Ready to Wear (1994)

Although some Altman films are more tightly focused on a unifying narrative thread, for instance Gosford Park or Cookie's Fortune, Pret-a-porter employs the over-lapping ensemble format perhaps best exemplified in Nashville and, to some extent, MASH. I wonder, however, whether some reviewers have not missed the point of this film. Although there is not linear narrative line, the film is unified by a theme -- that of betrayal. Everyone appears to be betraying someone else in this film, whether a spouse, partner, or close relation, and ultimately wrapped in the naked fashion parade -- the industry betraying its consumers. There are weak aspects of the "plot" to be sure, but also some great performances -- Richard E Grant stands out as a camp classic, while Rupert Everett convincingly plays straight. And how Sophia Loren manages to maintain poise, look stunning, and put in a good comedic performance while wearing hugely over-sized hats is beyond me.

Fmovies: This review is written specifically for those who have not seen 'Pret-a-Porte' and are confused by the mixed reviews on this site and from the Critical Press in general. To you, I would say the following: Don't take my word for it...see it for yourself and figure out what YOU think of it. It is my opinion that the worst film from Robert Altman is still the best film of the year (with rare exceptions) and so, naturally, I would recommend this film to anyone. However, Director Altman does NOT make films for everyone. He often makes films for the 'Advanced' film-goer. His work is often dis-jointed and overlapping to an extent that it requires one to actually ay attention to the goings' on rather than to spoon-feed the answers to the audience. Couple this with his tendency to allow the plot and the character to meander, evolving slowly over the course of the film and you often get a movie that is distinctly 'un-Hollywood', which can turn some film goers off. So I would recommend that you not only sit through this film, but allow yourself to actually watch it without any preconceived ideas of how a movie is supposed to be. Then I think you will find a witty, sexy satire that is more about our own vanity and betrayal than it is about the fashion industry.

But like I said, don't take my word for it (or the words of anyone else, for that matter): If you are curious, please watch it. And make up your own mind.

There's one thing in this film that I love in a very film nerdish sort of way and that is Danny Aiello's character, which is, in a strange way, a homage to an earlier character in Altman's California Split (a film well worth revisiting). And while some of the characters may seem over the top, my own experience in the fashion world would attest to them being pretty realistic. While it feels as fragmented as any Altman, there is a story here, and it's a pretty subtle one, but perfectly satisfactory in my opinion. I think the film, overall, is woefully under-rated. I feel like everyone got caught up in the idea of "ALTMAN" and then got confused by "THE STARS" and then didn't really bother to look at the movie, which has some lovely grace and is well worth the time. Then again, why listen to me, I liked Ishtar.

Ready to Wear fmovies. It's hard to understand why so many reputable critics have vilified this film, which is in Altman's Nashville mode—and indeed includes many of the elements that made that earlier film such a critical success. Both address the hypocrisy and viciousness of a big money-making industry, by interweaving a number of loosely connected stories acted by a large celebrity cast. Some of these stories work better than others, in both films; as a previous reviewer noted, in Pret-à-Porter, they all hinge on the central theme of betrayal, with a cumulative effect that is saddening as well as amusing.

The principal difference between the two films lies in the way they end. Nashville is closed off (to my mind, unconvincingly) by an assassination at a political rally. Ready to Wear ends with a breathtakingly beautiful, even erotic acting-out of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, where almost none of the fashion-industry types realize that the bankrupt designer has clothed all of her models in...nothing. The only one who does get the joke is the clueless and incompetent reporter (Kim Basinger, from Texas, doing a fine retake on Geraldine Chaplin's annoying role in Nashville), who stalks off in a huff.

Apparently lots of critics stalked off in a huff, too. That's too bad, since the film has lots of good qualities. But you miss the point if you don't realize that it's all leading up to that big shaggy-dog-story punchline.

Like everyone else, I note this didn't have much of a plot, etc. etc. But it was just a hoot to watch. I died every time Richard E. Grant came on the screen -- he's a phenomenal character actor. I say, lighten up! This wasn't just satire/social commentary... there was subtle homage to everything from the Marx Brothers to Fellini. In other words, don't analyze too hard; just enjoy!

7/10

I've seen it a couple of times. I understand Altman was maybe trying to create a disjointed, farcial almost surreal type atmosphere, but I found the lack of cohesiveness and clear cut thread annoying and it caused me to not care about the film or its characters. Being just a regular jane and not blessed with 15 or so credits in Film-making at NYU, the subtly of the art was lost on me. I desperately wanted just a little exposition to grab onto, and all the film's inside jokes and vague, obscure references to Italian films I found to be self indulgent. I'm not saying this film was bad - just bad for me. I think he could have pulled off the same feel and frenzied little European farce with a TOUCH more connective tissue in the plot. Not a lot, just a little for the audience to care about the story, the characters and whatnot. The thing I found in the film that I even cared more than a fig about was the Simone storyline.