新闻周刊：约翰-加利亚诺的叛逆天性不会消失
http://www.sina.com.cn 2011年03月11日 10:06 新浪尚品
在巴黎时装秀上，时尚大牌“迪奥”(Christian Dior)出色的消除了创意总监约翰-加利亚诺(John Galliano)“反犹太”事件的巨大影响；然而，这位鬼才设计大师叛逆的天性不会消失。
上周五下午，当最后一名模特走下迪奥的T台，打在直立于巴黎罗丹博物馆庭院里那富丽堂皇的帷幕上的灯光暗下来时，现场1500余名时装界业内人士和时装迷都站起来欢呼。
人们为何如此激动？
不到72小时之前，约翰-加利亚诺——这位法国著名时装品牌的创意总监兼首席设计师，因为反犹太言论而魅力大减。据称，他辱骂坐在一家法国小酒吧的一对犹太夫妇，同时还在卖给一家英国小报的录像带中公开侮辱犹太人。50岁的加利亚诺即刻被迪奥解雇，并将在这个春天因为种族诽谤接受审讯。
周日下午，迪奥的来宾们心情沉重，几乎没有往常的绚丽时装，业内专业人士都穿着朴素的海军蓝和黑色服饰；而那些穿着鲜艳而奢侈的少数人士在其中很是显眼。196英尺(约60米)的高架T台从展厅华丽背景中延伸出来，背景幕是由镜子反射的沙龙——镜子巧妙的进行了做旧处理——宽阔的拱门两边都悬挂着枝型水晶吊灯。有大牌明星作诱饵，电视转播团队竞相穿过人群，现场一片嘈杂。
当时装秀开始时，第一个出现在T台上的不是什么轻佻的模特，而是身着黑色西装的迪奥首席执行官西德尼-托莱达诺(Sidney Toledano)。他站在T台的最前方，用法语表达了迪奥公司的歉意和悲伤；这一举动将这个去年盈利8260万欧元的顶级品牌人性化了。托莱达诺的话牵动了人们的心，接着他赞扬了女裁缝、试衣工和设计师，他说：“你们今天即将看到的是那些忠诚、勤奋的工作人员非凡努力的创作结果。”这个时装展迷人而优美，有丝绸灯笼裤、皮边短裙、褶边连衣裙和内衣风格的睡衣。虽然算不上一场激动人心的表演，但这却是迪奥很长时间以来很乐意做的一个成衣时装展。
然而，迪奥时装展想要做的是：在时尚变得充满夸张和奢侈之前，提醒人们什么才是真正的时尚。它认为，时尚就是好的衣服；而这正是对加利亚诺代表的所有一切予以批判。
展出结束时，工作室的成员身穿白色夹克来到T台前鞠躬答谢，大伙几乎快要哭出来了。台下的观众热烈鼓掌，有人大声称赞。
如果这个国际品牌有可能以优雅和传统呈现出友好、旧世界的商业，刚才展出的舞台艺术就达到了当初的设想。当赞扬后台无名英雄的时候，紧凑有序的筹划安排激起了观众的强烈情感。但是，这么容易被感动使人们觉得忧虑不安。在这场悲剧中，谁最该赢得眼泪？是迪奥？有谁真的认为它不能继续生存下去？
就公司企业形象管理来说，迪奥公司很漂亮的解决了这个丑闻，好莱坞可以在危机控制上加以借鉴。通过这个精心策划的完美展出，迪奥转移了我们的注意，并重构了这个故事。那些暗箱操作的人得到了应有的惩罚。而如今，我们更多谈论的是这个公司如何盛行，它是如何在一个设计师给公司带来耻辱之后继续谋求生存的。
上周的悲剧是个人的，而不是公司的。人们看到的是一个才华横溢的人亲手葬送了自己的前程。迪奥拥有约翰-加里亚诺品牌92%的股份，而观众通过点击遥控就可以听到他的反犹太言语。这个悲剧就是：创造才能正值辉煌时期的一个人似乎崩溃了，在邻家酒吧里发泄愤怒。
托勒达诺在T台上从未提及加利亚诺的名字，在展出的任何地方也没有出现。这位殿堂级设计师如此轻易的被抹去了。人们不希望人类缺陷的存在，也不想承认在我们的完美主义世界中人类并不完美。但我们不是必须这样？人不会在真空中瓦解；我们的生活通过一个共有文化复杂的联系在一起，其中有一些是美丽的，一些是非常非常丑陋的。说这些并不是要呼吁大家原谅加利亚诺的行为或者宽恕他，但不应该忘记；因为遗忘才是最大的悲剧。
Galliano: Gone
At the Paris couture shows, Christian Dior brilliantly erased the anti-Semitic eruption of its mercurial creative director, John Galliano. But his renegade talent won't disappear。
As the last model walked off the Christian Dior runway Friday afternoon and the lights dimmed in the stately tent erected in the courtyard of Paris’s Musée Rodin, the audience of more than 1,500 fashion insiders and aficionados stood and cheered。
But why?
It had been less than 72 hours since John Galliano, the creative director of the venerable French brand, had plummeted from grace after allegedly spewing anti-Semitic insults at a couple sitting in a tattered Paris bar, as well as in a jittery amateur videotape sold to a British tabloid. Galliano, 50, was swiftly fired and is now scheduled to go on trial in the spring for racist slurs。
The mood among Dior’s guests that sunny afternoon was sober, with few of the usual fashion peacocks—those flamboyantly dressed eccentrics who provide flashes of color amid the industry professionals in their ascetic navy and black. A 196-foot-long, elevated runway jutted from a dignified backdrop of a mirrored salon—its glass artfully fogged by age—with crystal chandeliers hanging on either side of a wide arch. Gone were the scrums of TV crews battering their way through the crowd, the A-list celebrities who serve as paparazzi bait, the thick cloud of buzz。
As the show began, the first figure on the runway was not some coltish model; rather, it was Sidney Toledano, Dior’s CEO, dressed in a black suit and tie. He stood at the top of the runway and, in French, spoke of the company’s shame and sorrow. With that single gesture, he put a human face on this rarefied brand, one that last year boasted �826 million in revenue. He wrenched your heart. He went on to praise the seamstresses, the fitters, the artisans: “What you are going to see now is the result of the extraordinary, creative, and marvelous efforts of these loyal, hardworking people。”
The collection was charming and coquettish with its silk bloomers, fur-trimmed skirts, ruffled dresses, and sheer lingerie-style gowns. It wasn’t a breathtaking show, but it has been a long time since a Dior ready-to-wear collection made one gasp with pleasure。
What it did do, however, was remind everyone what fashion was before it became thick with theatricality and flamboyance. It was an acknowledgment of fashion as fine clothes. It was a repudiation of everything that Galliano represented。
By the time the show ended and the members of the atelier, dressed in their white jackets, came onto the runway to take their bows, folks were practically ready to weep. The audience applauded madly. Someone shouted, “Bravo!”
If it was possible for this global brand to present itself as an intimate, Old World business trafficking in refinement and tradition, the stagecraft of the show did just that. The tightly controlled choreography stirred the emotions while celebrating the unsung heroes of the backroom. But it also left one feeling queasy and distressed about being so easily moved. Who really deserves the tears in this tragedy?
Dior? Did anyone really think it wouldn’t survive?
As a matter of corporate image management, the company handled this scandal brilliantly and could give a few lessons to Hollywood on crisis control. With this perfectly orchestrated show, Dior subtly shifted our attention and reframed the story. Those who usually labor in the shadows received their due. (Certainly, this ghastly episode could not have been easy for these modest men and women。) And now, we are inclined to talk about how the company prevailed, how it survived after a designer brought shame to its doorstep。
But last week’s tragedy was human, not corporate. The world watched a talented man’s career decimated at his own hand. (Dior owns 92 percent of the John Galliano brand。) Audiences heard anti-Semitic language at every click of the remote control. The tragedy was that a person who had reached the pinnacle of his creative talent seemingly fell apart alone and angry in a neighborhood bar。
Toledano never uttered Galliano’s name on that runway. It didn’t appear anywhere in the show notes. He had been erased。
It isn’t popular to allow for human fallibility, to admit that people are not perfect in our perfectionist world. But don’t we have to? People don’t implode in a vacuum. Our lives are intricately linked through a shared culture—some of it beautiful, some of it terribly, terribly ugly. This is not a call to excuse Galliano’s behavior or to forgive it. But it shouldn’t be forgotten。
Forgetting would be the greatest tragedy of all。
(新闻周刊)
(斯年)