DRAAAAAAAMA that has nothing to do with actual awards!
Out of nowhere, two days ago, Chanel’s terrifying-yet-mockable designer Karl Lagerfeld told Women’s Wear Daily that Meryl Streep was set to wear one of his gowns to the Oscars but backed out — with the custom-designed dress nearly finished — because she was getting paid by another fashion house to wear its gown. Lagerfeld said that Streep’s people informed him, “Don’t continue the dress. We found someone who will pay us.” Lagerfeld sniffed to the magazine, “After we gift her a dress that’s 100,000 Euros [$105,000], we found later we had to pay [for her to wear it].” He concluded, “A genius actress, but cheapness also, no?”
Unsurprisingly, the “overrated” 20-time Oscar nominee — who just keeps attacking our nation’s president despite the howls of fury from both the man himself and his acolytes — was fearless in hitting back. One of her representatives quickly told the Hollywood Reporter that Lagerfeld’s statement was false, and “it is against [Streep’s] personal ethics to be paid to wear a gown on the red carpet.”
Asked to comment, Chanel’s camp amended, “Chanel engaged in conversations with Ms. Streep’s stylist to design a dress for her to wear to the Academy Awards, with the full understanding that she was considering options from other design houses. When informed by the stylist that Ms. Streep had chosen a dress by another designer there was no mention of the reason. Chanel wishes to express our continued and deep respect for Ms. Streep.”
Yeah, an admission of lying, but not an apology.
Which Streep promptly noted. Her camp followed up Chanel’s statement with another statement to People Magazine (upping the ante, since People has more readers than The Hollywood Reporter), using sarcastic air quotes:
In reference to Mr. Lagerfeld’s ‘statement,’ there is no ‘controversy’: Karl Lagerfeld, a prominent designer, defamed me, my stylist, and the illustrious designer whose dress I chose to wear, in an important industry publication. That publication printed this defamation, unchecked. Subsequently, the story was picked up globally, and continues, globally, to overwhelm my appearance at the Oscars, on the occasion of my record breaking 20th nomination, and to eclipse this honor in the eyes of the media, my colleagues and the audience.
“I do not take this lightly, and Mr. Lagerfeld’s generic ‘statement’ of regret for this ‘controversy’ was not an apology. He lied, they printed the lie, and I am still waiting,” she said.
Aaaaand Chanel tried again, sending a statement purportedly from Lagerfeld to New York Magazine’s fashion blog, The Cut (which reported on every stage of the brouhaha):
Chanel engaged in conversations with Ms Streep’s stylist, on her request, to design a dress for her to wear to the Academy Awards. After an informal conversation, I misunderstood that Ms Streep may have chosen another designer due to remuneration, which Ms Streep’s team has confirmed is not the case. I regret this controversy and wish Ms Streep well with her 20th Academy Award nomination.
Nice attempt at suckuppage, but STILL NOT AN APOLOGY!
As ever: Regret is all about you; apology is all about another person’s feelings. Regret stands alone; apology reaches out to someone else. Also, shut up with the whole “regret the controversy” business. That phrase just means, “I’m irked at other people.” Regret your actions, then apologize for them. Do not say you regret other people’s responses to your being an asshole. Streep specifically called for an apology, and then Chanel continued to reiterate its weaselly regret.
Also, WWD, you too owe Streep an apology. (As she notes, WWD “printed this defamation, unchecked…they printed the lie.”) You ran something nasty and shady from one of your darlings without attempting to confirm its veracity. Even fashion writing can — and should — have journalistic ethics. Should we hold our collective breath for your apology?
Nah.
Of course, in the great scheme of Lagerfeld being a total putz, this is nowhere near declaiming on a French talk show that “the hole in social security, it’s [due to] all the diseases caught by people who are too fat,” or informing the international Metro newspaper that “If I was a woman in Russia I would be a lesbian, as the men are very ugly,” or telling the German magazine Focus that any protest about skeletal models comes from “fat mummies sitting with their bags of crisps in front of the television,” or announcing that “sweatpants are a sign of defeat; you lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants” (a couple of years later, he designed some hideous pink sweatpants), or saying of Pippa Middleton, “I don’t like the sister’s face. She should only show her back.”
But hey, people keep giggling about how “outrageous” he is and keep buying his stupid logo-adorned crap, so why should he apologize for anything?
Team Meryl.
