The Highly Collectible Book Valentino, A Grand Italian Epic Has Been Reissued—Giancarlo Giammetti Takes Us Through Its Pages
They are indeed. In the hilarious, affectionate tease of a poem Meryl Streep wrote for an award she gave the designer, she lovingly chides Mr. Garavani for claiming he won't dress girls from 'streep malls.' 'But my feelings weren't hurt in the least,' she says. And in an essay recalling an advertising campaign he shot for the designer in 1985, the eternal waspish wit Rupert Everett, writes, 'Valentino's eyes were pale and profound, and surveyed us from inside his physical form like a lady in purdah regards the world through a crack in the palace wall.' (The actor recalls he behaved like a diva on set, and was subsequently barred from a glam, A-List gathering in Gstaad, but was eventually warmly welcomed back into the Valentino fold.) And then there are the oral histories from friends—other designers, aristocrats of both European and Hollywood lineage, models, muses, and cultural types—like these bon mots from author Amy Fine Collins, who wryly observes: 'It is nearly as hard to envision fashion without the house of Valentino as it is difficult to picture the Vatican without the Pope.'
The book is in part structured via decades of the designer's life and work, so there is plenty of amazing fashion in here: The all-white collection of 1968, which every designer at the house of Valentino since the founder's departure has riffed on; red dress after red dress, one more spectacular than the other; and decades worth of haute couture, rephotographed in forensic detail, the better to see the craftsmanship. (As Hamish Bowles points out, what set Valentino's couture apart was that as much work went into the clothes actually worn by the house's clients as were on its runways.)
What makes the book sing is the running of contemporary interviews and reviews which contextualize the fashion: the verbatim transcript of a lunch conversation with Valentino at Warhol's Factory in the 1970s: 'Why do you talk to him? He's not the star,' Valentino says at one point when attention turns away from him. Or from that same decade, a price-by-price breakdown comparing the cost of Valentino couture and the ready-to-wear, courtesy of The Miami Herald.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Horror's middle class is vanishing – and that's bad news for all film fans
Does no one want to watch people get butchered any more? Horror, long recognised as one of Hollywood's most reliable cash cows, is in a panic: few scary movies are breaking through financially in 2025, many more are cratering completely, and questions are being asked about the future of a genre that once seemed as durable as Jason Voorhees. Forget the death of the archetypal movie star: if sassy psycho-cyborg M3GAN can't open a movie, who can? Back in 2022, the first M3GAN – about an artificially intelligent doll with a bloodthirst – grossed $182m (£135m), including $78m of pure profit for its backers at Universal Pictures and the micro-budget horror studio Blumhouse, off a production budget of just $12m. Thanks to smart marketing, which turned its leading lady's incongruous dancefloor skills into a spooky meme, M3GAN ended up exemplifying the dream outcome of the modern studio horror film: low-cost, big-brain thrills with such inescapable dazzle that audiences couldn't not seek it out. Why, then, did last month's M3GAN 2.0 go so badly? In four weeks, the more action-oriented sequel has grossed a measly $38m worldwide, a result so mortifying that the head of Blumhouse put his hands up within days of its release and admitted to having totally missed the mark. M3GAN 2.0 isn't alone, either. This year has seen a staggering number of horror films die at the box office, among them Blumhouse's reboot of Wolf Man ($34m gross on a production budget of $20m), the Ayo Edebiri horror comedy Opus ($2m gross/$10m budget), Jenna Ortega vehicle Death of a Unicorn ($16m gross/$15m budget), the well-received adoption chiller Bring Her Back ($23m gross/$15m budget), and last week's revival of the Nineties hit I Know What You Did Last Summer, which opened to a flat $13m in the US. Yes, these films' production budgets are lean (though the extent of marketing budgets is largely kept under lock and key), and many of the above titles will ultimately break even once video-on-demand grosses are factored in – but none of their respective backers will be happy with what amounts to loose change. On the other end of the spectrum, meanwhile, are this year's handful of out-and-out horror smashes, most significantly the Michael B Jordan vampire film Sinners, which cost a reported $100m to make but has grossed $365m. There's also been Final Destination: Bloodlines ($285m and counting on a budget of $50m) and Danny Boyle's 28 Years Later, which has so far grossed $145m on a budget of $60m – not wildly profitable, by any means, but decent enough. So people are still going to see horror on the big screen, but – echoing the Western world as a whole – horror's middle class is evaporating. The genre seems to either go big or collapse entirely. Any kind of financial in-between is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. All this leaves a film such as next week's Weapons carrying undue levels of pressure. A missing-persons thriller starring Julia Garner and Josh Brolin, it revolves around the disappearance of a class of children in small-town USA, and serves as filmmaker Zach Cregger's follow-up to his 2022 sleeper hit Barbarian. Promotion for the film has been strong – lots of abstract and eerie imagery in trailers, and attempts at virality via the publishing of two hours of 'surveillance footage' from the night of the children's 'disappearance'. But the stakes feel particularly high. Weapons sparked a bidding war between rival studios when Cregger first unveiled his script, with Warner Bros so eager to get the up-and-comer on side that they coughed up a $38m budget for the film, and allowed him final cut. If Weapons underperforms, this kind of investment in a young, ambitious filmmaker's original ideas may become even rarer than it is already. Why this is bad for everyone is that, in the last decade or so, horror has been one of the few genres to wholeheartedly embrace fresh ideas and fresh voices. The likes of Jordan Peele's Get Out (2017), Coralie Fargeat's The Substance (2024), Ari Aster's Hereditary (2018) and Robert Eggers's The Witch (2015) proved that audiences will turn out in droves for intriguing new concepts, no matter how wild they might seem on paper – and in the process, an entire generation of buzzy new filmmakers developed fanbases, industry clout, and (relative) name recognition. Speaking to The Town podcast shortly after M3GAN 2.0 bombed, Blumhouse head Jason Blum suggested that there is simply too much horror being released for many films to break through, and that the cheap-to-produce movies that were Blumhouse's bread and butter (their biggest hits have included Get Out, Us, The Invisible Man and the Purge franchise) no longer cut it. 'We need to up the budgets,' he insisted. 'People need theatrical events.' Which is, I suppose, accurate. This year's most successful horror films had heavy promotional spends behind them, while even the most financially lucrative horrors of 2024 – meaning the low-cost, high-return likes of The Substance and Oz Perkins's Silence of the Lambs pastiche Longlegs – were transformed into must-see 'events' via relentless and effective marketing. But just as important is the actual quality of material on offer, with far too many modern horror movies settling for tedious mining of intellectual property and repetitive premises (Knives Out and Midsommar have created an unfortunate cottage industry of star-studded, eat-the-rich, religious-cult disappointments). Blumhouse have been particularly guilty of this over the last 18 months, tossing out a raft of movies that felt as if they were formed backwards from an already unimpressive elevator pitch: Night Swim (haunted pool!); AfrAId (haunted Alexa device!); House of Spoils (Ariana DeBose!). Things may, however, be looking up. As much as it pains me to slander a film that made smart use of Nineties stalwarts Freddie Prinze Jr and Jennifer Love Hewitt, it is something of a relief that I Know What You Did Last Summer couldn't get people in cinema seats last week. A largely serviceable but poorly directed slasher pastiche, the film may have lifted the story beats and faces from the 1997 original, but it failed at the things that truly matter: character development, suspense, memorable chase sequences. It seemed to prove that, when it comes to horror, box-office success in 2025 requires far more than just dusting off some old IP and hoping for the best. Hollywood does have a knack for taking all the wrong lessons from its success stories. (Just look at how Barbie's gargantuan box office has led to the development of loads of other movies about toys.) But wouldn't it be lovely if the triumph of Sinners sparked an influx of expensive, original horror movies moving forward – and not, well, Sinners 2. 'Weapons' is released 8 August
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Happy Gilmore 2 subtly honors Adam Sandler's late co-star Cameron Boyce
Adam Sandler managed to sneak in a subtle, yet heartwarming, tribute to his late Grown Ups co-star Cameron Boyce in the new Happy Gilmore sequel. Happy Gilmore 2, out now on Netflix, follows Sandler's titular retired golfer, Happy Gilmore, as he returns to the sport in order to pay for his daughter to attend a Parisian ballet school. It comes nearly 30 years after the original 1996 classic sports comedy. In one scene, Happy is seen walking up to a golf course check-in booth with a bag of clubs on his shoulder. As he nears the desk, the attendants inside are watching what appears to be an episode of Disney Channel's sitcom Jessie. The screen quickly flashes to show Boyce's character Luke Ross, whom he played throughout the show's entire 2011 to 2015 run. The brief nod to Boyce — who starred as Sandler's on-screen son in the 2010 family comedy Grown Ups and its 2013 sequel before his sudden death in 2019 — has left fans overcome with emotion. 'Adam Sandler honoring Cameron Boyce in Happy Gilmore 2 melts my heart,' one said on X, while a second added: 'Excuse me while I sob.' A third commented: 'Adam Sandler subtly including Cameron Boyce in this scene from #HappyGilmore2 hits different.' 'Happy Gilmore 2 was great,' another praised. 'The honoring of Cameron Boyce was such a cute and awesome Easter egg. Bottom right of the screen they're watching them on TV. Adam Sandler you killed it. Family is very happy.' Someone else on TikTok wrote that the tribute 'is hurting and healing my heart at the same time.' Boyce was only 20 when he died after experiencing a seizure in his sleep. At the time, his family released a statement, explaining the seizure 'was a result of an ongoing medical condition for which he was being treated.' 'The world is now undoubtedly without one of its brightest lights, but his spirit will live on through the kindness and compassion of all who knew and loved him. We are utterly heartbroken,' they added. Sandler was among many celebrities to honor Boyce after his death, posting on X: 'Loved that kid. Cared so much about his family. Cared so much about the world. Thank you, Cameron, for all you gave to us. So much more was on the way. All our hearts are broken.' Boyce isn't the only celebrity to make a surprise cameo in the new movie. Dozens of other cameo appearances from professional golfers, athletes and celebrities — some of which were announced when the film was in production — are also featured. Happy Gilmore 2 is streaming now on Netflix.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Nuggets' Nikola Jokic's agent sparks rumors with LeBron James ‘big plans' tease
The post Nuggets' Nikola Jokic's agent sparks rumors with LeBron James 'big plans' tease appeared first on ClutchPoints. Nikola Jokic has till now been a one-team star. This is despite the fact that modern NBA has seen some major teamups, and some of them have involved names like LeBron James and Kevin Durant. Now 40, James is still looking for that elusive fifth ring, and is at a crossroads with the Los Angeles Lakers. Having taken up his player option for the upcoming season, the Lakers look determined to build around Luka Doncic for the present and the future. Amidst it all, none other than the Serbian Nikola Jokic's agent was seen hanging out with James at a picturesque destination. On Instagram, the Denver Nuggets' superstar longterm agent Miško Ražnatović posted two photographs alongside LeBron James and Maverick Carter on a boat in Saint Tropez. However, the caption elevated a simple vacation post into something far more sinister. 'The summer of 2025 is the perfect time to make big plans for the fall of 2026! @kingjames @mavcarter,' BeoBasket's Raznatovic wrote. LeBron James is set to be an unrestricted free agent at the end of the coming season. The Lakers have shown signs of wanting to move on from The King to instead focus on building around Luka Doncic. With James surely in the twilight of his career, another big move, the last of his career, may be on the cards. Considering the hue and cry surrounding his future, Nikola Jokic's agent seemed well aware of what he was doing with the post's caption. A potential Jokic-LeBron teammate does not only make financial sense considering the Nuggets are expected to have enough cap space in 2026. It will also be a war cry for the rest of the NBA considering two of the greatest players the league has ever seen can potentially team up together. That in itself may force the Nuggets' hand in the future, considering the Lakers look likely to move on and focus on younger players who match Doncic's timeline.
