together the elements of the conspiracy, the evidence is thin and circumstantial."

Getting away with murder... and that's the author
By CRAIG BROWN FOR THE DAILY MAIL

THE PRINCE, THE PRINCESS AND THE PERFECT MURDER by Andrew Rose

Andrew Rose first published the tale of Marguerite Alibert 12 years ago, in  a book called Scandal At The Savoy. As crime stories go, it ticked all the right boxes: a sexy French adventuress shoots dead her creepy Egyptian husband at London’s smartest hotel, stands trial for his murder and is acquitted. Who could ask for anything more?

Marguerite Alibert was born in Paris in 1890, the daughter of a cab driver and a char lady. From an early age, she was, as they say, a bit of a goer: aged 16, she had a baby. To these 21st Century eyes, she looks a bit dumpy, not unlike the Queen Mother, but there was clearly something about her – ready availability, perhaps –that made gentlemen’s eyes swivel in their sockets.
Before long, she was taken up by one of Paris’s most influential madames, who apparently taught her all she needed to know. In Andrew Rose’s salivating words, Marguerite became ‘an expert in the arts of love’.
She certainly didn’t let her new expertise gather dust. ‘She’s been the mistress of nearly all my best customers, gentlemen of wealth and position in France, England, America and many other countries as well,’ her old boss proudly recalled, years later.
She embarked on a seven-year affair with a wealthy married man, who set her up in her own apartment, within which she carried on with several other men, too. Her wealthy suitor finally had a nervous breakdown and retreated to Bordeaux, but not before she had extracted 200,000 francs from him, plus a plush apartment with servants, and a stable full of horses.
From then on, there was no looking back, her bank account expanding with every new gentleman caller: a Belgian landowner, a handful of Americans, the owner of a chain of nitrate mines in Chile, the brother-in-law of the Grand Vizier of Turkey and so on. The plucky British, often so sluggish in matters of the flesh, even managed to field their own delegate in the shape of the Duke of Westminster.
In 1919, she married a serious young man called Charles Laurent, but she soon began yearning for the nightclubs. They were divorced within a year, leaving  her wealthy enough to expand her stable to ten horses, and to add a full-time groom and a chauffeur to her growing roster  of staff.
To cut a long story short, in Cairo she  set her cap at an Egyptian playboy and self-styled prince called Ali Fahmy, ‘a  millionaire umpteen times over’. To some, his home decoration – his Nubian servants all liveried, his furnishings all encrusted with diamonds – may have been a little too showy, but to Marguerite they were as plankton to a basking shark.
They married in January 1923. Within days bride and groom were threatening to kill each other, and punches were traded. In July they moved into a suite  in The Savoy Hotel in London, but, like  so many warring couples before  and since, soon discovered it only takes mutual hatred to turn luxury hotel suites into padded cells. A few days into their stay, Marguerite shot Ali dead in the hotel corridor. ‘What shall I do? I’ve  shot him,’ she exclaimed, as the night manager came running.
Marguerite was put on trial for murder, but was acquitted on the grounds of self-defence, thanks to a wonderfully over-the-top xenophobic attack on her victim by her defence barrister (‘He not only had the vilest of vile tempers, but was vile himself, with a filthy perverted taste . . .’).
As I have already said, Andrew Rose wrote a diverting account of this spectacular case 12 years ago. It is now, he assures us, ‘long out of print’. In the introduction to this new book, he confesses that soon after the publication of the original, he received a letter from Marguerite’s grandson telling him he had missed an essential detail. The then Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII) had, he said, been one of his grand- mother’s many lovers. This grandson then gave Rose a copy of his grandmother’s 1934 memoir, which Rose describes as ‘an essential source previously overlooked by Royal biographers’.
And by you, too, matey! It seems astonishing that the biographer of a famous murderer somehow never discovered that she had published an account of the case. This oversight means that in  Scandal At The Savoy there was not a single mention of the Prince of Wales. But Rose has now turned his incompetence to advantage by publishing a fresh account, this time introducing the Prince of Wales and bigging up his role to  bursting point.
Well, I say that this is a ‘fresh’ account, but in truth most of it is exactly the same, with entire sentences, paragraphs, pages, and even chapters copied out, word for word, from the original. All Rose has done is to shoehorn the Prince of Wales into  the narrative at every possible juncture, and many impossible junctures too.
His thesis is that the young Prince enjoyed sexual liaisons with Marguerite Alibert for 18 months from 1917, and that in its  anxiety to preserve his reputation, the British Establishment conspired in a cover-up, which in turn led to what  he now describes as ‘a show trial’, resulting in the foregone conclusion of Marguerite’s acquittal.       
Sadly, he presents no evidence for this conspiracy, other than what he calls a ‘remarkable’ letter from Lord Curzon (whom he styles, bizarrely, ‘Marquess Curzon’) to his wife telling her he had ‘heard a piece of news which may amuse you if you do not know it already’: the French girl who shot her husband used to be the ‘fancy woman’ of the Prince, and ‘his name is to be kept out’ of her trial. And that’s all.
Rose describes this as ‘incontrovertible contemporary evidence of this con-spiracy of silence’, yet Curzon clearly regarded the story as just another piece of tittle-tattle that was doing the rounds, and even thinks his wife may have heard it already: hardly evidence of a ‘conspiracy of silence’, still less a ‘show trial’. 
But when conspiracy theorists get the bit between their teeth, they won’t let anything get in the way. In their topsy-turvy worlds, lack of evidence is the  surest proof of a cover-up.
So speculation is transformed – hey presto! – into fact by compulsive use of slippery words and phrases such as ‘perhaps’, ‘must have been’, ‘arguably’, ‘no doubt’, ‘might’, ‘possibly’, ‘may have’ ‘there was a distinct possibility that . . .’
 Thus, early on we are told that, at their first meeting in a Parisrestaurant, ‘she no doubt hinted discreetly over coffee at the delights which awaited the Prince later that day’. Before the trial commenced ‘Perhaps on the journey down from Scotland, the Prince, often prey to dyspepsia, his mind awash with thoughts of Marguerite and the impending crisis, suffered abdominal twinges’, which is a pretty big ‘perhaps’, given that there is absolutely no evidence at all that the Prince was thinking about Marguerite, or that he even knew about the ‘impending crisis’. Two pages later, when the Prince is seen out and about enjoying himself, Rose says this is because he was ‘in denial’.
Rose inserts new phrases into the original manuscript so as to lend weight to the idea of a conspiracy. For instance, in the original book he wrote of the Judge: ‘Rigby Swift’s summing-up ended with a simple question’, but here the same sentence reads: ‘Rigby Swift’s summing-up, now heavily slanted in favour of the accused, ended with a simple question’.
Who knows where the truth lies?  I would guess yes to the affair with the Prince, no to a judicial conspiracy, and no to the ‘perfect murder’ of the title. Rose now argues that Marguerite planned the murder in advance (‘In my 1991 study of the trial, I had described the shooting as a crime passionel. It was nothing of the kind. This was murder for gain. An execution. A perfect murder’). But if so, why did she do it so cackhandedly, in a hotel corridor, in a manner that would guarantee her arrest, trial and humiliation?
Silliest of all, we hear that, after the trial, ‘a remarkable, wholly extraordinary, reunion of the Prince and Marguerite, the two wartime lovers, may have taken place, perhaps during the first month of 1924’. And, he may have added, pigs will fly – no doubt, perhaps, possibly, arguably – during the fifth month of 2013.

Sir Edward Marshall Hall, KC, (16 September 1858 – 24 February 1927)

“Equally successful was the defence Marshall Hall gave to Madame (or Princess) Marguerite Fahmy in 1923 for the shooting death of her husband, Egyptian Prince Fahmy Bey at London's Savoy Hotel. The death of the Prince is frequently on lists of victims of the so-called Curse of the Pharaohs. Marshall Hall brought out Prince Fahmy's race and sexual habits, painting the victim as an evil minded foreigner who threatened a "white woman" for sexual reasons, whereupon she defended herself. The jury accepted it. The Egyptian ambassador wrote several angry letters to the newspapers criticizing Marshall Hall's blackening of the victim and Egyptians in general. In any case Madame Fahmy was acquitted. In his 2013 book The Prince, The Princess and the perfect Murder (published in the USA as "The Woman Before Wallis") Andrew Rose revealed that Madame Fahmy, real name Marguerite Alibert, a Frenchwomen of modest birth, had an 18-month long affair with the Prince of Wales, the future Edward VIII, in Paris towards the end of World War I. Desperate efforts were made by the Royal Household to ensure that the Prince's name was not mentioned at her trial, a factor which contributed to her unmerited acquittal.”


( …) “A few weeks later on the morning of Sunday 1 July 1923 alimousine drove into Savoy Court and the Hotel doorman helped out a couple who were known to the hotel as the Prince and Princess Fahmy. They were accompanied by the Prince’s private secretary, Mr Said Enani. Accurately Prince Fahmy wasn’t really a prince but he did little to discourage the use of the title when away from Egypt.

The 22 year Egyptian had met his bride to be, a woman ten years his senior, in Paris the year before -incidentally the year that Egypt was granted independence, if not overall control, by the British Government. To many people Marguerite was seen, at best, as a flirtatious gold-digger and more in love with his not inconsiderable fortune than the man himself. They had married in Egypt, first by a civil ceremony on 26th December and then followed by a Muslim wedding in January 1923 where Madame Fahmy, modestly veiled, proclaimed in Arabic ‘There is one God and Mohammed is His Prophet’.

After a few days in London, which was experiencing a heatwave, Marguerite Fahmy summoned the Savoy’s doctor – she was suffering badly from external haemorrhoids. She alleged to Dr Gordon, while he was treating her, that her husband had ‘torn her by unnatural intercourse’ and was ‘always pestering her’ for this kind of sex. Already thinking about possible future divorce proceedings she repeatedly asked the doctor for ‘a certificate as to her physical condition to negative the suggestion of her husband that she had made up a story’. The doctor, although respectful, ignored her request.

On the 9th July the couple went to Daly’s Theatre on Cranbourne Street off Leicester Square (where the Vue West End cinema now stands) to see, with hindsight the darkly ironic ‘The Merry Widow’. It had been an incredibly hot day and you can only imagine how uncomfortably warm the theatre must have been in those pre-air-conditioned days (although as far as a lot of the West End is concerned we’re still in those days). Not the ideal conditions for someone suffering from piles I would imagine. The main performers in Lehar’s popular operetta were the 22 year old Evelyn Laye and the Danish matinee idol Carl Brisson.

The couple returned to the Savoy after the theatre for a late supper, however the meal was disrupted by a huge argument which had recently become almost a daily occurrence. Ali had even appeared in public with scratches on his face and Marguerite had been seen with dark bruises on her face ill-disguised with powder and makeup. The row this time degenerated to such an extent that Marguerite picked up a wine bottle and shouted in French ‘You shut up or I’ll smash this over your head.’ Ali replied ‘If you do, I’ll do the same to you.’ They eventually calmed down, not without the help of the head-waiter, and went to the ballroom to listen to the Savoy Havana Band. The house band no doubt would have been playing at one point Yes, We Have No Bananas or perhaps Ain’t We Got Fun both big hits that year. It wasn’t long before Marguerite, after refusing the offer of a dance with her husband, retired to her room.

Mr Said Enani, as a witness in court a few weeks later, said that Mr Fahmy, in full evening dress, had decided to take a cab in the direction of Piccadilly even though the hot balmy weather had now turned into one of the worse thunderstorms in living memory. When asked the reason why he went, he said he did not know. Although we can perhaps presume that Ali was either visiting an unlicensed nightclub or on the search for either a male or female prostitute both of which frequented the area in high numbers around that part of the West End.

At around 2.00am the hotel’s night porter passed the door to the Fahmy’s suite but heard a low whistle and looking back saw Ali Fahmy bending down apparently whistling for Marguerite’s little dog that had been following the night porter down the corridor. After continuing on his way for just three yards he suddenly heard three shots fired in quick succession.

He ran back and saw Marguerite throw down a black handgun and also saw Ali slumped against the wall bleeding profusely from a wound on his temple from which splinger of bone and brain tissue protruded. ‘Qu’est-ce que j’ai fait, mon cher?’ (what have I done, my dear?’) Marguerite kept saying over and over again.

Marshall Hall was almost 65 at the time of Marguerite’s trial and was a household name. He was six feet three, handsome for his age, and a commanding presence in the courtroom. He was commonly known, after being responsible for several famous acquittals, as ‘The Great Defender’. Marshall Hall’s final speech to the jury in defence of Marguerite, or Madame Fahmy as the press were now calling her, slowly became a character assassination of her dead husband. he portrayed him as a monster of Eastern amoral bisexual depravity. (Not too) subtly Hall accused both Prince Fahmy and his private secretary of being homosexuals.

The public gallery consisted of many young women some of whom were noted to be barely eighteen. Marshall Hall looked up to the gallery saying ‘if women choose to come here to hear this case, they must take the consequences’. None of them left. Meanwhile he turned the attack on Ali to sodomy. Fahmy, said Hall, ‘developed abnormal tendencies and he never treated Madame normally’ Asking them to disregard the fact that the victim was younger than his wife. ‘Yes, he was only 23 years old,’ he told them. ‘But he was given to a life of debauchery and was obsessed with his sexual prowess.’ He went on to remind them that, as an Oriental man, his wife to him was no more than a belonging and that however much he may have acquired the outward signs of urbanity and sophistication, he was forever an Oriental under the skin.

When Marguerite took the stand, she was encouraged by the Great Defender to describe her life as a Muslim bride and to a lot of observers this was when the case turned her way. She testified at one point how she had been sitting ‘in a state of undress in which her modesty would have forbidden her facing even her maid’, she had noticed a strange noise and she pulled aside the hangings that screened an alcove and ‘saw crouching there, where he could see every move she made, one of her husband’s numerous ugly, black, half-civilized manservants, who obeyed like slaves his every word’. She screamed for help, but when her husband, appeared from an adjoining room he only, laughed, saying that “He is nobody. He does not count. But he has the right to come here or anywhere you may go and tell me what you are doing."

It was like a scene from Rudolph Valentino’s The Sheik, the extraordinarily popular film released the year before, and the women in the gallery were treating it as such.

Before he summed up, the judge, referring to the public gallery said, ‘These things are horrible; they are disgusting. How anyone could listen to these things who is not bound to listen to them passes comprehension.’ However he had been swayed by Marshall Hall’s defence, that pandered to the prejudices of the tie, and during the summing up endorsed Marshall Hall by saying ‘We in this country put our women on a pedestal: in Egypt they have not the same views...'

The jury, after less than an hour’s consideration, announced ‘not guilty’ to both the charges of murder and of manslaughter, and Madame Fahmy was discharged and was now a free woman.

The prosecution was refused by the judge, seemingly in awe as much as anyone else to the Great Defender, to cross-examine Marguerite ‘as to whether or not she had lived an immoral life’, to show that she was ‘a woman of the world, well able to look after herself’.

If she had been cross-examined properly the jury would have found out that not only had Marguerite been a teenage common prostitute in Bordeaux and in Paris and had an illegitimate daughter when she was just fifteen, but she had also become a trained high-class courtesan (it was said that she always spoke in a rather stilted French because of elocution lessons). Not only that but Marguerite’s husband was not alone in having inclinations towards the same sex: it was found out by a private detective hired by the prosecution that it was well known in Paris that Madame Fahmy “is addicted, or was addicted, to committing certain offences with other women and it would seem that there is nothing that goes on in such surroundings as she has been moving in Paris that she would not be quite well acquainted with..."

The world’s press reported the case with undisguised glee, mostly portraying Mardame Fahmy as less than innocent in more ways than one. The French newspapers concentrated on the fact that the jury considered the case as if a crime passionnel defence was allowed in English law.

After the verdict Marguerite soon left for Paris where she found out that she had no claim to her late husband’s fortune as he had left no will. After a failed, and slightly ludicrous plot where she pretended that she had been pregnant and subsequently borne a son (who would have been entitled to his father’s fortune). She was now almost a laughing stock in Parisian society and became relatively a recluse. She died on 2 January 1971 inParis. She never remarried.”
Nickelinthemachine.com
"ClICK" to enlarge images below









Edward VIII Murderous Mistress


Prince Charles' former tailor says Savile Row being ruined by 'half-baked brands' peddling fake Chinese suits / VIDEO: London Fitting Event, March 2015 // English Cut - Savile Row

$
0
0



Thomas Mahon is an English master tailor, noted for outfitting the British Royal Family and for his blog, English Cut
Mahon was born in Corby Hill, near Carlisle in Cumbria and was educated at the former grammar school,White House in Brampton. He entered the tailoring trade by accident, taking a summer job at S. Redmayne's a local tailor, and "...fell in love with it." He moved to London and trained as a striker (apprentice cutter) to Dennis Halbery at Anderson & Sheppard.

In 1995, Mahon started his own bespoke tailoring company called Steed Bespoke Tailors with his friend Edwin Deboise, before going independent in 2001. In 2005, he began his weblog English Cut with aid of cartoonist and Internet entrepreneur Hugh McLeod, in order to promote his business and share his knowledge of the traditional tailor's craft.

Mahon's customers reportedly include Prince Charles and David Beckham, although Mahon will admit only to having Prince Charles as a client.

Mahon credits his weblog with helping build his business to the point where he had to temporarily stop accepting new clients in 2007.

Mahon is married to his wife Claire and have three children. In his spare time he is a sailing instructor with the rank of Petty Officer in the Sea Cadet Corps the UK's Naval Cadet Force.


Prince Charles' former tailor says Savile Row being ruined by 'half-baked brands' peddling fake Chinese suits

Nicola Harley
10 MARCH 2017 • 8:17PM

Prince Charles's former tailor says Savile Row is being ruined by “half-baked brands” selling fake Chinese suits.

Tailor Thomas Mahon has now moved his main London base from Mayfair to Marylebone after revealing that less than half of the famed area is still operating as a proper workshop.

“I guarantee you if you are browsing in Savile Row now you will pick up a garment made in China."
Thomas Mahon
He says he has grown disillusioned with Savile Row.
“You’ve now got these half-baked brands that don’t really make things. Only about 35 per cent to 40 per cent of it is now functioning with a proper workshop. In the old days you didn’t even have suits in the shops, everything was made by the tailors," he said in an interview with the Evening Standard.

“I guarantee you if you are browsing in Savile Row now you will pick up a garment made in China."

Mr Mahon, who runs English Cut and formerly worked as head cutter for tailors Anderson & Sheppard, said Savile Row is "not the same place" any more.

His bespoke clients, who are believed to include David Beckham and Bryan Ferry, have stayed with him after he moved his flagship store last November.


Mr Mahon, one of Britain's most respected tailors, made Prince Charles's suits for three years until 1995.


Sunday images / TWEED more TWEED more TWEED more TWEED ...

Old Top Gear: Morris Minor

The Classic Morris Minor Car Story / VIDEO: \*Great * * Five * Star */

$
0
0



THE FAMOUS MORRIS MINOR TRAVELLER





Alec Issigonis and the History of the Morris Minor

There is only one other car on British roads today which is as familiar as the Morris Minor, and that's the Mini. That both were designed by the same man is no coincidence, and indeed Sir Alec Issigonis is one of the very few car designers whose name is recognised by the man or woman in the street and not just by enthusiasts or fellow engineers.
Alec Issigonis designer of the Morris MinorThe products of Sir Alec's genius have had a profound and highly beneficial influence on the British motor industry, so it is hardly surprising that it is his first car, the Morris Minor of 1948, which has become the subject of this proposal for a long-life car.
The beginnings of the Morris Minor can be traced back to 1942, with the first prototype appearing in the experimental workshops at Cowley early in 1943-by which time it could be determined that the war would eventually be won, and that a new small car for the peace would be needed, to replace the Series E Morris. Its design had been placed in the hands of the young Alec Issigonis by Nuffield Organisation Vice- Chairman Miles Thomas, who had been quick to perceive an exceptional talent.

The car which gradually emerged from Issigonis's sketch-pad and from engineering drawings prepared by his two right-hand men Jack Daniels and Reg Job, was by the standards of the nineteen-forties unconventional to say the least. Gone were separate running boards and wings, replaced by a highly modern unitary bodyshell which dispensed with a chassis frame and which displayed advanced Transatlantic styling features never seen before on British cars. Additionally, Issigonis had specified uniquely small wheels for the new car, two or even three inches less in diameter than the average, giving it more of a 'big-car' look and doing much to enhance its proportions generally.
Underneath the skin, the new Morris was similarly up to the minute. First and foremost, Issigonis sited the engine right over the front wheels instead of well behind them, much investigation and experimentation having proved that the weight of the engine in this position dramatically improved the stability and controllability of a car. The front wheels themselves were given an advanced torsion-bar independent suspension, which combined with the rigidity of the unitary construction body, gave a standard of ride comfort such as had never been experienced in a small British car before. About the only dated aspect of the Minor when it was announced at the 1948 London Motor Show was the engine, a very orthodox 917cc side-valve unit derived from the Series E Morris Eight and first seen in 1934. Issigonis had hoped to use an all-new 'flat-four' engine but this didn't prove practical, within the deadlines and budget set by Morris Motors, for production use. Maybe it was as well, because the well-proven Morris Eight engine served to give the new Minor an immense degree of reliability from the very start, lacking teething-troubles as it did.
Morris Minor Production LineThe Minor was certainly a 'new generation' of small car. Not very fast (the side-valve Series MM could lust about manage 62 mph), everyone who drove the new Morris quickly discovered that its sure-footedness and light, rack-and-pinion steering (another innovation for a small car) made it a delight to drive. Other cars felt clumsy and unresponsive by comparison, and Minor owners were soon having fun leaving far more powerful (and ostensibly sporting) cars behind on twisty roads.
Eventually, the old engine was pensioned off, replaced during 1952 by the famous 'A' series engine, initially in 803cc form-its use being made possible by the merger of Austin and Morris to form the British Motor Corporation at the end of 1951. The 'Series II’ Minor was announced in July 1952; apart from the power unit, little else was changed.
Then, after a face-lift for 1955, when a slatted grille replaced the mesh-type and the speedometer took up its position in the middle of the dash, the beloved Minor 1000 arrived in October 1956. Gone was the split screen, but much more important was the new 948cc version of the A-series engine. This 'made' the car, which up until then had definitely suffered from a lack of pep, only its nimble handling allowing it to maintain high average speeds. The extra power was even more appreciated abroad, particularly the United States where the additional urge made entering freeways that much less hazardous. In fact, U.S.A. sales peaked in 1959 with a total for that year of 14,991.
A further landmark came as 1961 approached-the millionth Morris Minor was completed, becoming the first British car ever to achieve this production figure. A commemorative batch of 349 replicas were produced, finished in a strangely garish shade of purple and with white upholstery. Quite a few of these special models (which were otherwise standard) still survive.
minor_histThe final large-scale technical improvement for the Minor came in October 1962 when the 1098cc car was announced, the extra capacity being accompanied by a new baulkring gearbox and a much-needed higher final drive ratio. This more than enabled the Minor to keep its place in the small/medium car performance tables and it continued to be a firm favourite with both fleet managers and families.
But the Minor was not immune from fashion and progress. Inevitably, its market share attacked by such as the new Austin/Morris 1100 (also from Issigonis's drawing board) and later the Ford Escort. Sales declined and although not axed when British Leyland was formed in 1968, the convertible was phased out in 1969, the two and four door saloons in 1970, and finally, the popular Traveller version in 1971. The 'light commercial' variants (van and pick-up) met the same fate, and the end of an era in British motoring had come.
These are the facts behind the Morris Minor; but they hardly explain all of the car's appeal to so many people, an appeal which if anything is growing. To many owners, the Morris Minor is more than a car-it is a familiar, dependable friend that does everything asked of it, and for astonishingly little in return by way of running costs. It is very simple, so there is not much to go wrong, the components used in its construction have been tried and tested over many years of production. So, there are few known weaknesses because the car pre-dates the sealed-for-life approach, most of these components can be lubricated and thus have extended lives. And when something finally does wear out, the chances are that just a bush or a bearing can be replaced, and not the whole unit as with many modern vehicles.
Of course, some people drive old cars for fun, and treat the obvious deficiencies of the machinery as being all part of the game. But apart from the owners of the very early Minors, the slow old side-valve MM's, those with Morris 1000s particularly do not regard their cars as being mobile museum pieces, but consider them to be entirely practical for the new millenium. This is another factor which sets the Minor apart from other old cars designed in the 'forties-thanks to the perception of Sir Alec Issigonis, the Morris Minor has few of the drawbacks of cars dating back to this period. Unlike many of its contemporaries, it has light steering and still-pleasant road manners, it has well-planned accommodation inside, and lacks the thick, ugly door and windscreen pillars that were all too often a hallmark of the early 'fifties.
Add to this the economy of running, an excellent parts situation, and the inherent reliability of the car, and you can see why the Morris Minor remains a favourite with both old and young-from the retired couple with the last car they will ever buy, or the 17- year-old with her first car. For them, it does everything that is required of it. The Morris Minor is a phenomenon, and it deserves to continue its useful role, consuming little in the way of fuel or materials, and giving a great deal in return.



Issigonis' design included the same ideas he had proposed for the Ten before the war: Independent suspension and rack and pinion steering plus the continued use of unitary construction. In the case of the Mosquito Issigonis was inspired by the Citroën Traction Avant, a car he greatly admired, and he proposed using torsion bars on each wheel, as on the Citroën rather than the coil spring system of before. The French car, launched in 1934, had also been an early example of rack and pinion steering.

Nearly every feature of the Minor serves the joint aims of good roadholding and maximum interior space. For example, Issigonis specified 14-inch (35.5 cm) wheels for the Mosquito. These were smaller than any other production car of the time (the existing Morris Eight had 17-inch (43 cm) wheels). These small wheels reduced intrusion into the cabin space and minimised unsprung mass for better ride comfort and stability. The wheels themselves were placed as far as possible in each corner of the Mosquito's floorpan for the same reasons. The same went for the placement of the engine, far towards the front of the engine compartment. With most cars of the time having a front beam axle, this forced the engine to be mounted behind the front axle line. While this meant that with only a driver on board the weight distribution was fairly even, when laden with passengers cars often became severely tail-heavy, leading to unstable handling and oversteer. The new Morris' independent suspension meant there was no front axle, allowing the engine to placed low down and far forwards. Putting the Mosquito's engine in the nose meant that when lightly laden the car was nose-heavy, leading to superior directional stability and when fully laden it achieved nearly equal weight balance, so handling and grip remained good regardless of the load carried. Placing the engine forward also maximised cabin space.

The engine itself as proposed by Issigonis was also radical, being a water-cooled flat four unit. One of Miles Thomas' few restrictions on the Mosquito project was that it had to have an engine that would not fall foul of the British horsepower tax, which actually taxed cars via a formula relating to their engine cylinder bore. At the same time Thomas wanted the car to appeal to the all-important export markets, which had no such restrictions and generally favoured larger-engined cars. Issigonis' solution was the flat-four engine which could easily be produced in two versions - a narrow-bore 800cc version for the British market and a wide-bore 1100cc version for export. Both versions would use identical parts save for the actual cylinder blocks (which could still be produced on the same machinery) and the pistons. The flat-four layout reduced the overall length of the engine, further increasing potential cabin space, and reduced the car's centre of gravity for improved handling.


A Morris Minor love story
Martin Wainwright
Tuesday 18 November 2008 16.30 GMT

The last thing you expect to have on your tail these days is a Morris Minor. But that looks like being my lot for years to come. Earlier this year, I couldn't get enough of the little rounded cars, famously damned by their reluctant maker Viscount Nuffield as "poached eggs". Everyone I met was quizzed: did they have one? Had their parents? What about their grannies, sisters, cousins, aunts?

I met people who'd raced them, scraped fungus off them for primary school nature tables, turned one into a mechanical lobster and applied to be buried with theirs when they (the person, not the engine) died. It was lovely and I learned that the two words "Morris" and "Minor" were a sure way of getting almost anyone to go all soft and say: "Aahhhh."

It was necessary, too, because my task at the time was write the car's biography to celebrate its 60th birthday, a worthy occupation because the Minor is a case study in sociology as well as a classic piece of design. It was the first British car to sell a million and in the process achieved an exceptional lovability, or more precisely, a knack of making people extraordinarily fond of it. Anyone in need of this – a politician, a suitor, a parent or a child – should study Morris Minorism from A-Z and see how it can be done.

A is for Alec Issigonis, the car's inspirational Levantine creator (assisted by Reg Job and Vic Oak who were as village-blacksmithy Brit as their names). Z is for…, well, Z is difficult actually, unless you nerdishly include the Series Z Post Office van which the bright red Minor version replaced in 1953.

In between is everything else; but that's all in the book. My purpose here is to warn other nascent biographers, who don't already know, that a baby like this seems to be for life. Morris Minor, the Biography: 60 Years of Britain's Favourite Car has been out for just two weeks, but already I have 14 new anecdotes, two phone messages and three promises from relations to tell me about theirs when we meet at the extended family party on Boxing Day.

"My Dad only got rid of his when he was overtaken by a pedestrian when he was 85 and driving to the pub," starts one recollection. "Our neighbour kept hers even when it stopped going," begins another, "because unlike modern cars it was strong enough for her stand on without the metal dimpling when she was cutting her hedge."

Does this happen to mightier biographers? Was Morley beset with details he had omitted about Gladstone? Does Michael Holroyd ever escape from enthusiasts for Augustus John and George Bernard Shaw, or Claire Tomalin wriggle out from under the shadows of Hardy and Pepys?

The last two perhaps provide the answer: finish A and move on to B, which I am now about to do with a sequel on the Mini, which is 50 next year. That, and perhaps, in tune with modern interactive publishing, a couple of blank pages between the index and the back cover, for readers who aren't included to write their own experiences down.

"Intermezzo" / "Remains of the day"

Sartorial Style / Saturday 18 March, Victoria & Albert

$
0
0


Sartorial Style
Saturday 18 March, 11.00 – 16.30

Programme:
10.30 Registration
11.00 Welcome, Matilda Pye, Learning Academy, V & A
11.05 Real men DO wear pink! Masculine fashion before 1800
Susan North, Curator 17th & 18th Century Fashion V&A
11.50 Samurai rogues and merchant dandies: men’s fashion in Japan
Anna Jackson, Keeper Asian Department V&A
12.25 Sir Roy Strong CH, Constructing identity through clothing
Ben Whyman, Manager of the Research Centre for Fashion Curation, UAL
13.00 Lunch Break
14.00 Mark Powell in conversation with Paul Gorman
14.45 Refreshments
15.10 The Story Of The Face
Paul Gorman, Journalist and Author
15.40 North: Identity, Photography, Fashion
Adam Murray, Academic, Photographer and Curator
16.30 End
The programme is subject to change without warning

Speakers Biographies
Dr Susan North is Curator of Fashion, 1550-1800 at the Victoria and Albert Museum.
Anna Jackson is Keeper of the Asian Department at the Victoria and Albert Museum. She has
particular responsibility for the Museum’s collection of Japanese textiles and dress and has
published widely on the subject. Another research interest is the cultural relationship between
East Asia and the West and in 2004 she was the co-curator of the exhibition Encounters: the
meeting of Asia and Europe 1500-1800. More recently she has published on the history of
international exhibitions and was the curator of Maharaja: the splendour of India’s royal
courts, a major exhibition staged at the V&A in 2009 which subsequently toured to Germany,
North America and Beijing. She published Kimono: The Art and Evolution of Japanese Fashion in
autumn 2015, and is a core participant in the AHRC-funded Fashion and Translation research
project.

Ben Whyman is manager of the Research Centre for Fashion Curation based at the University
of the Arts London, where he project manages and researches for exhibitions, publications and
events on museology and fashion curation. He has presented his research at conferences, and
has had work published, including a chapter on couturier Hardy Amies for London Couture:
British Luxury 1923-1975 (Victoria and Albert Museum, 2015), appendixes for The House of
Worth: portrait of an archive (Victoria and Albert Museum, 2014) and the Archivist magazine
(2015). Ben is currently undertaking a part-time PhD (2012-2018) on material culture, menswear
and life-writing. His research critically evaluates three personal menswear collections housed
in the V&A Museum and the Fashion Museum, Bath, evaluating if and how a collection of
artefacts of dress (including prosaic items such as shirts, belts, shoes) can augment an
understanding of character and amplify the life stories of the men who wore them. It explores
life-writing and biography, material culture, the power of memory and the act of
remembering.

Mark Powell was established in 1985 and is now one of London’s most influential bespoke
tailors and a one-off in the world of international haute couture. He’s a man who has
maintained an independent, unique vision for more than three decades, a sartorial vision that
remains focused on the marriage of street style and flare to the traditions of Savile Row. His is
a high style and, to borrow a quote from American man of letters Gay Talese, Powell is an
“artist with a needle and thread”. It’s the sharp end of menswear, realised with old world
panache.
Powell’s continues to be sought by an amazing client list from the worlds of film, television,
music and sport, including George Clooney, Harrison Ford, Mick and Bianca Jagger, David
Bowie, George Michael, Bryan Ferry, Naomi Campbell, Tom Jones, Jonathan Ross, Vic Reeves,
Usher, Frank Lampard, Goldie, Morrissey, Kevin Rowland, Keith Flint from The Prodigy, The
Killers, film director Joe Wright, Keira Knightley, Phil Daniels, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Sean Bean
and, more recently, Sir Bradley Wiggins, Martin Freeman and Paul Weller.

Paul Gorman is a blogger, writer and commentator on visual culture. His books include
Straight with Boy George and The Look: Adventures in Rock & Pop Fashion. His book The Story
Of The Face is published by Thames & Hudson this autumn and he is currently working on the
biography of the late cultural iconoclast Malcolm McLaren. See Paul Gorman's
blog: www.paulgormanis.com

Adam Murray is an academic, photographer and curator based in Manchester and co-founder
of photography collective Preston is my Paris. His practice and research is rooted in
photography, fashion and visual culture with particular emphasis on the regional identity of
Northern England. His most recent project is North: Identity, Photography, Fashion co-curated
with Lou Stoppard in collaboration with SHOWstudio and Open Eye Gallery. North: Identity,
Photography, Fashion explores the way the region is depicted, constructed and celebrated in
select photographs, artworks and fashion collections. The show brings together collective
visions of the North, unpicking the tropes and themes that appear regularly in design and

media and takes into account the rich cultural history of the region.  

Ametora: How Japan Saved American Style / W. David Marx

$
0
0


Ametora: How Japan Saved American Style
BY TIM HORNYAK
SPECIAL TO THE JAPAN TIMES
DEC 5, 2015

Tokyo, September 1964: A squad of plainclothes police descend on the tony Ginza shopping district and round up hundreds of Japanese youths who had outraged local businesses. Their crime? Loitering in what was then outre style — button-down shirts, skinny ties, suit jackets and chino pants. These delinquents were the miyuki-zoku (Miyuki tribe) and they idolized one thing: Ivy League fashion.

Ametora: How Japan Saved American Style, by W. David Marx
296 pages
Basic Books, Nonfiction.

Yes, they were preppies. Tokyo was about to host the Olympics and these kids were causing alarm by rejecting their 19th-century gakuran (high-collar) school uniforms. The Ginza panic seems incomprehensible today, but this is one of the fascinating accounts in W. David Marx’s unique archeology of Japanese menswear fashion, “Ametora.” The term is Japanese shorthand for “American traditional” and the book traces the cultural history of American trad as well as jeans and streetwear in Japan — how they were imported, exploited and sometimes radically modified. The result is, as Marx observes, “a highly illustrative episode of how culture globalizes.”

From gyaru (gals) to French maids, Tokyo’s wild vogues have caught international attention over the past decade or so and there could be no better guide to hacking one’s way to the source of this fashion Amazon than Marx, a Tokyo-based Harvard grad who has long blogged about style at Neojaponisme.com. According to Marx, the adoption of American styles in Japan began with one man, Kensuke Ishizu (1911-2005). The Okayama-born founder of clothing company Van Jacket is most known for “Take Ivy,” the 1965 photo book he commissioned of American students walking about on prestigious Ivy League campuses, decked out in letterman sweaters, sports jackets, madras shorts and penny loafers. In addition to this bible for the East Coast collegiate look in Japan, Ishizu also stoked youth interest — and clothing sales — via a magazine called Men’s Club. It enumerated in excruciating detail the finer points of dressing Ivy. Neckties had to be precisely 7 cm wide, but slanted jacket pockets were a no-no “anti-Ivy technique.”

Aping looks from the United States wasn’t without its ridiculous moments. Men’s Club featured a 1959 photo of wannabe Ivy Leaguers looking more like businessmen in porkpie hats than big men on campus. When enthusiast Toshiyuki Kurosu and other Take Ivy authors snuck into Harvard to do research and take photos, they expected to see students in three-button jackets, regimental ties and wingtips — instead they were in cutoff shorts and flip flops.

“This was people having to adopt a completely foreign culture from zero and then actually sell it to other people as a package,” Marx says over a beer in Shibuya. “They were trying to sell to kids who had no clothing whatsoever other than their school uniforms.”

Marx first became interested in Japanese style after experiencing the streetwear craze in Tokyo in the late 1990s. He was so shocked to have to wait three hours in line to buy a T-shirt at A Bathing Ape that he later wrote his thesis on the chain, which is also chronicled in “Ametora.” It was a chance encounter with a former Van employee years later (while getting his cordovan oxfords polished, of course) that opened up introductions to the surviving Take Ivy pioneers.

“There was absolutely no culture of fashion when I was at Harvard,” Marx says. “People have this image of it as this place where people still dress like the ’60s. You’re lucky if people are wearing clean T-shirts with their sweatpants.”

Gaps in understanding didn’t dent the success of the Ivy look in Japan as Van sparked a revolution in Japanese menswear toward a more casual, individualistic aesthetic. Van enjoyed tremendous success until its bankruptcy in 1978, but countless styles sprung up in its wake: surfers, hippies, rockabilly greasers and bosozoku (biker gangs), not to mention offshoots like the takenoko-zoku (bamboo shoot tribe), who loved to dance in public in garish kung-fu outfits.

Indeed, entrepreneurs like Masayuki Yamazaki made a mint in doing exactly the opposite of Ivy — preaching ’50s hoodlum styles (sometimes called yankii) and putting a Tokyo backwater district called Harajuku on the map with his vintage shop Cream Soda, which counted John Lennon among its customers. As Marx writes, the retro rockers weren’t just imitating foreigners: “They used American influences to terrorize the public — regent haircuts, Hawaiian shirts, dirty jeans — but abandoned them when right-wing garb offered greater potency.”

Probably Ishizu’s greatest legacy today is the global success of Fast Retailing, the clothing firm behind the Uniqlo casual wear chain. Founder Tadashi Yanai’s father ran a Van franchise in Yamaguchi Prefecture and some of Van’s dedication to selling cheap, smart-looking clothes can be found in the Uniqlo ethos. Fast Retailing represents in a sense the full flowering of ametora. Also significant is the recent passion for Ivy style by fashion-conscious Americans tired of rampant casual wear. Style blogs in the U.S. began posting scans of Take Ivy in 2008, and when it was published in English in 2010, it sold over 50,000 copies, also appearing in Ralph Lauren and J. Crew outlets. Americans were turning to Japan to rediscover what they had lost, and the ironic circle was complete.


Sartorially savvy and rigorously researched, “Ametora” is a smart account of Japan’s engagement with America through the lens of menswear. Even if you don’t know your brothel creepers from your brogues, this book is a pleasure to read and an essential manual for decoding contemporary Japanese culture.





W. David Marx, a writer based in Tokyo, is the founder and editor of néojaponisme.com. He is the author of Ametora: How Japan Saved American Style, from which this essay is excerpted. Available from Basic Books, a member of The Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2015.  
 On May 24, 2005, VAN Jacket founder Kensuke Ishizu died at the age of ninety-three. By then millions of Japanese men—students, employees, executives, and retirees—were following Ishizu’s principles of Ivy as their basic style. Ishizu taught the 1960s generation how to dress, and they passed down those sartorial lessons to their children.

The Climb of Ivy
The styles of the American Ivy League transform the fashions of 1960s Japan.

By W. David Marx

0n April 28, 1964, a new magazine called Heibon Punch appeared on Japanese newsstands. The cover illustration showed four boys dressed in the style of American Ivy League students—blazers, short cotton pants, loafers, sharply parted Kennedy haircuts—chatting to another boy in a red sports car. Punch’s pages taught teens how to dress in this so-called Ivy style.

Heibon Punch was an immediate success. The debut issue sold 620,000 copies, and within two years circulation hit one million. The first wave of Japan’s postwar baby boom was entering college right as it launched. Compared with the frugal youth who came of age immediately after World War II, the baby boomers wanted to play in Japan’s newly emerging consumer society and could afford to. Heibon Punch became their guide.

The excitement around Punch sent young men to the most famous retailer for Ivy fashion: the clothing company VAN Jacket’s flagship store, Teijin Men’s Shop, in the Ginza neighborhood of Tokyo. There they bought their own button-down shirts, madras blazers, cotton chino pants, and penny loafers. Soon teenagers in these clothes started to park themselves on Miyuki Street and stay all day. They became infamous in the press as the Miyuki Tribe (miyuki-zoku).

The term zoku means “tribe” in Japanese, but the postwar usage connoted a delinquent subculture. Before 1964 a few youth tribes invented unique styles but almost always as an organic extension of their lifestyle. The Thunder Tribe (kaminari-zoku) bikers dressed in leather proper for a motorcycle ride, while the Sun Tribe (taiyō-zoku) partied on the beaches in bright coastal clothing. The Miyuki Tribe, by contrast, learned to dress directly from the mass media—a youth brigade drafted straight from the models in Heibon Punch.

Parents did not approve of their sons wearing stylish American clothing, so young men snuck out to Ginza with their Ivy duds hidden in rolled-up paper bags, then changed in cafe bathrooms. The paper shopping bag became a vehicle for VAN to promote its brand. The company had started providing the sleek paper bags to retailers featuring its logo in a red box at the bottom that stretched around the side. These bags flooded the streets, and young shoppers came to fetishize the logo. Youth who could not afford to buy anything from an official VAN retailer carried around an old rice bag with a VAN sticker on top.

As the summer of 1964 progressed and schools let out for vacation, teens swelled the Miyuki Tribe’s ranks, ballooning to two thousand members each weekend. The Olympics were being hosted that year in Tokyo, and the media demonized the Miyuki Tribe as a national embarrassment. Even teens who liked Ivy style pleaded for distance from the Miyuki fad. A sixteen-year-old high-school student in Ginza told reporters, “We hate being called members of the Miyuki Tribe—we’re Ivy.”

Parents moved to ban Ivy style at schools. Parent-teacher associations sent formal requests to VAN retailers to stop selling to students. In many small towns, schools prohibited teens from carrying a VAN bag or entering shops that sold the brand. But young men defied orders and lined up outside of menswear shops just to grab discarded cardboard boxes with the brand’s logo. A few maverick companies, meanwhile, got in on the action. Home-electronics company Sanyo worked with VAN to create a line of gadgets—the Sanyo Ivy Razor, the Sanyo Ivy Dryer, and the Sanyo Ivy Junior Tape Recorder. The word Ivy, after years of work by promoters in Japan, was synonymous with cool.


The beginning of the widespread adoption of American style in Japan can be traced back to a single individual, Kensuke Ishizu, founder of VAN Jacket and father of Japan’s Ivy style. Ishizu was born in the southwestern city of Okayama in 1911. It was the end of the Meiji era, a period that marked Japan’s transition from feudal society to modern nation-state.

The Meiji era began in 1868. For the previous 265 years the Tokugawa military government had enforced a sakoku, or “closed country” policy, to isolate Japan from the rest of the world. This seclusion came to an end in 1854 when U.S. naval commodore Matthew Perry and his fleet of warships demanded the country open its borders to trade. Four years later the shogunate signed a series of treaties with Western powers that threw Japan into economic and cultural chaos. Determined to get the nation back on track, reform-minded samurai took control of the government in 1868 under the banner of Emperor Meiji. During this so-called Meiji Restoration, the country’s leaders worked to adopt Western technologies and lifestyles, believing that a more modern Japan could fight off additional American and European attempts at colonization.

Before the Meiji era, members of Japan’s high-ranking samurai caste wore their long hair in topknots, strolled dirt roads in robes, and demonstrated their status with two swords tucked into their belts. By the first decade of the twentieth century, the country’s rulers attended bureaucratic meetings, banquets, and gala balls in three-piece suits and Napoleonic military uniforms. Imported clothing styles became a source of prestige.

Even before Western fashion supplanted traditional costumes, Japanese society had long used clothing as an important marker of status and position. To maintain social order, the Tokugawa military government, which began in 1603, micromanaged the nation’s vestments, regulating materials and patterns to certain castes. Only the nobles and samurai—a mere 10 percent of the population—were permitted to wear silk. But not everyone followed these rules. When farmers and urban merchants began to accumulate more wealth than their samurai betters, they lined their standard cotton robes with silk in an act of subversive panache.

After 1868 the Meiji government moved men into practical Western dress. In 1870 the emperor cut his hair short and donned a European-inspired military uniform. A year later, the Haircut Edict instructed all former samurai to lop off their topknots. The military adopted Western uniforms, with the navy imitating the British and the army imitating the French. In 1885 Tokyo’s Imperial University put its pupils in black gakuran (or tsume-eri), closed square-collar jackets and matching pants. The enduring symbol of the early Meiji era was the Rokumeikan—a French Renaissance–styled hall where Jap­anese elites dressed in formal ensembles, danced the waltz, and mingled with wealthy foreigners. From the 1890s onward, urban white-collar workers wore British-style suits to work.

Kensuke Ishizu’s childhood coincided with the subsequent Taishō era, when the growing middle classes were joining elites in adopting Western customs. By the time Ishizu was in his teens in the 1920s, Japan was under­going rapid changes in social mores. The notorious mobo and moga—“modern boys” and “modern girls”—stood at the vanguard. After the devastating 1923 Great Kantō earthquake, many Japanese women adopted Western dress for better disaster preparedness. Moga, by contrast, played with Western culture as style—wearing silky dresses with short bobs. Their mobo beaus slicked back long hair and wore flared wide-leg “trumpet pants.” Every weekend, mobo and moga flocked to Tokyo’s lavish Ginza neighborhood and strolled its well-lit brick streets. These youth liberated style leadership from the upper classes and took it in unauthorized directions.

In 1929 Ishizu moved to Tokyo to attend Meiji University. He rejected the utilitarian gakuran school uniform and instead ordered a three-piece suit in brown-green tweed—at the cost of half a professor’s monthly salary—matching it with white-and-brown saddle shoes.

The mobo/moga moment would be short-lived: worried about the rise in leftist radicals, the government reversed course on liberalization in the early 1930s. Tokyo’s Metropolitan Police Department launched a campaign to clean up juvenile delinquency, pledging to close every dance hall in the city. Law enforcement swept the streets of Ginza for overly fashionable youth. The police arrested anyone doing anything suspiciously modern—going to cinemas, drinking coffee, or eating grilled sweet potatoes on the street. Regardless, in March 1932 Ishizu was married in a high-collar morning coat and a custom-ordered ascot.

In mid-1939 Ishizu, now twenty-eight, left with his family for the Chinese port city of Tianjin to become sales director at a department store, soon taking over clothing manufacture and design. Tianjin, situated on the East China Sea, hosted a diverse group of nationalities. Ishizu frequented British tailors to learn trade secrets, heard war news at the local Jewish club, and bet on jai alai in the Italian concession.


After the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the Japanese government systematically rolled back all Western influences from local culture. The public heard daily propaganda about the savage crimes of the “devilish Anglo-Americans.” New regulations demanded that companies remove English words from brand names and advised against writing words horizontally. While Ishizu wore his high-end three-piece suits, Japanese men back in Okayama lived in practical, khaki-colored uniforms called “citizen clothing” (kokuminfuku)—an early parallel to Communist China’s Mao suit.

In August 1945, while serving as a naval attaché in Tianjin, Ishizu heard the emperor’s radio broadcast announcing the Japanese surrender to Allied Forces. The Nationalist Chinese prevented any mass violence against the former occupiers, but they ransacked the glycerin factory where he had been assigned during the war. Ishizu spent most of September 1945 locked in a former Japanese naval library.

In October the U.S. First Marine Division arrived, coming ashore to an impromptu victory parade. Looking for Japanese men who could speak English, a young American lieutenant broke Ishizu out of the library. Ishizu and the lieutenant became friends, the American regaling Ishizu with stories of his undergraduate life at Princeton. Ishizu heard for the first time about something called the “Ivy League.”

On March 15, 1946, the Americans put Ishizu and his family on a cargo ship back to Japan. He took only a backpack, leaving behind the modern equivalent of $27 million in cash. At the end of March 1946, Kensuke Ishizu returned to his hometown of Okayama, which was completely burned to the ground.


Ishizu became the menswear designer for a high-end clothing showroom in Osaka. The late 1940s was an odd time to manufacture expensive menswear. Japanese spent forty times more on food than on clothing. Women continued to wear the baggy, high-waisted monpe farming pants they wore during wartime. Pilots who had been in line to perform kamikaze missions wandered around in brown flight suits.

In this fashion vacuum of garment shortages and rationing, the first group in Japan to readopt Western style were the Pan Pan Girls—streetwalking prostitutes who catered to American soldiers. They wore brightly colored American dresses and platform heels, with a signature kerchief tied around their necks. They permed their hair, caked on heavy makeup, and wore red lipstick and red nail polish. Pan Pan Girls’ jackets had enormous shoulder pads in imitation of officers’ wives. Prewar Western fashion and customs had entered society through the male elite and trickled down. But the first to wear American-style clothing in postwar Japan were women—and prostitutes at that.

Following the American way of life looked like a way out of despair. Prewar interest in Western culture was an aesthetic choice and status symbol—now it was also a means of self-preservation. Kensuke Ishizu had a business advantage in this new Japan where everyone hoped to imitate American lifestyles. He built up a network of the top sewing talent in Osaka and stockpiled fabrics and zippers through an American soldier who shopped for him at the post exchange. Ishizu turned out top-notch garments that got the attention of not just others in the garment industry but also law enforcement. His product was so good that the police apprehended him for a short time on suspicion that he was illegally importing clothing from abroad.

At the end of 1949, Ishizu started his own business, Ishizu Shōten (“Ishizu Store”). Although still few in Japan could afford to buy new clothing, Ishizu was confident that the market would return.

Proximity to the Korean Peninsula made Japan a key manufacturing base for the American military effort after the Korean War began in 1950. These boom times encouraged the urban middle classes to finally revamp their wardrobes. Ishizu pursued an alternate business model to the traditional practice of made-to-order suiting: ready-to-wear clothing. Tailoring was expensive and time-consuming (one suit cost a month’s salary), whereas off-the-rack clothing could get a larger volume of garments to an eager public. Ishizu pumped out saddle shoes as well as cotton flannel shirts and indigo work pants under a faux American brand called Kentucky.

Ishizu Shōten found its most profitable niche, however, in high-end sport coats for rich elites. An Osaka department store gave Ishizu Shōten its own corner, and Ishizu found a loyal customer base in wealthy suburban families. As the business grew, Ishizu wanted a more memorable brand name, so he rechristened his company VAN Jacket, borrowing VAN from the title of a comic book.

A major barrier remained: it was taboo for men to show interest in fashion. When white-collar workers first donned Western suits in the early twentieth century, the garment was meant as a modern and sober uniform, not as a means of self-expression. Any tweaks or customization to the basic formula implied vanity. If the suit’s wool looked rough, a tailor would turn the fabric inside out and sew it back together. The basic male wardrobe went to extremes of conformity: a single charcoal-gray or navy-blue suit, dark tie, white shirt, and dark shoes. White shirts outsold colored ones more than twenty to one. A striped shirt was enough to get a worker in trouble. And ready-to-wear clothing was not an option. Men dismissed nontailored garments as tsurushi or tsurushinbo, meaning “something hung up,” with the sting of a racial slur.

Japanese women in the early 1950s could enjoy a handful of fashion magazines, but they were utilitarian—pages packed full of black-and-white dress patterns rather than dream catalogues full of glossy photos. Men had only one fashion resource: the suit-pattern guide Danshi Senka. In early 1954 female readers of women’s magazine Fujin Gahō, who reveled in the latest Parisian styles, complained that their husbands accompanied them to parties and weddings in bland business suits. The Fujingahōsha publishing company decided that men needed a fashion magazine to teach them proper dress, and they wanted a charismatic figure to make the magazine compelling. One name kept popping up: Kensuke Ishizu.

Ishizu joined the editorial team, and the quarterly publication Otoko no Fukushoku (“Men’s Clothing”) debuted in late 1954. The magazine offered fashion photography and articles, but the editorial tone was pure instruction—a textbook introduction to semiformal wear, business wear, sportswear, and golf wear. Ishizu and the other writers gave practical advice to fashion novices and introduced the latest styles from America, France, and England.

Ishizu turned Otoko no Fukushoku into a VAN media organ, weaving advertisements and clothing samples from his company throughout the magazine and buying up the majority of each 35,000-issue print run to sell them to VAN’s retailers. He wrote so much for the first few years that he had to hide his work under pen names such as Esu Kaiya (“Esquire”) in fear that his authorship was too conspicuous.

In the mid-1950s the few young men who rejected their school uniforms for stylish clothing were marginalized as delinquents. Youth wore uniforms everywhere; there was no such thing as “young fashion.” Parents in the postwar era felt a particular anxiety about their children wearing fashionable clothing. The strict morality of the imperialist era collapsed after World War II in tandem with the wartime regime, and parents assumed their children would go astray in the ensuing moral vacuum.

The sensational “Oh, Mistake Incident” of 1950 solidified these associations. Hiroyuki Yamagiwa, a nineteen-year-old chauffeur at Nihon University, broke into a coworker’s car at knifepoint, slashed the driver, and drove off with 1.9 million yen in cash. Yamagiwa then took his girlfriend on a three-day joyride. The minor crime made headlines after Yamagiwa screamed out in pidgin English “Oh, mistake!” upon being apprehended. During police interrogation Yamagiwa continued to drop random English words into his Japanese and revealed a tattoo that said “George.” In just three days on the lam Yamagiwa and his girlfriend spent 100,000 yen—ten times a university graduate’s starting monthly salary—on clothing in high-end Ginza boutiques. In front of the media flashbulbs Yamagiwa wore a gold corduroy jacket, red pocket square, dark brown gabardine pants, light brown button-up shirt with long collar points, argyle socks, chocolate brown shoes, and a President Truman–style fedora. For disapproving adults across Japan, the connection between loose morals and American fashion could not have been any clearer.


Things slowly started to change. In 1956 the Japanese government released a white paper on the economy that opened with a joyous phrase—mohaya sengo de wa nai, “the postwar is over.” The population had enough food, work, and shelter; they began to think more about what to wear. But middle-aged men continued to deplore off-the-rack clothing, and Ishizu resigned himself to the fact that it would never appeal to his own generation. Against the mores of the period, he would have to court the youth market.

None of the contemporary trends in Japan looked right for the new line of ready-to-wear clothing Ishizu wanted to make for younger men. Looking for inspiration, Ishizu embarked on a world tour in December 1959, culminating in his first visit to the United States. While in New York Ishizu sought out a popular American fashion style often covered in Otoko no Fukushoku’s international reporting—“Ivy League.” By the late 1950s the look had moved beyond campuses and into the mainstream of American wardrobes.

Ishizu took the train down to Princeton, the alma mater of his American lieutenant friend. Japan’s elite campuses were packed with identical-looking boys in black wool uniforms; Ishizu was impressed by Ivy League students, who dressed up for classes in a distinct, individual way. The shots he snapped with his compact camera of Princeton undergraduates later illustrated his U.S. trip report for Otoko no Fukushoku. One attractive Ivy Leaguer in a blazer, undone dark necktie, white button-down shirt, gray flannel pants, and a coat slung over his shoulder became the issue’s unwitting cover model. As Ishizu wrote in an accompanying essay, “There was nothing like that particular American flamboyance that we all have come to expect.”

These elite, athletic students demonstrated how dapper a young man could look in ready-to-wear clothing. The clothes looked neat and fit closely to the body. Ishizu especially liked that the style relied on natural materials such as cotton and wool, which could be worn for a long time and easily cleaned. Japanese students in the late 1950s had little pocket money, but Ivy clothing would be a good investment—durable, functional, and based on static, traditional styles.

And there was something chic about how Ivy students wore items until they disintegrated—holes in shoes, frayed collars on shirts, patches on jacket elbows. Many nouveau riche Japanese would gasp in horror at this frugality, but the old-money Ishizu saw an immediate link
between Ivy League fashion and the rakish, rough look of hei’i habō, the early twentieth-century phenomenon of elite students flaunting prestige through shabby uniforms.

Ishizu now had his inspiration. In 1959 VAN produced its first “Ivy model” suit—a detailed copy of Brooks Brothers’ classic Number One Sack Suit with a loose, dartless jacket.

Ishizu’s imported style found ready acolytes. Two particularly dedicated readers of Otoko no Fukushoku, Kazuo Hozumi and Toshiyuki Kurosu, founded the Traditional Ivy Leaguers Club with five other friends in the late 1950s. The group held weekly seminars on Ivy style, looking up terms from American magazines in a yellowed prewar English clothing encyclopedia. They also invited an aging tailor to teach them about details associated with the American style, such as hooked vents (a key part of the stitching on the back of a blazer) and overlapped seams.

In 1959 the club convinced Otoko no Fukushoku—which Ishizu had newly rebranded with the English name Men’s Club—to feature them in a four-page story. All seven members appeared in dark Ivy suits for the group portrait, holding up a poster of a blond pinup girl to demonstrate their expertise in American culture. A blurb proclaimed them to be “seven Ivy samurai.”

Today, little about the clothing in the photo would be identified as Ivy League style—certainly not Kurosu’s porkpie hat, cufflinks, silver-colored formal necktie, and pearl tiepin. Despite Men’s Club’s position at the forefront of Ivy League fashion in Japan, nobody involved in the operation could accurately replicate the American collegiate look. Lacking firsthand experience with Ivy League students, the style in Japan was built on tiny scraps of information and Men’s Club editors’ educated guesses.

In 1961 Kensuke Ishizu hired his son Shōsuke, who had been working at Men’s Club, to be the head of VAN’s planning department and produce an Ivy clothing line. Before this point, most Ivy items relied on the fifty-year-old’s imagination: Ishizu called shirts with a long vertical stripe “Ivy shirts,” desert boots with a buckle on the back “Ivy boots,” and pants with a buckle on the back “Ivy pants” with an “Ivy strap.” Shōsuke’s mission was to make more authentic Ivy items, but he did not know how. The obvious solution was to bring in an Ivy expert. Toshiyuki Kurosu, cofounder of the Traditional Ivy Leaguers Club, was invited to join VAN and accepted the offer.

At the beginning, the two young em­ployees struggled with even the core pieces. With no connections to Ivy League colleges or university shops, Kurosu and Shōsuke had few concrete details on the latest campus fashions. They foraged for hints in GQ, Esquire, Men’s Wear, Sports Illustrated, the French magazine Adam, JC Penney and Sears Roebuck catalogs, and the ads in The New Yorker. These publications provided design ideas, but VAN’s factories needed patterns and three-dimensional versions of the garments to make true copies. While traveling to the United States on business, Kensuke Ishizu bought up a few pieces at Brooks Brothers to use as guides, but these could not be extrapolated into an entire clothing line. Kurosu resorted to hitting the black markets, where he could scrounge around in piles of discarded GI clothes for Ivy-like garments.

As the full Ivy line came together in 1962—chino pants, navy blazers, seersucker jackets, rep ties—VAN updated its logo to appeal to a younger audience. Kensuke Ishizu placed his original red-and-black stencil logo in a circle with the catchphrase “for the young and young at heart.”

The wider apparel industry was unsupportive of the Ivy trend. Ishizu decided that VAN would take it directly to teens.

As fashion-conscious men looked more to magazines than to department stores for style guidance, from 1963 onward VAN used its shadow editorial control of Men’s Club to fill each issue with minutiae of modern American collegiate life. There were explorations of elbow
patches, detailed looks into the “V-zone of an Ivy Leaguer,” and essays from Kensuke Ishizu on critical matters such as “girls who understand Ivy and girls who don’t.”

Despite these efforts, Ivy primarily existed in Japan inside the magazine’s pages. Almost all youth still wore their gakuran uniforms or equally bland garments. Readers understood the imagery in Men’s Club—a world where everyone lived surrounded by Ivy suits, Coca-Cola bottles, and jazz records—as a pleasant fantasy. Dressing like this in real life would certainly elicit ridicule from classmates and neighbors. VAN needed to prove to their readers that there actually were well-dressed youth roaming the cities of Japan.

In the spring of 1963, Toshiyuki Kurosu started a column in Men’s Club called “Ivy Leaguers on the Street,” where he and a photographer took snaps of young passersby in Ginza who dressed similarly to East Coast preps. Kurosu picked the best and wrote accompanying captions. This soon became readers’ favorite part of the magazine. With this, Kurosu may have invented “street snaps”—the distinct style of documentary fashion photography that now appears in nearly every Japanese fashion magazine.

In truth Tokyo barely had adequate numbers of fashionable men to fill each issue’s pages. But the work got easier once teens started to hang around the neighborhood’s main avenues in contrived outfits with the hope of catching Kurosu’s eye. Subsequent editions of the column showed a more pronounced Ivy League style, a trend which snowballed as teens tried to outdo the young men in the previous issue.

VAN customers in the first half of the 1960s came exclusively from three groups: celebrities, creatives at top advertising firms, and the sons of wealthy families. In the United States, Ivy represented the casual style of elite university students, but the style reached far beyond East Coast campuses because of its ease of fit, rugged materials, and reliance on basic styles. Not so in Japan. VAN had so far only found consumers at the very top of society.

To make things easier on their pupils, Ishizu, Kurosu, and the others at VAN decided they needed to break Ivy down into a set of dos and don’ts. They summarized their mission thus:

When you buy medicine, the instructions are always included. There is a proper way of taking the medicine, and if you do not take the medicine correctly, there may be adverse effects. Same goes for dressing up—there are rules you cannot ignore. Rules teach you style orthodoxy and help you follow the correct conventions for dress. Starting with Ivy is the fastest way to get you there.

In the pages of Men’s Club, Kurosu became the unofficial headmaster of the Ivy school. He ran an Ivy Q&A column in the back of the magazine. He told readers, for example, not to wear ties with their sports shirts and to avoid tie tacks and cufflinks with blazers, while also advocating for the mentality of Ivy: an easy East Coast nonchalance. Kurosu warned a reader threatening to wear a button-down collar with the buttons undone, “It has to feel natural. It’s the absolute worst if other people think you’ve left them intentionally unbuttoned.” Kurosu, a twenty-something who had never lived in the United States, was playing referee with confidence that came from years of research—but also a good measure of bluffing.

VAN was so successful in using these definitive proclamations to get both readers and retailers on the same page that Japanese fashion today still retains this emphasis on rules. U.S. Ivy League style was steeped in tradition, class privilege, and subtle social distinctions. The best part of collegiate fashion was its unconscious cool. No one read manuals; they just imitated their fathers, brothers, and classmates. In Japan VAN needed to break down Ivy into a distinct protocol so that a new convert could take up the style without having ever seen an actual American. Men’s Club often gave the same styles the fun of filing taxes.

But readers ate it up, and their demand for instruction only resulted in an even greater tyranny of details. A true Ivy shirt had a small “locker loop” under the collar and a center box pleat. Ivy men wore a pocket square in the “Ivy fold,” a necktie exactly seven centimeters wide, and an “orthodox” pant length. A biblical dogma developed about the Ivy suit jacket’s center hooked vent, even though its presence on the back of the jacket made it mostly invisible. Men’s Club warned against the danger of slanted jacket pockets—a nefarious “anti-Ivy technique.” This homosocial one-upmanship brought fashion—previously belittled as a “feminine” pursuit—closer to technical “masculine” hobbies such as car repair and sports.

In 1963 Kensuke Ishizu, consolidating his position, laid down the master concept for Western dress in Japanese with just three letters: TPO (tī pī ō in Japanese), an acronym for “time, place, occasion.” Ishizu believed that men should choose outfits based on the time of the day and season, their destination, and the nature of the event.

Ishizu later formalized the TPO idea with a guidebook called When, Where, What to Wear. The pocket-sized volume offered lists of ideal outfits, coordination styles, and fabric types, as well as diagrams on how to get the perfect suit fit. The book was an immediate bestseller. Electronics maker Sony passed out copies to every male employee.

Ivy turned into big business for VAN Jacket. By 1967 the company hit 3.6 billion yen in revenue ($71 million in 2015 dollars), and at the end of the decade, 6.9 billion yen ($111 million in 2015 dollars). In these years VAN did not just clothe the nation in Ivy League style but acted as Japanese youth’s introduction to a more Americanized lifestyle, in which clothing played a major role in forming a distinct identity. With traditional Japanese culture discredited by its defeat in World War II, youth were desperate for a new set of values. And at just the right time, VAN offered an idealized version of American life.

The company also benefited from the fact that real Americans were gradually disappearing from the Tokyo landscape. By the mid-1960s GIs were few in number and generally confined to their bases in remote areas. Youth in Tokyo instead learned about the American people from VAN, Men’s Club, and Hollywood films. They came to see the United States as not a wartime enemy or postwar occupier but as the home of jazz, fancy colleges, button-down collars, and blond bombshells.

Ivy style in the 1960s marked a critical moment when men started dressing up, and it set the pattern for how the country would import, consume, and modify American fashion for the next fifty years. After Ivy, Japan had an infrastructure to create and disseminate the latest in American styles—not just the clothes of clean-cut New England youth but even the wilder looks of the counterculture.

On May 24, 2005, VAN Jacket founder Kensuke Ishizu died at the age of ninety-three. By then millions of Japanese men—students, employees, executives, and retirees—were following Ishizu’s principles of Ivy as their basic style. Ishizu taught the 1960s generation how to dress, and they passed down those sartorial lessons to their children.

Ishizu did not just kick off the culture of Japanese menswear but kept it replicating the values of VAN Jacket through a sophisticated industry in Japan. The most successful brand to come out of the VAN Jacket family is global apparel giant Fast Retailing, whose marquee chain, Uniqlo, has over 1,500 stores in eighteen countries. Founder Tadashi Yanai’s father ran a small VAN franchise in the industrial town of Ube, Yamaguchi, called Ogōri Shōji. Ishizu renamed it Men’s Shop OS to attract a younger crowd.

Yanai opened the first Uniqlo in Hiroshima in 1985, and while many of Uniqlo’s best sellers over the years—brightly colored down jackets, fleece, thermal underwear—have not necessarily been Ivy items, Yanai’s dedication to selling unisex basics at reasonable prices echoes the original mission of VAN Jacket. Toward the end of his life, Kensuke Ishizu visited a Uniqlo store and told his son, “This is what I wanted to make!”

CONTRIBUTOR
W. David Marx

W. David Marx, a writer based in Tokyo, is the founder and editor of néojaponisme.com. He is the author of Ametora: How Japan Saved American Style, from which this essay is excerpted. Available from Basic Books, a member of The Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2015.  


 W. David Marx, a writer based in Tokyo, is the founder and editor of néojaponisme.com. He is the author of Ametora: How Japan Saved American Style, from which this essay is excerpted. Available from Basic Books, a member of The Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2015.




Kamakura Shirts / The Power of creative nostalgia and the revival of the true "Button Down" shirt.

$
0
0


In 1993, Yoshio Sadasue and his wife Tamiko quietly opened a small luxury shirt store in Kamakura, which was once the ancient capital of Japan. Driven by their mottos “Quality shirts at affordable prices” and “Bringing great style to the Japanese people”, they have strived to provide shirts of superior quality, made in Japan.
The Ivy League style is in our soul. Japanese craftsmanship is at our heart. We have traveled a long way to arrive in New York City, the source of our inspiration.
After many years of dedication and determination, we have fulfilled our dream, opening our first store in New York City, the spiritual Home of the 1960s Ivy League style that first inspired us.
Along the way, we have learnt so much from the finest traditions of British tailoring, and the quintessence of the Ivy League look from the States.
However, those days are now long gone, and we are now in an age where mass-production and standardization in the name of efficiency and productivity have almost destroyed the art of fine crafting. Shirt making has been no exception.
Actively resisting this trend, we have succeeded in crafting beautiful shirts with taste and elegance. Meticulous Japanese craftsmanship and techniques of precision make this possible.
We take pride in creating shirts that bring joy to life. We create shirts that satisfy the yearning for good taste. We craft each of our garments with the greatest care and the deepest sincerity.

Yoshio Sadasue
Chairman, Kamakura Shirts New York Inc.


Since then, Kamakura Shirts has grown rapidly and the brand has become synonymous with the highest levels of quality at a fantastic price. We have been fortunate enough to accumulate a large number of loyal customers who recognize the special blend of quality and value. In 2012, staying true to our founding spirit, we opened the doors to our New York store. Now our next goal is to become a firm favorite with New Yorkers and customers all around the world.
The Ivy League style is in our soul. Japanese craftsmanship is at our heart. We have traveled a long way to arrive in New York City, the source of our inspiration.
After many years of dedication and determination, we have fulfilled our dream, opening our first store in New York City, the spiritual Home of the 1960s Ivy League style that first inspired us.
Along the way, we have learnt so much from the finest traditions of British tailoring, and the quintessence of the Ivy League look from the States.
However, those days are now long gone, and we are now in an age where mass-production and standardization in the name of efficiency and productivity have almost destroyed the art of fine crafting. Shirt making has been no exception.
Actively resisting this trend, we have succeeded in crafting beautiful shirts with taste and elegance. Meticulous Japanese craftsmanship and techniques of precision make this possible.
We take pride in creating shirts that bring joy to life. We create shirts that satisfy the yearning for good taste. We craft each of our garments with the greatest care and the deepest sincerity.

Yoshio Sadasue
Chairman, Kamakura Shirts New York Inc.


From Kamakura to New York
Jul-31-2014

We made a decision to open a store in New York. The grand opening was October 30th, 2012, and we decided to open the store at 7 in the hope that we could help those business men who had forgotten their ties or stained their shirts with coffee in the morning. However, on that day New York experienced a hurricane for the first time in 60 years, and our opening took place against a backdrop of flooding and blackouts. It was 7 am and there were no trains nor buses nor taxis around. Visitors who had gathered in the city from all over the world were trapped in their respective shelters. Only the nearby McDonald’s and our own store appeared to be open. Nevertheless, tourists who had been forced to extend their stays came to our store in need of clean shirts and we achieved record sales.

New York has had a long history in clothing. If we are to survive here, we need to utilize our prize asset – the spirit of ‘omotenashi’. Of course our shirts and ties are of the highest quality. But if we are to stand a chance outside of Japan, all we have left is our mentality: the spirit of caring for others. A merchant can only do business by responding to demand, and fulfilment of wants is guided by the heart and not by the body.

The first point of ‘omotenashi’ is to keep a well-tidied store. The store needs to be clean, with its products ordered, and to smell pleasant for all. We must sense what the customer wants and present an appearance and conversation that is relaxing for the customer.

The culmination of all this is ‘O-MO-TE-NA-SHI’. It was ‘omotenashi’ that allowed us to acquire an amazing 4000 loyal patrons in just one year. Our ‘omotenashi’ was valued highly by the local customers as ‘great service’. We received many emails thanking us for the level of service that even luxury stores could not offer. We were able to demonstrate how enjoyable shopping can be.


We, Japanese, went to New York to sell clothing. While we may have been looked down upon initially, we were able to deliver first-class service that captures the spirit of Japan.




Ametora Interviews: Yoshio Sadasue of Kamakura Shirts
Yoshio Sadasue is the Founder and Chairman of Japanese apparel company Kamakura Shirts. Long before starting the company with wife Tamiko, Sadasue worked at legendary Ivy style brand VAN Jacket from 1966 until its 1978 bankruptcy. I sat down with Mr. Sadasue back in January 2013 to learn more about working at VAN Jacket and its legacy on the Japanese menswear market.

W. David MarxFollow
Tokyo-based author of “Ametora: How Japan Saved American Style” (Basic Books, December 2015). Co-founder/editor of Néojaponisme. wdavidmarx.com
Feb 8, 2016

How did you end up at VAN Jacket?
I joined VAN Jacket in 1966 at age 25. My father’s clothing shop in Hiroshima was an official VAN Jacket retailer, the best selling shop throughout the Chūgoku Region and Western Japan.
After college, I got a job as an electrical engineer. But I eventually decided that I wanted to be a merchant like my father, and he told me to join VAN. During college, I was so focused on studying that I never made time to think about style, but he was able to use his influence to get me a job at VAN.
When I joined in April 1966, VAN was not a very big company yet. But the products were flying off the shelves. Things that came in in the morning would be all be gone by the afternoon.
I stayed at VAN for 12 years, from 1966 to the bankruptcy on April 6, 1978.
What did you work on when you first entered VAN?
I was in charge of distribution. I was not very stylish so they threw me in the warehouse. I worked there for six years. That allowed me to know all the clothing that came in and what was selling well.
When did you first hear about VAN Jacket?
When I was studying at college, my father told me that his store was going to become a franchise of VAN Jacket, and that the guy who ran the brand, Kensuke Ishizu, was redesigning his store. The new store was supposedly very beautiful, but since I was in Tokyo studying, I didn’t really know what was going on. So when I got home, I was shocked. The store was gorgeous, and the goods on sale were very fashionable.
What kind of clothes did you personally wear before entering VAN?
During college, my father would send whatever was leftover from the store each season to me at my dorm. Sometimes the top and bottoms didn’t match.
I mostly wore a simple cotton blouson jacket, and I had these bulky jeans that were so stiff you almost couldn’t put them on. I hated them, so often I just wore the pants from my suit. I also wore a British-style dress shirt. There were a lot of shirts like that in the market, made for businessmen.
But at the time there was no such thing as “style.” No one sold style, and no one was conscious of how to coordinate clothing. It was just: a top, pants, a white shirt, a necktie with a print or not. No one at the time knew anything about dressing stylishly or dressing cool.
What was the apparel industry like in the early 1960s?
The war had just ended, and there was no real apparel industry. Wholesalers out in the countryside just made copies of whatever they could find. There were no clothing stores, just meriyasu-ya that sold T-shirts, underwear, and pajamas.
Businessmen went to tailors. From the Meiji Period onward, there were 60,000–70,000 tailors in Japan who made British-style suits. So you’d break up the suit, just wearing the jacket or just wearing the pants with a shirt. Or the pants with a knit vest or cardigan.
Fabric was expensive. All the textiles made by Japanese spinning companies would be exported, so there was very little good wool for clothing. Most of it had to be imported from Europe.

Why did VAN’s American style, rather than European style, catch on in Japan?
Most of the films we watched were American. When we watched American movies, we were amazed by the lavish American lifestyle. This was a time when the average Japanese home didn’t have an electric refrigerator. No one had butter or cheese in their icebox. And so in American films, the characters would open the door to the fridge, and it was like, wow.
Young people had great aspirations towards America. And right at the time when everyone decided they wanted to catch up to the American lifestyle, VAN introduced Ivy clothing to young people. That lit the flame, and sales exploded.
What were VAN’s first hit items?
Shirts, chino pants. Shetland and lambswool V-neck and crewneck sweaters. Cardigans. The most basic items sold well.
We sold suits at the time, but they didn’t sell well because they were expensive and kids did not really go out in suits. People only wore VAN suits at New Years or for big events like o-miai (matchmaking dates). Most preferred a navy blazer with cotton or flannel trousers.
Japan is very humid. I would expect cotton to sell best.
Yes, we sold a lot of cotton sweaters with the same design as the wool sweaters. Or madras and seersucker jackets. Shorts also sold very well.
Was it a radical thing to sell clothing to teenagers at that time?
Yes. No one ever thought to sell to youth. Kids didn’t really work part time jobs like they do now, so they had no money. But Ishizu felt like he had to target youth for his brand to expand.
The problem was that the clothes were very expensive. So he first targeted the children of wealthy families.
Did you start to wear VAN clothing when you became an employee?
When I joined VAN, I had no money, and since I had only worked as an engineer, I didn’t know anything about clothes. Honestly, everyone made fun of me at work. But when I would go out in a VAN outfit — madras blazer and bermuda shorts — people would turn their heads as I walked by. I could suddenly get into clubs for rich people and exclusive hotel pools even though I didn’t even have ¥100 to my name. They’d see my clothes and let me in. I’d only be able to afford a single Coca-Cola all day but when I wore VAN I looked rich. I would wear the VAN badge on my blazer, and everyone would look back and say, ‘Do you work at VAN?’ I was suddenly very popular.
When I wore VAN, I looked rich. I think that’s why Ishizu’s strategy worked. VAN’s strategy brought together the desire to be rich and the desire to catch up to America.
So how did the Miyuki Tribe afford to wear VAN?
The Miyuki Tribe kids were all spoiled brats. They had money, ate good food, and could buy nice things. Only rich people could go to Ginza cafes and drink tea. When the Miyuki Tribe appeared, they looked like a group of rich kids.
Normal kids who had no money, saw all of that and aspired to join the Miyuki Tribe. So they’d save up, buy something from VAN, and then be accepted into the group. A lot of people wearing VAN bought a lot of it as a way to get in the group.
They all showed off their clothes in Ginza, like a fashion show. It was a very peculiar scene. Ivy style — madras shorts and long socks and coin loafers — was very unique clothing at the time. You couldn’t wear it to work or school. No matter how many times people saw the Miyuki Tribe’s clothes, they would say, Are you all crazy? Finally the PTA and school boards started pressuring VAN to not sell clothing to teens.
And schools started banning button-down shirts.
Yes. The rich cult who wore VAN was ballooning into a really big business, and all the parents and mothers saw these kids in clothing they had never seen before and said, what is this button attached to the collar, it’s wrong!
So they banned button-down shirts. Some kids took off the buttons so they could wear the shirts to school. Schools also banned the VAN shopping bags. All the grown-ups thought bringing the shopping bags to school would get in the way of studying.
Even with that, though, it’s hard to imagine now that the Miyuki Tribe would be a law enforcement issue.
Yes, it sounds unbelievable now, but at the time there was no such thing as “clothing” (fuku). At work, you had to wear a navy blue suit with white dress shirt and black plain toe shoes. No wingtips, no penny loafers. You couldn’t wear button-down collars. Wearing a pink shirt was inconceivable, and even blue was questionable.

Yoshio Sadasue dancing (in middle front) at a VAN Jacket party. (courtesy of Kamakura Shirts)
In Japan, Ivy became very much about the rules, compared to America, where it was a nearly unconscious style.
The Japanese didn’t know about Western clothes, so we’d have to tell them, save up money, buy a button-down shirt, then buy this kind of tie, then this kind of vest, then a jacket. For a navy jacket, you need gray pants. If you didn’t teach them piece by piece, they’d go off into some crazy direction.
So Ishizu wrote and introduced to Japan a rule book of when, where, what to wear. And he brought together the VAN franchisees and taught them how to coordinate VAN Jacket clothing. That way, the owner of the store would be able to say to a customer who didn’t know much about clothing, that jacket doesn’t match that vest nor those pants. And you have to wear shoes like this, and you can’t wear white socks with a suit. VAN stores passed on all that knowledge — based on rules.
What was the office culture like at VAN?
VAN was called the “Ishizu School.” Ishizu thought that people learned more quickly and could bring out their true talents when they were having fun. So he said that VAN should be everyone’s playground: they should do what they want, even start up new companies.
How did VAN change the Japanese clothing business?
VAN was the first time that fashion became a business, so it became the first business model for apparel. Wholesalers used to just take the shirts, sweaters, jackets, and pants made at some other factory and sell them to a retailer, but from VAN they learned that if they infused them with the consciousness of Western fashion, they could charge much higher prices. This caused a rush of businesses into the apparel industry. A lot of companies appeared that copied VAN Jacket — “three letter companies.” [ed.: JUN, JOI, JAX, YAN etc.] They made the same things cheaper than VAN and that led to a market boom.
By the way, the word “apparel” (アパレル) wasn’t even used in Japanese until about 1966, I believe. Before that you just talked about tonya (問屋, wholesale merchants).
Tell me about the VAN franchise stores.
VAN Jacket started in Ōsaka, and then opened some stores around the Ōsaka area — one store per year. Ishizu always made sure to do it in a way where there would be no competition between stores, and each store could prosper. He always took extreme care in choosing which stores could sell VAN, looking for ones that would order a lot of product, pay on time, and were run by people with an extremely strong sense of management. So there would be one store in Takamatsu, one in Tokushima, two in Hiroshima, one in Okayama.
I guess my father happened to pass the interview, and Ishizu allowed him to sell VAN. And once the goods sold well, VAN helped him build a new store.
But as VAN’s revenues needed to increase, they went from just one store per city to three. Then four. Slowly the sales for each store started to go down — and then it all took a turn for the worse.
Didn’t Tadashi Yanai from UNIQLO’s father also have a VAN shop near your father’s?
Yanai’s father’s company Ogōri Shōji had a shop called Men’s Shop OS in Ube, Yamaguchi. He saw my father’s store and went to VAN and asked to become a franchisee.
Tadashi Yanai helped out at OS as a college student, so he knows VAN and Ivy really well. That’s why UNIQLO’s merchandising uses Ivy as the starting point. And when VAN went belly up, Yanai realized that he couldn’t keep Men’s Shop OS like it was. So he started Fast Retailing.
Did VAN face competition from American imports?
Real American brands didn’t start showing up until VAN went bankrupt. Brooks Brothers came in 1979. Gant came in 1991.
In the 1970s, Onward Kashiyama went to NY to make a partnership with J. Press in order to compete against VAN. They continued to work together even after VAN went under.
The trading company Nichimen [currently Sojitz] went out and quickly got the license to McGregor, but they only really sold golf gear like jackets and chinos. McGregor didn’t get into the business of doing total fashion coordination like VAN.
Didn’t VAN have a Gant license at some point?
Toyobo had the license to make GANT and sublicensed GANT’s shirts to VAN.


Ishizu did not like the idea of organizations or management. So none of the early VAN employees understood accounting very well. The plan was always, just make the clothes you want to make by the deadline, have them all sell out, and then everyone would go drinking. That worked well for a while, but then the company got bigger and bigger, and when that strategy stopped working, VAN needed better management and auditing. That made tur company stricter and stricter.
By that point though, Ishizu was interested in his new businesses, like Orange House (interior goods shop), Green House (gardening store), the VAN 99 Hall (a theater). He bought a farm. He would only get involved in the businesses founded by employees pursuing their personal dreams. For example, he helped someone import the Italian furniture brand Arflex. That made all the employees start to dream about doing the next thing. And even those new ventures did well, so everyone thought, whatever we do will make money.
Meanwhile, the management team decided to make VAN a ¥100 billion company. But you can’t get to that scale just through marketing. You have to know how to stock goods, and no one in the company knew how to do that.
Maybe Ishizu thought, since I’m just selling American style, I don’t need to think deeply about the core business ethics — sales will solve all of our problems. If you start from there, though, you’ve never thought about what to do when sales go down. Everyone just assumes that you’ll have strong sales forever. So when VAN’s revenues started going down, everyone was confused. That’s not supposed to happen. Ishizu was a superstar as a creator, a designer, and someone who could read future trends. But he was a total washout at “management.”
Did VAN go beyond Ivy League clothing in the 1970s?
We knew that Ivy was a temporary trend, and people would tire of it. In the late 1960s, when London’s Carnaby Street was popular, we worked with a department store in Florence, Italy to introduce the Mod look and European fashion under the brand Mr. VAN. When the “jeans revolution” happened and hippie style came in, VAN helped bring jeans to Japan by starting Wrangler Japan with Toyobo and Mitsubishi. That was 1973. And when the department stores would not sell jeans, VAN started a lot of specialist retailers like Shop & Shops.
Whatever the case, we knew we needed to move beyond just being VAN, which was 70% of our sales. But as much as we tried to create a brand bigger than VAN, we couldn’t get anything going.
In the mid-1970s, the hippies ushered in an austerity boom and a jeans boom, and fashion was going a little crazy. Renown started to rule the menswear world by selling D’urban suits with [French actor] Alain Delon. That hit perfectly since all the housewives loved him and wanted to turn their husbands into him. Renown suits sold like crazy.
From there, Ivy lost its electricity and charm. VAN’s only saving grace was that it was famous. All the people who had worn VAN in their youth became adults and felt like VAN was their “hometown.”
What was Ivy fashion like in the 1970s?
Ivy ultimately came to be called “PTA fashion” because it was the clothes that your father and mother would be most relieved to see you wearing. The clothing was interesting but not really that strange anymore. In the early years, the Miyuki Tribe and Roppongi Tribe were called delinquents, but a decade later, their eccentric style became the most basic look that your parents liked. And that meant Ivy no longer functioned as “fashion.” And that also meant that VAN did not need to be the one making it. Anyone could make it — it was just a button-down shirt with cotton pants with a jumper and sweater and navy jacket. Any company could imitate that. That is when VAN’s brand power started to decline.
I think Kent (VAN’s adult-oriented labe run by Toshiyuki Kurosu) went to about ¥5–6 billion, but all the other brands went under completely. Mass merchandisers said that they wanted to sell VAN, so we made a sub-brand called VANred with a red label. We sold that at [big box retailer] Yokado. From there the name VAN became really obsolescent. And everyone at VAN knew it.
When did things start to go bad financially?
From when I joined in 1966 to about 1976, sales were really good. The peak was ¥13.5 billion, but we were supposed to hit ¥30 billion. And we started selling so much stuff that everything got crazy.
Our goods always sold well at department stores, so there were almost never any returns. Then we told them, you don’t have to buy anything anymore, we’ll just do consignment. And everything was still selling well there, so we’d never see any returns.
But outside of the big cities, we would bring them 100 things and they could only pay for 70. So the Tokyo sales team started taking everything to department stores. But then every department store had VAN, which increased the competition, and goods started coming back. And then the returns went way beyond expectations.
But with the need to get sales up, they started to make even more stuff and then even more came back. That vicious cycle started from 1976.

What have you learned from VAN Jacket for your own business, Kamakura Shirts?
When I decided to do things myself, it was 1991, and I started the store in 1993. At first, I only sold shirts, but I slowly added jackets and pants until I sold the full wardrobe. Menswear goods sell extremely slowly, so if you expand too quickly, you’ll go bust. The same thing happened to VAN Jacket.
Right now order-made shirts makers like Kamakura Shirts sell shirts in many colors, but is that a recent thing?
Button-downs finally received true citizenship in the early 1980s when Ivy fans all said, we want to wear them to work! But no one really made them in Japan. If you went to a shirts store, they could make a button-down, but they didn’t sell them at department stores. They were only about 5% of all shirts. All the shirt makers who made button-downs failed. For a long time, everyone thought that you couldn’t sell button-downs.
After VAN went under, I think people started to better appreciate VAN’s clothing. When I started my shirt store in 1993, I thought I would succeed if I made button-down shirts. I knew that VAN Jacket once sold 600,000 button-down shirts in a year, so people must still want button-down shirts. That’s why I made my little shop.
Right now, what percent of the shirts sold at Kamakura Shirts are button-down collar?
Around 40%.
What is the legacy of Kensuke Ishizu and VAN Jacket in Japan today?
Ishizu created the entire business of fashion brands and brought forward the very idea of selling “lifestyle.” He was the one who realized that you can’t just sell clothes, you have to sell the whole atmosphere around them.
After the bankruptcy in 1978, 1,000–1,500 really well-trained people at VAN went into other apparel companies. Those companies didn’t really understand fashion very well, and suddenly, they had someone from VAN Jacket, who was treated like a god. Ishizu was responsible for nurturing and training all these people. After the bankruptcy, he felt responsible to the people who graduated from VAN and invited anyone to come by his office to see him.
I think Mr. Ishizu was a one-in-a-century person for the apparel industry. He did something revolutionary. He invented the thing called the “fashion business.”

Sunday Images / The triumph of the fair island knitwear

$
0
0


 “Fair Isle is a traditional knitting technique used to create patterns with multiple colours. It is named after Fair Isle, a tiny island in the north of Scotland, that forms part of the Shetland islands. Fair Isle knitting gained a considerable popularity when the Prince of Wales (later to become Edward VIII) wore Fair Isle tank tops in public in 1921. Traditional Fair Isle patterns have a limited palette of five or so colours, use only two colours per row, are worked in the round, and limit the length of a run of any particular colour.
Some people use the term "Fair Isle" to refer to any colourwork knitting where stitches are knit alternately in various colours, with the unused colours stranded across the back of the work. Others use the term "stranded colourwork" for the generic technique, and reserve the term "Fair Isle" for the characteristic patterns of the Shetland Islands.”




On tiny Fair Isle, a cottage industry enjoys the sweet smell of success
The Shetland island’s knitwear designers are quietly pleased at the attention they won when Chanel was obliged to say sorry for copying their designs

 Karl Lagerfeld leads models wearing Fair Isle designs at Chanel’s Metiers d’Art show in Rome. Photograph: Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images

Kevin McKenna in Shetland
Sunday 13 December 2015 00.04 GMT Last modified on Sunday 13 December 2015 00.06 GMT

On Fair Isle, the 10th-largest of Shetland’s 15 inhabited islands, the locals don’t permit themselves to gloat even when occasion gives them reason to. So, this weekend, there may simply be a quiet nod here and there and some little tugs of acknowledgement that might say “well done”. But there is no doubt that the island, home to fewer than 60 souls, has just scored a remarkable victory, and one that may yet have huge and beneficial consequences.

Last week Mati Ventrillon, a craft textile designer who has lived and worked on Fair Isle with her young family for eight years, forced an apology from Chanel after she discovered that the French couture giant had used some of her unique Fair Isle knitwear designs in its recent Metiers d’Art show in Rome. She immediately took to social media to air her grievance, asking if this was “endorsement or plagiarism?”.

Chanel acknowledged that it had erred and issued a full apology, crediting the designs as the creation of Fair Isle textiles specialists. What chance did a French fashion house have when pitted against several centuries of Scottish heritage and tradition on an island whose very name signifies the highest quality of designer knitwear?


Mati Ventrillon at work in her studio. Photograph: Mati Ventrillon

Ventrillon, it seems, is now happy to let the matter rest, but she also believes the incident has turned a welcome spotlight on the ways of a world far removed from the high-octane rhythms of French fashion.

“In the end some good may come of the whole episode,” she told the Observer on Friday afternoon, as the last glimmer of daylight disappeared across the water on this northernmost outpost of Britain. “Not only did they issue an appropriate apology and correction, they also carried an article about the history of craft textiles and knitwear on Fair Isle, and the skill and dedication that have been handed down through generations of women. Millions of people might now become aware of what it is we do here, and how much it helps to sustain this place.”

A genuine patterned Fair Isle jumper is considered an authentic work of art. These garments will take, on average, more than 100 hours each to hand-knit – and that’s before you factor in the time spent on designing them. This is an intricate and highly skilled process, involving arranging the traditional patterns and the five colours that typically characterise these threads.

It took Ventrillon more than four years to study and practise the techniques and patterns that were first used by the women of Fair Isle and the wider Shetland islands two centuries ago. Her desire is to eventually establish an industry on Fair Isle that will offer products to all parts of the market, rather than just to the luxury goods sector, with its bespoke online customer base. “In this way, I will be able to offer to islanders training and employment that is both sustainable and organic.”

Wool and knitted textiles are enjoying something of a renaissance in the world of high fashion. Perhaps that’s what led Karl Lagerfeld’s Chanel researchers to this tiny hothouse of textile creativity in the first place. But while wool and garments made from it have been a staple on Fair Isle for generations, a group of edgy knitwear companies in London – with names such as Unmade and Wool and the Gang – are turning the traditional model of purchasing fashion products on its head. Using computer programming, online technology and the power of crowdfunding, these cutting-edge collectives are using wool – that most traditional of yarns, often associated with dozing grandmothers in rocking chairs – to challenge the accepted economic rules of fashion retailing.

Ben Alun-Jones, one of the co-founders of Unmade, reflected last month on estimates that 10% of all the clothes being made in the world go straight to landfill, which is, he says insane.

“We seem to have lost something in mass production, where you are making things for everyone, but everything is made for no one,” he said.

Wool and the Gang, meanwhile, has a global battalion of 3,000, mainly female, casual knitters, who use the company as an agency to supplement their incomes.

On Fair Isle, Ventrillon sustains a lifestyle that marries the wisdom and craftsmanship of the ages with online technology. “I have a waiting list of online orders that is 18 months long, and so I have had to close it,” she said. “My customers interact with me at every stage of the creation, right through to the design. They know that they are getting a genuine garment made entirely on Fair Isle, in a process that uses our unique patterns and techniques but allows them to play a part in the crafting.

“I don’t buy into the concept that big global fashion house equals bad, and small traditional craft-making equals good. There are many opportunities for mutual beneficial partnerships between the big houses and small community-based enterprises.”

Elizabeth Riddiford of Exclusively Fair Isle is one of three commercial hand-knitters on the island. “I have been a Fair Isle hand-knitter and hand-spinner since moving here more than 30 years ago.

“I learned the intricate patterns and techniques of real Fair Isle knitting from experienced local Fair Islanders who were all born on the island in the early 1900s and who, along with their sisters and cousins, had been taught to hand-knit by their mothers and grandmothers from when they were toddlers,” she said.

“The tradition of Fair Isle hand-knitting is still practised and passed on by mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers to their daughters on Fair Isle today, although nowadays this is mostly for the pleasure of knitting for family members and friends.”

Earlier on Friday, Ventrillon had other duties to attend to. Another thing that knits this tiny population together is its community spirit. So she has trained as a firefighter and forms part of the team that daily attends to the island’s airport.

“In this place,” she said, “helping each other is a duty – and a pleasure which stitches us all together.”


Two Photographs of myself wearing “Fair Island“ which are circulating in the Internet

JEEVES / TWEEDLAND


The magic Red Box

$
0
0


Ministerial boxes, informally called red boxes, are used by ministers in the British government to carry their documents. Similar in appearance to a briefcase, they are primarily used to hold and transport official departmental papers from place to place. They are not to be confused with the parliamentary despatch boxes from which speeches are given in Parliament, although ministerial boxes are also referred to as "despatch boxes" in government documents.




"Ministers are permitted to use ordinary lockable briefcases to transport information which has been classified ‘Confidential’ or below. For information with a higher security level (such as ‘Secret’) they are required to use dispatch boxes, which offer a higher level of security, and which are usually red. However a travel version of the despatch box is also available in black, which offers the same level of security as a red despatch box, but is designed to be less conspicuous. In practice Ministers use despatch boxes for transporting the majority of their documents due to the greater level of security they offer."


The design of ministerial boxes has changed little since the 1860s. The boxes are manufactured in London by Barrow and Gale. Covered in red-stained rams' leather, they are embossed with the Royal Cypher and ministerial title. The 2–3-kilogram (4–7 lb) boxes are constructed of slow-grown pine, lined with lead and black satin and, unlike a briefcase, the lock is on the bottom, opposite the hinges and the handle, to guarantee that the box is locked before being carried.


The colour red has remained the traditional covering of the boxes. The lead lining, which has been retained in modern boxes, was once meant to ensure that the box sank when thrown overboard in the event of capture. Also bomb-proof, they are designed to survive any catastrophe that may befall their owner.

Exceptions to the red colouring are those carried by the government whips, which are covered in black leather. Discreet black boxes are also available for ministers who need to travel by train.

One box cost £865.43 in 2010.[1] Between 2002 and 2007 the British Government spent £57,260 on new boxes. In 1998, a Whitehall initiative began to replace document boxes with an extensive intranet.




Other red boxes of note are the ones delivered to the British Sovereign every day (except Christmas Day and Easter Sunday) by government departments, via the Page of the Presence. These boxes contain Cabinet and Foreign and Commonwealth Office documents, most of which the monarch must sign and give Royal Assent to, before they can become law

Vivienne Westwood, Get a Life and the The Climate Revolution

$
0
0



A collection of diary entries by fashion designer and political activist Vivienne Westwood, Get a Life is a fresh, unpredictable look at the life of one of the most influential artists and campaigners of our times. Spanning six years of Climate Revolution, fashion and activism, the book is as provocative as you would expect from Britain’s punk dame.
"My diaries are about the things I care about. Not just fashion but art and writing, human rights, climate change, freedom", Westwood said. "I call the diaries Get a Life as that's how I feel: you've got to get involved, speak out and take action."




 How Vivienne Westwood fell in love with Prince Charles
A T-shirt emblazoned with an image of the heir to the throne might not seem like the likeliest showpiece from Vivienne Westwood’s AW15 collection – but perhaps the pair have more in common than we thought …

Morwenna Ferrier
Monday 19 January 2015 14.38 GMT Last modified on Monday 19 January 2015 14.52 GMT

For a designer who has long used the establishment as a frame of reference for reaction, Vivienne Westwood – the anti-monarchist, anti-establishment, godmother of punk – dedicating her autumn/winter 2015 collection to Prince Charles in celebration of his environmental work was always going to polarise fans.

“I want to pay tribute to Prince Charles,” wrote Westwood on a set of briefing notes (emblazoned with an image of Charles in a beret) given to guests at her autumn/winter 2015 menswear show in Milan. “If Prince Charles had ruled the world according to his priorities during the last 30 years, we would be alright and we would be tackling climate change.”

The T-shirts, worn under blazers and by Westwood herself, are part of a Westwood perennial of using fashion as a political vehicle; fans might recall tops embellished with “I Am Not a Terrorist” for civil-rights charity Liberty, and an entire collection in 2013 dedicated to Chelsea Manning. The rest of the collection, though, was relatively staid for the designer, referencing traditional royal sartorial norms: sharp Savile Row-style tailored suits, trad brocade florals on blazers and coats in a houndstooth print.

Given Westwood’s history with the royal family – she has twice attended Buckingham Palace with no knickers on, and has regularly goaded the establishment in various ways over the past forty years – this homage might seem implausible. But she recently set her targets on the environment, and previously endorsed Prince Charles, saying he had done an amazing amount in this world.

Charles has long been an outspoken environmentalist, and was recently handed increasing responsibility of the Queen’s Sandringham estate as part of the “gentle succession”. He is expected to use the land to implement more changes, including organic farming, an activity Westwood has backed with equal candour.

It’s evidence of the designer’s continued move away from her roots. After all, along with her partner Malcolm Mclaren, she played a pivotal role in establishing the punk scene in the late 1970s and has previously described her motivation for adopting anti-establishment messages into her collections as “an heroic attempt to confront the older generation”. But as Westwood knows, the medium is the message – and what better way to send it home that by subverting expectation?






Vivienne Westwood by Vivienne Westwood & Ian Kelly, review: 'fabulously, fetishistically brilliant'
The life of Vivienne Westwood is told as an uproarious picaresque romp by Beau Brummell's biographer

By Philip Hoare1:00PM BST 25 Oct 2014

The Seventies may seem like another age, but it was not the decade that taste forgot. It was an era that utterly reinvented the modern world. In almost every aspect of culture, from politics to pop, the status quo was overturned. And in the fast-moving arts of music and fashion you could detect those tectonic shifts most distinctly. Bolan, Bowie and Roxy Music reconfigured the way an ordinary suburban boy such as myself could imagine the future. They evoked a retro-glamorous, science-fiction world, an epoch defined by George Melly’s Revolt into Style as a third period of pop culture, “its noisy and brilliant decadence” lighting up “the contemporary landscape as if by a series of magnesium flares”.
It is that landscape that Ian Kelly examines in Vivienne Westwood. As a practised, deft biographer, he’s already given us flash-lit lives of Beau Brummell and Casanova – and is thus a perfect match for the Enlightenment figure Vivienne Westwood aspires to be. The book is billed “as told to”, but one gets the impression it was one long stream-of-consciousness rant, careering off on an uproarious picaresque romp through a wild and often unaccountable life. Holding a legend to account is Kelly’s dilemma – and his skill. He accomplishes it by the skin of his buckskin breeches, with a wit and humour of his own.
In 1976, newly arrived at college on the outskirts of London, I’d make my pilgrimage down to the darker, emptier end of King’s Road, home to the black hole that was sex – announced by huge letters in what Kelly dubs “condom pink”. It took a lot of courage to cross that threshold. In the dim interior stood the intimidating figure of Jordan – the first person to receive an Arts Council grant for being herself. With her peroxide punk beehive, Kandinsky make-up and PVC fetish wear, Jordan was the living symbol of Westwood and Malcolm McLaren’s startling new aesthetic. Indeed, the entire staff of the shop were Warholian superstars, awaiting their 15 minutes of fame, from Chrissie Hynde and Glen Matlock to Midge Ure and Toyah Willcox.
This was, recognisably, the birth of something – though we weren’t quite sure what. Scaffolding rails were hung with jumpers which were little more than nets knitted by giants, and bondage trousers with strapped knees and zips that ran right up your backside. This was more hardware than fashion; less style than anthropology, dealing in notions of tribalism and myth; more James Frazer’s Golden Bough than Vogue editorial. Towelling flaps slung around the groin were vestigial loincloths. Tartan kilts became pleated symbols. Gender was blurred and heightened. “Sex,” Westwood tells Kelly, “translated into fashion becomes fetish… the very embodiment of youth’s assumption of immortality.”
These clothes frightened people. I had to save up for a shirt roughly stitched together out of muslin with elongated, straitjacket sleeves and a screen-printed inverted crucifix over a swastika. It offended everyone, including me. But I wore it because Johnny Rotten did – indeed, Westwood claims she was as much the inventor of the Sex Pistols as McLaren. When Anarchy in the UK erupted, she tells Kelly, “the idea and the title were mine”. (Mr Rotten has since declared Westwood’s claim to be “audacity of the highest order”.)


Vivienne Westwood's autobiography, book review
By Vivienne Westwood and Ian Kelly

Andrew Wilson Thursday 9 October 2014 13:12 BST

Vivienne Westwood was at school when she wrote her first autobiography. Since then she has made various attempts to document the extraordinary story of her life, from the child of working class parents in Derbyshire to the mother of punk and later the creator of a global luxury brand.

Some time after meeting her friend Gary Ness in 1977 she collaborated with the ‘Canadian homosexual aesthete’ on a fifty-page memoir that they later set aside. Then in 1993 she asked the fashion historian and journalist Jane Mulvagh to write her life story, a project that Mulvagh accepted on condition that the designer did not vet the manuscript before publication. Westwood soon had second thoughts and promptly withdrew the offer of co-operation. On the publication in 1998 of Mulvagh’s insightful book the designer described the unauthorised biography as ‘a lot of rubbish’.

After this debacle, Westwood’s husband, Andreas Kronthaler - whom she met while teaching in Austria - insisted Vivienne write her own book to set the record straight. ‘I said the last thing I want to do is write about myself,’ she told an interviewer recently. And so it was that this new book was born, a publication trumpeted as a memoir but written by an amanuensis, the actor and biographer Ian Kelly (whose previous subjects have included Casanova and Beau Brummell). The resulting volume is a strange hybrid, neither memoir nor critical biography, and its beautiful pages emit the distinct odour of hagiography.

One of the problems of the book - thankfully mostly confined to the opening chapter - is the insistence of Kelly to place himself in the story. Phrases such as ‘My Year of Magical Blinging’ - a reference to the year the author spent interviewing and shadowing Westwood - and ‘the business that is show’ really grated, and I didn’t care how little sleep Kelly had during Paris Fashion Week.

The pace begins to pick up with the introduction of Westwood’s own voice about thirty pages into the book as she details her childhood. Here, we learn fascinating details that suggest that her character had been largely formed at an early age: she had a precocious visual memory, believed that she could make a pair of shoes at the age of five and, from the beginning, she was something of a rebel and non-conformist. She remembers being in the back of her aunt’s greengrocer’s shop when she was a girl and seeing a representation of the Crucifixion on a calendar. Her cousin Eileen told her about the death of Jesus Christ, which up until that point had been kept from her. ‘I could not believe that there were people in the world who could do this,’ she recalled. ‘And the truth of it is this: I became Derbyshire’s only five-year-old freedom fighter! Dedicated to opposing persecution!’

Kelly is particularly good at documenting Westwood’s co-creation of the British punk movement and her toxic partnership with Malcolm McLaren, the red-haired, pale-faced (courtesy of talcum powder) Situationist who helped change the course of 20th-century fashion and music. (It’s a shame, however, he gets the date of the first Sex Pistols gig at St Martin’s wrong: it was 6 November 1975, not 1976.) Incisive testimonies from Westwood’s two sons, Ben (from her first marriage) and Joe (the product of the relationship with McLaren) as well as her brother Gordon (who introduced Vivienne to Malcolm) reveal McLaren to have been an abusive control freak. Although the biographer has had access to Westwood’s inner circle (complete with anodyne quotes from a number of models, PRs and fashion insiders) there are some notable absences. For instance, Vivienne talks about her first husband Derek Westwood, but the man himself does not have a voice.

Kelly also passes over certain events that are crying out for more analysis and interpretation. For instance, on the way to have an abortion (paid for by McLaren’s eccentric grandmother Rose) Vivienne changed her mind and used the money to buy herself a cashmere sweater and a matching piece of fabric from which she created a skirt. I would have liked more on this, more on the psychology of fashion, the deep-seated reasons why Westwood felt so drawn to clothes. ‘Nothing from the past is entirely true,’ she told Kelly. ‘But you are only in those scenes properly when they are put together. That’s what we should do, you and I, Ian: sew together all the life scenes.’ In this respect, Kelly is a competent tailor, but my guess is that in the future there will be other, more adventurous seamstresses who will come along to unpick and restitch the Westwood story.

Andrew Wilson's biography of Alexander McQueen will be published in February (Simon & Schuster)

Sunday Images / Ten Crested Ties

Viewing all 3437 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>