Admitting you’re wrong is an admirable thing to do. Except when it’s just a form of virtue signaling, as in the case of a new Amazon Prime show.
The show is hosted by Clinton Kelly and Stacy London — two snarky fashionistas who, a decade ago, starred in a TLC show called “What Not to Wear.” They decided it was time for a reboot, or maybe a mea culpa, with a new show.
As Kelly told The New York Times recently, the original show was “us laying down the law, giving people rules and our opinions. Here, we are letting our client share with us their hopes and dreams and style fantasies.”
Kelly explained that in the new version, “We’re much more encouraging than we are judgmental about what they may want to look like.”
It is true that “What Not to Wear” was a judgmental show. People nominated their friends, who were then surprised by Kelly and London. They were offered a whole new wardrobe if they were willing to part with their old one. There was certainly an exploitative element to the show, though no one on the show appeared without their permission. But the message of the show wasn’t just judgment for the sake of judgment.
The participants were usually people who were dressed not just badly but inappropriately. And their attire was preventing them from achieving what they wanted — respect, promotions, dates and so on. They were wearing clothes to work that were meant for a nightclub. They were mothers wearing clothes for their teenagers. Some were wearing clothes that were several sizes too big or too small. They were wearing pajamas to run errands. The goal of the hosts was to get the guest to understand that clothing is not worn in a vacuum. There is a time and a place.
But that was all a mistake, say Kelly and London today.
The first episode of the new show includes the hosts saying “We finally get to do it right this time.” And, “We have to zip it.” And also “teach people to listen to their own internal voice.”
Of course, people will have different taste in fashion, but listening to your own voice is not going to help you, particularly if things are so bad that your friends and family have nominated you to be on the show.
In the first episode there is a woman, Jess, who is dressed younger than her age. But there is nothing about her clothing that would say she can’t be trusted to fit in at work or at a restaurant with her husband. (Kelly and London make their job much easier by picking someone who just wants to find her style and hasn’t taken much time for herself to do so.)
In later episodes they tackle people who want to cross-dress or just dress outrageously.
The old show had people of all different sizes, but for all its judgment, it never engaged in what is known as “fat-shaming.” The hosts were never mean. They simply took people as they were and tried to make them look like better versions of themselves and give them more confidence.
Looking back, “It used to be, ‘Oh, let’s define your waist so that you look taller.’” But in this new view, according to London, “Now we say, ‘Who cares about your waist?’ If you don’t care about flattering, we don’t care about flattering either.”
“What Not to Wear” was a show that was popular and successful. It wasn’t a public service announcement, but it was one of few reminders in the culture at the time that people who want the respect of their families and colleagues and even strangers sometimes have to put in some work that may seem superficial.
Now Kelly and London have thrown that idea out the window because of some idea about how “the world has changed.” Now, according to London they want to help people achieve “their fantasy ideal as opposed to what’s palatable to America.”
Palatable to America? This is where it’s clear that the hosts are trying to make a political statement with their new show. Is America particularly intolerant of the way other people dress? Compared to what? France? Nigeria? Saudi Arabia? It’s a basic fact of human nature that societies create informal dress codes (and formal ones).
As Kelly notes, “Your clothes tell the world something about you before you even open your mouth.” Helping people to craft that message was a useful service. There’s no need to apologize for it.