HAUTE COUTURE HORROR!
Jan. 20, 2006

          Reese Witherspoon, I’m behind you, baby.
          I’m always behind anyone with principle and ethics and pride and guts, and that’s what you’ve got, girlfriend.
          I must now warn readers that the following information is not merely shocking, not merely unsettling, not merely appalling, but nothing short of devastating. After reading this, you might want to look at photos of mangled corpses in Iraq, or the floating dead of New Orleans, or starving AIDS-ridden children in Africa, for relief.
          If you don't wish to read further, I will understand.
          Reese Witherspoon, one of our country’s greatest artists, a woman of such standing and achievement as to practically warrant the title, American Princess, has been violated. No less a term will do.
          What Witherspoon has suffered is such a degradation, such an assault on her reputation, work, spirit, and very person, that one wonders how she will ever pursue her career again, let alone show her dollface at an awards ceremony. It will take almost unimaginable character and courage to recover. Calling Oprah! Dr. Phil!
          Ms. Witherspoon has---this is difficult to even write---been made to wear a dress that. . .
          No, I can’t go on. It’s just too tragic.
          Okay, okay, I realize that you, the public, have a right to the truth of this dreadful matter, no matter how taxing it is to report. So, with a deep breath and a heavy heart, I must tell you that. . .
          Reese has been made to wear a dress that----that---someone else had already worn!
          Yes, I know how you feel. Please take as much time as you need to compose yourself, then read on. I’m half-way through a box of Kleenex, myself.
          Witherspoon wore a Chanel gown to the Golden Globes this past week, and---oh, this is tough---it had already been worn by Kirsten Dunst to the Golden Globes in 2003!
          Now don’t give me all that crap about Iraq and genocide in Africa and kidnapped journalists and Bin-Laden’s latest threat and Iran’s nukes. I’ve got my priorities straight, not you. I’m talking about news here. I’m talking about the real world. I’m talking about fashion.
          Yes, the dress with the glowing form-fitting torso that reminds one of Star Trek alien skin, and the flouncy, square-dancy, pleated skirt-like bottom portion was. . .get me a drink---recycled. A rerun.
          The renowned Ms.Witherspoon was re-gowned.
          Reese spooned her peanut butter cups right into the bustline once inhabited by the Dunst dugs. A withering insult? I dare say! But no, says Chanel, it was just an. . .accident.
          Yeah, right, and that volcanic eruption in Alaska last week was just an accident (heh heh.)

The regowned Miss Reese.

Kirsten: Who dunst it?

         “Chanel apologizes for the oversight that Reese Witherspoon’s dress was previously worn to a Golden Globes after-party three years ago,” was part of the company’s official statement.
          Note how this sly corporation tries to transparently soften the "mistake," by implying that because Dunst only wore it to an “after party” (while Witherspoon sauntered right on to the cherished Red Carpet), this is somehow less of a catastrophe. Ha! Shameless. And speaking of shameless, the company then gets down on its knees:
          “We are honored that Reese chose to wear Chanel and thought she looked beautiful. We congratulate her on her well-deserved win.”
          Beautiful? How dare they call Witherspoon “beautiful?” This woman is sunshine in human form. Where she walks, roses should spring up, birdies should chirp and do the boogaloo. I have it on authority that no one has ever, ever once seen Reese enter a bathroom. My God, for all the damage done, she might as well have appeared on the Red Carpet dressed like some dirt-encrusted, fly-engulfed, distended-bellied Third World orphan! Sue, girlfriend!
          Well, I know this has been difficult, loyal readers, so I want to reward you now with some good news. Yes, there is a silver lining in this Golden cloud.
          Reese is going to boycott Chanel!
          Her publicist, Nancy Ryder, says that Reese and all her other clients---including two of our other precious national treasures, J. Lo and Renee Zellweger---will absolutely refuse to slip a single arm through another Chanel sleeve!
          Wow! Just when you thought everyone was a sellout! Just when you thought Jack Abramoff had corrupted the whole world! Just when you thought no one stood for anything important anymore! Just when you thought people would eat live spiders and dive into vats of cow entrails for a few thousand bucks!
          Along comes Princess Reese. Yes, I’ll say it right here---let’s create our own royalty in this country---quick, before Bush does---and who better to name Princess of the United States than our principled, brave, undaunted Reese?
          Boycott away! You go, girl! Change the Chanel!
          This must be the most thrilling civil disobedience since Selma. Somewhere, Ghandi is grinning toothlessly. Can the inner cities be far behind? Get Jesse in on this. We shall overcome. . .
          Of course, I think it is a tribute to the genteel and forgiving nature of our fair Princess, that she is merely symbolically bitch-slapping the haute-y corporate designer. She could have said something herself, instead of graciously allowing a publicist to speak for her. Just think of the damage that an actual statement from Her Witherspoonness might have done. Chanel No. 5? Chanel No. Zero.
          Such restraint! Especially when you consider an additional trauma she is suffering. Get this: Not only was this remarkable woman subjected to the indignity of donning used duds, but her hair style was practically identical to Dunst’s 2003 ‘do! Double whammy! What? Yes, of COURSE it was a coincidence! It’s just that the gown called for wearing one’s locks up and back---that’s Taste 101, dawg.
          But that brings up the real problem here: all over the country---nay, around the world---that the less civilized, the less knowledgeable, the less cultured, the less. . .coutured are understandably confused by the Witherspoon/Dunst Dust-Up. Call it Gowngate. Yes, the clucking about conspiracies has begun---and well, come to think of it, why shouldn't it?
          I mean, why did they wear the same dress? Did Chanel set out to destroy Witherspoon’s career? Don’t laugh---the gossip site Jossip.com thinks so! “Those sneaky French beeotches over at Chanel tricked our dear Reese Witherspoon,” Jossip said, “into wearing a three-year-old dress they claimed was vintage to the Golden Globes! Every fashion queen knows that three years does not equal vintage.”
          See?
          Or maybe it was Dunst who set out to ruin Witherspoon! Catfight! Blonde on Blonde! Umm. . .or did Chanel conspire with Dunst to undermine Witherspoon’s Aryan supremacy? Could Al-Qaeda be involved? Is this the new attack on America Bin-Laden warned about? Is it a conspiracy to bring down all decent fashion and replace gowns with burkas? Let's get Art Bell on this! And keep an eye on our dear Reese, please! One has to wonder if the dress might have contained. . .agents. . .placed their by Dunst---or Chanel---or Pat Robertson---that could affect Reese’s health. I mean, was the gown even dry-cleaned after Dunst occupied it? Gasp! Scabies! Ringworm!
          Oh, the horror, the horror.
   
                                             BACK TO PAGE ONE

© 2006 Rip Rense. All rights reserved.