Media Struggles to Review Chanel's Resort Show

On TikTok, however, it's a different story.

Chanel showed its resort collection in Los Angeles last week in the sort of display that has become common for a mega-brand taking itself on the road — the kind designed to give those of us who weren’t there FOMO via celebrities and food trucks.

The elaborate set was a black-and-white Chanel basketball court of sorts, complete with scoreboards flashing the names of the models as they walked. One photo op was contrived from a heap of light-up signs of words like “LOS ANGELES” and “PARIS.” Margot Robbie had her Instagram moment in front of the pile, wearing high-waisted flared jeans, a black triangle top, and what I guess you’d call a vest. Food trucks served burgers, beignets, and mini-tacos. After the show, the runway became a roller rink and Snoop Dogg performed.

Awkwardly, this all took place on the Paramount lot, where nearly 1,000 attendees arrived to straggling picketers taking part in the writers’ strike. Chanel President Bruno Pavlovsky told WWD that the brand decided to rent the venue months before the strike and that it has no stance on the conflict: “We’re just working with Paramount to use the space.” Deadline reported that while attending the event didn’t technically amount to crossing a picket line, “several high-profile invitees” declined to go owing to the strike. While the WGA and Paramount didn’t comment, Chanel issued a statement saying, “Guests will enter the event though a neutral gate and are not in violation of the strike by being on property to attend this event.” That’s fashion for you — when it’s a runway stunt, picketing is just great! When it’s not, Chanel swears it has nothing to do with it.

Chanel’s spring 2015 show. #inspiring

The WGA strike aside, you would be forgiven for thinking that all of this theater was meant to distract from the collection being shown. Including leg warmers, jean shorts sandblasted pink, peasant skirts, and Lisa Frank-looking logo prints, the clothes were frequently confusing and unattractive. Plenty of citizen reviewers on TikTok, Twitter, and elsewhere on the internet pointed this out, but many reviewers employed by media companies did not, surely owing to forces outside of the individual reviewers’ control. Like Daniel Lee’s debut Burberry collection, it was another example of a fashion show where most official media reviews stood so far apart from audience opinion that they may as well have been watching from different planets.

Chanel Cruise 2023.

Trend forecaster and top TikTok fashion creator Mandy Lee (@oldloserinbrooklyn) said, “It’s not giving range, it’s not giving variety, it’s giving question mark.” In his TikTok review, Timothy Chernyaev (@relaxitsonlyfashion) said, “I’m not going to speak for the [WGA] writers and whether or not they think the event was in bad taste. But I will talk about bad taste because there was quite a bit of it in this show.” In a TikTok with nearly one million views as of this writing, @romanticarchivist opens by saying, “Chanel resort 2023 debuted yesterday in Los Angeles, and it was a disaster.” Mosha Lundstrom (@newsfash) called it “starry yet divisive.” Many also critiqued the show for looking too Coachella, too Barbie, too Forever 21 [or insert other fast-fashion brand here].

Meanwhile, here’s how Vogue Runway described it:

…[Chanel creative director Virginie] Viard didn’t look at the silver screen or the red carpet for inspiration, but to what appeared to be a more quotidian example of Los Angeles: the Venice Beach boardwalk, a see-and-be-seen playground for roller skaters, weight lifters, beach bunnies, and epic sunsets. “I thought let’s do Jane Fonda, Cindy Crawford—all our heroines,” she said at the “accessoirsation” of the collection a day before the show. “There are jeans, a more aerobic feeling; every show is the occasion to do something we’ve never done before.”

Vogue’s “review” was the kind where they describe what was shown and what went on at the show without offering much of an opinion on the clothes, which seems to be what Vogue does when the collection isn’t good.

Publications likely feel unable to print real criticism of a brand like Chanel, which could easily get offended and pull access or ad dollars. Women’s Wear Daily’s review mostly described instead of opined, too, but praised a number of looks, including the purple shorts set that many seemed to agree was the best look in the show:

Pumped-up beachwear in sunset shades was also a standout, including a sparkly palm tree cardigan jacket over lavender tweed shorts suit, and a pink dégradé sequin crop top over a candy-stripe maxiskirt. The elegant 1920s-inspired chemise dresses and long skirts worn with tank tops; sparkle tweed robe jackets and coat, and sequin pajamas were also luxe but easy, as Chanel should be.

The shorts set people liked is on the left.

Fashionista also went the “describe more than opine” route. I can’t help but read into the use of the term “head-turner” here:

Head-turners include tie-dye bucket hats; seafoam-green tracksuits; palm tree-printed, sequined jackets and jumpsuits; multicolored chiffon dresses and, perhaps in honor of Barbie herself sitting front row, an abundance of pink, seen on tweed mini skirts and jackets, shirt dresses, sandblasted jorts, sparkly jumpsuits and more.

The Cut fashion critic Cathy Horyn published a true review. After describing the show’s atmosphere and setting, she wrote:

The problem was the clothes. An editor I know, decked out in Chanel, remarked, “At least they were younger this time.” Actually, Viard can do youthful clothes and accessories well enough: Look at her recent haute couture collection with its frisky skirts, snug jackets, and adorable slingback loafers and majorette boots. In Los Angeles, possibly for the first time, Viard tried her hand at gym shorts, tube socks, sneakers, and a kind of tracksuit, including one in a ghastly shade of aqua satin and a black knitted version with what seemed to be fuzzy pink palm trees.

Horyn praised Viard for her “knack for nonchalant glamour” but concluded the collection “lacked vision.”

The tracksuit is at center.

Viard’s collections in general haven’t been as well-received as her predecessor Karl Lagerfeld’s. But Karl Lagerfeld showed, to use Horyn’s word, ghastly stuff, too:

A few of Karl Lagerfeld’s Chanel looks, from left: spring 2018, spring 2008, and resort 2010.

So why did he get a pass but she doesn’t? A few theories:

1. Lagerfeld really was better at mixing fun into his collections, and Viard hasn’t quite figured out how to do that herself, arguably outside of accessories. Lagerfeld also showed more traditional tweed suits and dresses on the whole, while Viard seems to take more of a swing with the mix she puts on the runway.

2. Lagerfeld was one of those Chosen People in fashion who got a pass for a lot of stuff (see: the recent Met Gala held in his honor). Few things earn you respect in the fashion business like longevity, and Lagerfeld had one of the longest, most impactful careers of any fashion person. But he also knew the power of personal branding, and everything from his demeanor to his daily uniform to his pithy (when not offensive) soundbites delighted people and made him a star. Viard is a behind-the-scenes designer who hasn’t set about creating lore around herself.

3. We’re in a different time period. Lagerfeld never designed in the age of TikTok, where people earn clout through honesty as much as, if not more so, than access.

Chanel is a private company that makes available limited financial information. The brand’s estimated annual sales are $15 billion, and the brand has been raising handbag prices staggering amounts under Viard. A medium classic flap bag that cost $5,800 in 2019 (the year Lagerfeld died) now retails for $10,000.

Maybe collections don’t matter since Chanel likely earns the bulk of its revenue from classic items that were invented decades ago. Maybe Viard’s stuff really is selling better in stores (a former Chanel salesperson told me that her collections were more wearable and sold better than Lagerfeld’s). And maybe all that matters for brand equity these days is spendy spectacles. It’s hard to imagine Chanel’s business being thrown off by a few unfortunate prints and one particularly unbecoming blue tracksuit, which is why it should be fine for the media to acknowledge them. But if they can’t, in the long run, it’s hard to imagine established publications being able to compete with independent creators.

To be clear, I think a thriving fashion media with a chorus of authoritative voices is a good thing! But that’s been dissolving for many years now. The truth is, authority in fashion or otherwise is conferred on those with an audience.

What did you think of this collection? I’m so curious to know! Please drop your thoughts in the comments.

This post has been updated since publication to clarify that Chanel makes public limited financial disclosures.