Seamless

Sort of the actual Project Runway. I had no expectations, but was totally drawn in by this film, a simple and candid look at the somewhat ugly innards of the fashion business. I doubt anyone without some peripheral experience or knowledge of the industry realizes how grueling it actually is; the fact that you can be touted as a success and yet still be up to your eyeballs in debt. The filmmaker did an excellent job of capturing the subjects and the tension was tangible. My personal favorite was the Russian designer of the Cloak line, I hope he succeeds in the business.

Plus, you get to see Claire Danes get hit in the head with a camera.(just joking)

"Seamless" documents the establishment of a new fund created jointly by Vogue Magazine and the CFDA (Council of Fashion Designers) in fall 20004 and the process by which ten finalists are weeded down to one winner. The filmmaker follows three of these ten fashion lines- Doo-Ri, menswear line Cloak (designed by Alexandre Plokhov), and Proenza Schouler (designed by the disarming and charming duo Lazaro Hernandez and Jack McCollough). We see the struggles of the jury - composed of fashion editors (Anna Wintour), young but established designers (Narciso Rodriguez), and CFDA members as they determine the purpose of the award and then interview the designers, travel to showrooms and watch their shows for spring 2005. Unfortunately, given the numerous people the filmmaker follows, we never get to know any of the design finalists in the same way viewers felt they knew designer Isaac Mizrahi (of Mr. Keeve's previous movie, "Unzipped") and "Seamless" feels less involving because of it. Of course, a good part of the charm of "Unzipped" was undeniably the effervescent Mr. Mizrahi, and his brief cameo in "Seamless" reminds that fashion, while a serious business, is ultimately something that should be fun and enjoyed.

The director portrays these real life designers in a candid, almost vulnerable light. Fashion to most may seem like frivolous frocks featured in Vogue, but as we continue on with the film, one realizes it's far from that.

The CFDA (Council of Fashion Designers of America) have created a wonderful fund that offers an up-and-coming fashion designer to apply for financial leverage ($200,000), as well as mentorship/guidance with an established company to help them through their initial years of business.

As a fashion enthusiast myself, and having interned for one of the 10 finalists featured in this film, it was a refreshing look into what the fashion world really entails: The fashion shows are really secondary, the business side is crucial, and glamour really takes the backseat in more ways than one.

Doo.Ri, Proenza Schouler (sp?), and the founder of Cloak are three of the 10 fund finalists that are featured. The director does an amazing job of simply letting the camera roll and portraying the frustration, anguish, and love that is put into the garments created by these talented designers.

I absolutely loved the film, and it definitely kept me on the edge of my seat. Definitely something worth viewing if you love fashion, but even better if you live for it.

I just saw this documentary film at the Newport International Film Festival last night (June 7, 2005) and have to say that I liked it a lot.

This is a film about how the fashion industry (which included Vogue magazine), in order to encourage new and upcoming fashion talent, create a fund to provide incentive capital to a designer who has, not just well thought out clothes, but also has the business sense to survive. It is a tale about how the fashion industry realizes that there doesn't seem to be anyone replacing the likes of well known but aging designers and how they realize that something needs to be done to encourage growth. It is also a look about how terribly difficult it is to take a business idea, especially in the fashion industry, and make it grow.

A panel of judges is formed to screen approximately 175 potential candidates. The movie starts at the point where there are 10 semi-finalists. The movie follows three of these semi-finalists from visits to their workshop(s), putting on a public fashion show, putting on another "show" in front of the judges with the designers choice of 5 of his/hers best outfits (one finalist, who was not one of the three filmed, only made shoes, another made jewelry), plus grill sessions concerning business sense, etc. At the end of the movie there is a banquet where the top prize is awarded. With only one winner, you, as an audience, have been so well manipulated by the film that you feel almost instant grief for those others who didn't win. It is a well told story! To give you an idea as to how well, considering I don't follow the glitterati of the world (especially in fashion), I came away from the movie thinking how I would like to get a tuxedo from this one designer.

So why did I rate this a 7? In short: cinematography and editing. After the screening last night I came close to asking the director if the budget had been so tight that he couldn't afford a tripod. This was because the entire movie (at least it SEEMED like the entire movie) was one jerky scene after another (especially in the public fashion show). In a few other scenes the camera was not focused on the subjects but, rather, on the wall beyond the subjects. This, to me, was quite irritating because I was not allowed enough opportunity to appreciate and evaluate the clothes that were so vital to the survival of the contestants. I realize that the hand-held camera technique is supposed to lend an air of authenticity to the film. In my opinion, however, it should only be used when a) it is absolutely mandatory (filming in a white-water raft or in very close quarters with a moving subject, for example), b) when you can't afford SteadiCam equipment and/or operators, or c) when you can't afford a tripod. A good example of a good balance between hand-held technique and traditional tripod/dolly/etc. methods is "Day For Night" (La Nuit Americaine) by Francois Truffaut.

And as for editing, is it really too much to ask to have a minimum cut of 3 seconds instead of 3 frames? While this complaint did not happen much (fortunately), when it did occur during the public fashion show I felt cheated because I was not allowed the opportunity to make my own evaluations of what had been created by these people the movie was trying to get us to embrace. The only time I have seen quick cuts used effectively is for flashback sequences, otherwise I find it irritating, as it was when I saw "Moulin Rouge".

Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie well enough to want to see it again. Only next time I'm going to wear glasses with self-leveling electronics in them.

Douglas Keeve did very well with his earlier film, 'Unzipped', a reality documentary before reality tanked to the depths of television and shows like 'Housewives of Orange County'.

This film is more detailed, some virtual unknowns attempting to make it fashion designers in New York and on the international stage.

There are less models, more cut-and-dry business deals, and less well known designers. In 'Unzipped' we got to hear more from Isaac Mizrahi, whom I found intriguing and interesting; this film is more of a how to for those who actually want to start from the very bottom. Its not as informative as his earlier film on a similar subject. 7/10.