With A24 reaching its penultimate release of 2019, now would be a great time to make the argument that this was one of their best years. Along with their attention-grabbing TV series Euphoria, this was a year where every demographic got their own formative masterpiece. While their most buzz-worthy movie was yet to come, their follow-up to the teenage anxiety attack hit Waves (2019) was a bit more subdued, and in some ways not given the respect of every film around it. In Fabric (2019) is a title that harkens back to 70s giallo while satirizing the least expected of industries: fashion. No, this isn’t director Peter Strickland’s The Devil Wears Prada (2006). It’s something much stranger and also a more provocative commentary on the power clothes have over everyone who wears them. It’s funny, horrifying, and bizarre. You know, a typical A24 release.
The story begins in a bit of a nostalgic place. Strickland was coming off of his critically acclaimed film The Duke of Burgundy (2014) and found himself fascinated by the concept of clothing. As a British child, he remembered the way that the stores that his mother would shop at had this poetic sensibility to them. There was a whole mentality that came with entering their doors, suggesting that what they wore could change their lives. While being strolled around, Strickland recalls how creepy the mannequins were. During that time, their fingers were less formed, so he recalled them looking down at him as if casting a spell. He also believed that clothing had this way of embodying history once worn. He recalls buying a jacket that had a smell in the armpit and being engrossed by it, forming this whole backstory to a person he had never met. This, at its root, was what inspired In Fabric.
When asked why he chose to set it in 1993 and not a more contemporary time, he pointed to the fact that many fashion boutiques were closing. There was one venue in particular called Jacksons in Reading, Berkshire that drew his attention. It shut down in 2013. While the details from there are more interpretive than accurate, he claims that it featured a lot of the same atmosphere. This was especially true of the character Miss Luckmoore (Fatma Mohamed), who had this mystical vibe that mixed with an enthusiasm for buying clothes. Beyond that, Strickland wanted to add a childlike wonder to wandering the store, such as not fully understanding how a dumbbell works and leaving the audience somewhat confused.
Another thing that compelled Strickland with the film was adopting a sense of ASMR. He claimed that he wanted to make the film feel like an extended YouTube video. As a result, the sound design has a strange effect on the viewer. With influence from Eraserhead (1977), he chose to make certain aspects intentionally disorienting. He points to the use of an alarm in the film that is actually a distorted Moog synthesizer. Small things feel off to the viewer, but it’s hard to fully understand why. It helps to add layers to the horror that emerges, especially when contrasted with the dark coloring and uncertainty of every scene.
One of the ways that this differs from Strickland’s other films is that he did storyboards for certain scenes. In the past, he was known to be more impulsive, but given that he needed to film things like the washing machine with certain appearances, he had to create an aesthetic that was very specific. When it came to designing the dress, he had costume designer Jo Thompson pick it out since he believed it needed to be complementary to many body shapes. It ended up being a simple red silk wrap dress colored artery red.
There were certain post-production issues that would emerge. The most noteworthy is an adjustment of the sound design. He believed that in early test runs that the frequencies were too aggressive and couldn’t be picked up outside a theater environment. Along with that, he also noted that the ratings board was very judgmental about one scene in particular. In this scene, Luckmoore is seen drinking the menstrual blood of a mannequin while another masturbates. While the core of this idea was in the film, the greater point is missing. Strickland claims that the semen was supposed to fall on the dress and create a seal that a customer would find beautiful. He agrees that the scene is weird and that it’s fine if everyone doesn’t like it, but he believes that it should be the audience’s choice to walk out and not the censors. He even cites the fact that it’s hypocritical that violence is tolerated but not something much less destructive.
The film would make its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in September 2018. During this time, the film would gain U.S. distribution rights with A24. Strickland claims that he was excited to have this happen given that they released very exciting and original films. By the time it came out in 2019, In Fabric was described as being a story about class not unlike Us (2019) and Parasite (2019). When asked why he felt it was such a popular topic at the time, he claimed that it was hopefully breaking down the façade and finding the truths in social class differences. He would also note that In Fabric went into production around the time of the release of Phantom Thread (2017). He openly admits that he would’ve stolen a few things from Paul Thomas Anderson had he seen it before writing it. In Fabric doesn’t have any box office records to mention here.
Despite this, In Fabric ended up being a hit with the critics. According to critics aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes, the film earned a 91% rating. Roxana Hadadi leads the acclaim when suggesting that “For giallo fans in particular, the surreally voyeuristic experience of In Fabric is visually engrossing and unshakably uncomfortable.” Cris Kennedy of The Canberra Times shared the sentiment when noting “Its been some time since a film so purely arthouse has had a cinema release and I'm here for it.” Katie Hogan of VultureHound was one of the few who disagreed when stating “With such a promising premise that could have been strange but alluring, you're left with a confused and irritating feeling that nothing really made sense.”
During interviews for this film, Strickland had a thorough conversation about the cinematic experience. While he noted that other prominent filmmakers were policing how they were screened, he was more interested in audiences getting to see it at all. He believed that he made them for cinemas, but arguing how they were shown would’ve given him a needless headache. Because of that, he was very encouraging of the streaming market believing that it was advantageous to those who lived outside major markets. His one regret was that he didn’t shoot it on film. He was also quick to note that while he was very proud of the film, he recognized that he wasn’t above criticism. He believed that if he missed the mark somewhere here he would just have to try on the next one. He was accepting of his potential to fail, which makes him more optimistic about what he would get right.
All in all, In Fabric was a great penultimate film for A24. While it remains much more obscure than most of the November-December 2019 releases, it still found an auteur delivering one of the strangest satires of the year. It presented a new look at clothing and asked the audience to think of the history and meaning behind what they wear. It was haunting and funny in equal measure, creating something breathtaking. Given that other filmmakers like Edgar Wright would later do fashion horror in Last Night in Soho (2021), it makes sense that Strickland would be interested in finding the ugliness of looking good. With that said, In Fabric was about to be overtaken by the tidal wave that was A24’s closing remarks for the year. It was the moment when they turned to their audience and said “This is how I win.”
Coming Up Next: Uncut Gems (2019)
Comments
Post a Comment