Head vs. Zoe: A tale of two stylists

I know the title sounds a bit like a Nickelodeon cartoon (taken the right way) or a porn flick (taken the wrong way), but I’m actually talking fashion. Two pied pipers of fashion who have immortalized looks for two different generations – a fashion Roe v. Wade, if you will. Edith Head is perhaps the most respected and honored woman in costume design. She received a total of 34 Academy Award nominations, the most any woman in Hollywood has ever received. She created memorable images such as Bette Davis in All About Eve and Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday. There’s no doubt that Edith Head was the bellwether of fashion in her time. When she won an Oscar for Sabrina, she was supposed to share the award with Hubert de Givenchy, who made the clothes. She refused to stand alongside Givenchy, and was eventually awarded the Oscar without the designer. That’s how powerful she was. Even if it was known that she would take credit for someone else’s work, her own talent overshadowed her unsavory traits.

Many figured the character of Edna Mode in The Incredibles had to be based on this generation’s fashion heavyweight, Anna Wintour, but in reality it was based on Edith Head. She was no-nonsense when it came to all things chic, and bristled at the thought of any imperfection in her craft. She was also memorialized on a US postage stamp a few years ago.

It’s no surprise that cinema has a huge hand in fashion. The world has its movie idols, even those too-cool-for-school people. In so many ways women tried to emulate the coolness of Grace Kelly or the adorabilty of Audrey Hepburn. Edith used her position to catapult these fine actresses into venerable icons. This was absorbed by the public, giving people visual choices about what to cloak their bodies in. In the end, what Head ultimately did in her classy and elegant projects was to introduce a more delicious sort of sex appeal to the public. The overabundant tartness of Mae West was toned down by the knee-length glamour suits of Bette Davis. Her sort of fashion was empowering.

Fast-forward 40 years later; welcome Rachel Zoe. I’m no fan of hers. I started eating carbs again when I saw Nicole Richie shrink into a raisin. I defected to my Ray-Bans as soon as her bug-eyed army of questionable starlets started wearing sideview mirrors as eyewear. I certainly made sure that my hair remained a believable shade of brown despite the prodding of the blondeness that defines today’s dernier cri.

All her "girls," as she calls them, are her clones – "Zoebots," as they are called by the bitchy cats in fashion. Without the wrinkles and sun damage – yet. Plus those bags she made for Judith Leiber look like Gucci knockoffs from last season. She plans to expand her range by (gasp!) starting a clothing line.

She feeds into logomania, anorexia and the herd mentality.

However, liking her is not the issue. She has no doubt been a great influence in fashion over the past five years. I mean she’s got people obsessed with tabloids just to see what Nicole or Mischa will be wearing next. She turned Nicole from skanky Paris Hilton sidekick into a bona-fide fashion figure (which garnered her a Teen Vogue cover) and is now so Vanity Fair famous for being the walking and barely breathing Robertson Road clothes hanger. She brought us oversized shades, hobo bags, scary silk scarves and baby doll dresses. They have been there forever, but with her magic wand she suddenly "owns" these looks.

Rachel dresses starlets and celebutantes, who are famous for being famous. She charges $6,000 an hour for her services, unlike Head who worked in one of the most luminous studios in cinematic history alongside 20th century fashion icons. Will we remember Nicole in 10 years? Let’s see how good Rachel Zoe is at her game.

I guess this says something about the times we live in. First, we are fascinated by all these nymphs who have no discernable talent. It’s all about image, from expertly executed paparazzi faux-tographs to photo-shopped magazine editorials. Nothing looks real. Nicole was so much cuter in retrospect when she looked more like an Osbourne than a cheap Audrey knockoff. Everyone’s hoarding that look. The rich girl über-boho look that, frankly, as pleasing as it may be to many people, is also very, very boring.

Suddenly celebrating individuality comes in what color of Motorcycle bag you have. Tabloids have become the modern-day Sears catalog. We no longer need news, we just need to know what bag to tote next week and when to shelve it (usually when Hilary Duff starts wearing it). It all boils down to consumerism, the sheer materialism that has cloaked our time, a better-dressed but altogether more boring version of the ‘80s. Excess is back.

Plus, if you think about it, who does Rachel Zoe dress? Definitely not Julianne Moore or Cate Blanchett, some of the few fine actresses of our generation. Rather, her golden calf is the wooden chick in Kids in America (if you haven’t seen it, good for you) Nicole Richie, who has a bratty feud with her former best friend and a gripping eating disorder under her belt. Her clients’ good movies are few and far between.

Is it safe to say we live in very uninspired times? Maybe. But maybe that’s why we have to be a little retrogressive in order to be more progressive in fashion. To look back and ponder the value of true elegance in our life. You don’t need to be a movie star or billionaire to know it. However, as our time has erroneously dictated, one also must not fall into cheap tricks to be noticed. Knowing what you want leads you to doors that open up to worlds that you have only heard of but never seen. In it you don’t need bug-eye shades to belong. And a Birkin served in a porcelain saucer won’t solve your problems. The fashion future may be hard to tell, but one thing’s for sure – you won’t see Rachel Zoe on a stamp. Ever.