《龙凤配》是一部由比利·怀尔德执导，亨弗莱·鲍嘉 / 奥黛丽·赫本 / 威廉·霍尔登主演的一部喜剧 / 剧情 / 爱情类型的电影，文章吧小编精心整理的一些观众的影评，希望对大家能有帮助。

　　《龙凤配》影评(一)：电影是橱窗：时尚如何以电影兜售“时尚”

研究生课程论文，引用请注明作者Yayi Mo
Film as a showcase, character as a mannequin: a Givenchy/Hepburn case study examining the interconnections of fashion and film
It is difficult to define fashion, for it often has a fascinating yet perplexing aura. Fashion is “intriguing and compulsive” (Craik, 1993, p1), but also is “arbitrary, transient, cyclical” (Baudrillard, 1998, p101), like Pandora’s box, filled with colours, fabrics and adornments, entangled with dress, clothing and style (Edwards, 2011, p1). As a category of discourse, fashion has social, psychological as well as filmic significance.
From the early twentieth century through the present day, film has been used as a vehicle to sell fashion and its connotations: elite ideologies, consumerist habits and lifestyles. Begins from 1910s, fashion film has developed from the primitive non-narrative catwalk show film to the storylines-based feature film (Bruzzi, 1997, p4). Ever since then, more and more haute couture designers started to enter the Hollywood film industry, such as Coco Chanel’s design for Palmy Days (1931), which has enriched and also complicated the interconnections between fashion and films (Bruzzi, 2010, p333) and has raised the questions about the differences between costume and haute couture design, and the relation between clothing and narrative in fashion films.
Stars and fashion icons effect is another widespread phenomenon of fashion film emerged during 1930s-50s. From the silent era to classic sound era, films especially Hollywood never stopped creating stars and icons to attract the audience. With the rise of fashion films, stars become more magical and powerful. “With stars, the fashion form shines in all its glory” (Kawamura, 2004, p57). The fashion stars were donning the most fashionable clothing designed by couturiers, and the icons-designers partnerships lead the fashion trend, they tell the audiences what to wear and what to desire. In addition to the significant collaborations between Adrian with Greta Garbo (Bruzzi, 2010, p334), and Grace Kelly’s association with Dior’s New Look (Andersson, 2012), in 1950s, there was the successful and distinguishing partnership between Paris couturier Hubert de Givenchy and Hollywood fashion icon Audrey Hepburn, which has “changed everything” (Bruzzi, 2010, p334). From the flawless Parisian wardrobe in both Sabrina (1954) and Funny Face (1957), to the little black dress (which created a fever of bateau necklines LBDs and even has its own Wikipedia page) in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961), Givenchy’s design for Hepburn in fashion films created a globe fashion trend, which demonstrates that fashion designers and icons has used films as a means to showcase their design and influence the in- and off-screen world.
The Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations not only play a distinguishing role in the historical development of fashion film but also have the sociological significance. In The Fashion System and The Language of Fashion, Roland Barthes dissects the semiology of clothing and fashion, he points out not only the linguistic nature of clothing but also social and cultural forms, which has been extended and developed by Baudrillard in The Consumer Society. According to Baudrillard, the logic of consumption is ‘a manipulation of signs’ (p115) and ‘the finest object’ in the consumer package is the body (p130). Baudrillard’s assertion can be exemplified by the film works of Givenchy and Hepburn. That is to say, these Givenchy style dresses are, in essence, the commodity signs and the body of Hepburn is used to establish and reinforce the ideologies and values of fashion.
This essay uses Givenchy and Hepburn collaboration as case study, in section one, I anaylse in detail Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, namely Sabrina, Funny face and Breakfast at Tiffany’s, in the context of the historical development of fashion films during 20th century, and raise the following questions: what are the differences between costume and couture design？ And what is the relation between clothing and narrative in fashion films？ In section two, I explore the relationships between costume and characters, and also the interconnections between fashion stars and female spectators through the examination of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations. Ultimately this essay will focus specifically on the interaction between fashion and films, to demonstrate that during the course of the 20th century fashion films have become a showcase, with characters (especially female characters) as mannequins, to display adornments, dress and brands and sell to the spectators the most valuable commodity sign: fashion.
Section one: Film as a showcase
Clothing and narrative
The first met between Givenchy and Hepburn is quite interesting. Back in 1953, the twenty-six-year-old Paris couturier Hubert de Givenchy received a phone call that ‘Miss Hepburn’ would come to meet him about costumes for a Hollywood film Sabrina. When Audrey Hepburn showed up in his workshop dressing a knotted T-shirt and wearing flat sandals, Givenchy did not know this Hollywood actress would become his lifelong muse. As he recalls, he was busy preparing his new collection therefore had no time design clothing for her, but Hepburn had ‘impeccable sense of style’ and picked the perfect dresses for herself from his collection (Beyfus, 2015). This romantic encounter between a girl and a Paris wardrobe recalls the fairytale narrative of sartorial transformation in Sabrina as well as Funny Face – both are famous Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations.
There are striking narrative similarities between Sabrina and Funny Face. Firstly, they both depict a Cinderella-esque woman’s sartorial transition. Sabrina is about the title character (Audrey Hepburn) starts as a frumpy, plain chauffeur’s daughter, after two years sojourn in Paris, transforms into a soignée sophisticate, and similarly, Funny Face is about an ‘ugly duckling’, pedantic bookstore assistant Jo Stockton (Audrey Hepburn) transformed by a fashion magazine into a glamorous, elegant Parisian mannequin. Secondly, in both films, the Cinderella-like characters find their Princess Charming after the sartorial makeover. Lastly, the city Paris, the sacred land of fashion, functions as an important contributor to their sartorial transformation in both two films.
Though some film scholars might argue that the motif of such Cinderella tale is ‘the potential for upward mobility through work, education and/or marriage’ (Moseley, 2002), in Sabrina and Funny Face, the glorious transformation of Sabrina and Jo is achieved not through hardships but rather a whole Paris wardrobe. The evident irony within film narrative in Sabrina is that, the reason why Sabrina goes to Paris is to attend the cooking school, and yet she has no chance to show her cooking skill in the entire film. We can only see her physical transformation and ascent but not have a clue about her improvement of the inner abilities. In other words, her distinguishing quality is not ‘the self’ but the stunning clothing she wears. “What she wears” makes “what she is”.
There is always a main function of film costume: characterization. Jane Gaines (1990, p180) examines, dress can tell characters’ stories, especially woman’s story. For example, the Hollywood costume designer Edith Head is famous for her “storytelling wardrobes” which is based on the traditional cinema costumer’s formula. According to the Hollywood conventional costume design, costume is always seen as a subordinate element of mise-en-scene in the film narrative. Although encourage attention to costume, filmic analyses always associate costumes with mise-en-scene, characters and narrative, but not the dress or clothing per se (Gibson, p36). Costumes, as well as other significant formal elements of mise-en-scene, serve the higher purpose of narrative and characters (Gaines, p181). The classic Hollywood cinema sticks to the costume design code, as Alice Evans Field once said, “clothes must be harmonized to be the mood, add subtly to the grace of the wearer, …must enhance the rhythmic flow of the story. Never must they call undue attention to themselves”. That is to say, costume should remains secondary to character and narrative; otherwise it may constitute a threat to the narrative. Similarly, the Hollywood director George Cukor contended that the ideal costume was the one that most “perfectly suited the scene” and if the costume “knocked your eye out”, it would “interrupt the scene or even the entire film” (ibid: p195). In a word, in traditional Hollywood costumer’s formula, costume should functions as a servant of narrative and character.
However, in cinema history, costume is not always subordinated to narrative. According to Gaines (p203), costume designers devoted their “wildest visions and most outrageous whims” into clothes design of the melodramas produced by the major studio, during the particular periods, namely the 1920s to the1950s. Due to the distinguishing genre traits of melodrama, the costume can exceed the strict boundaries of period clothes and social class. Additionally, there was also an increasingly complex phenomenon related to traditional costume design in this period. With the development of fashion films, more and more haute couture designers were involved in Hollywood narrative fashion cinema, such as Coco Chanel’s design for Palmy Days, and Givenchy’s collaboration with Hepburn, which has complicated the interconnections between traditional costume design and haute couture design.
Sabrina, one of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, won the Academy Award for best costume design, and Edith Head, the costume designer of this film, took all the credit. There is an issue of authorship of the clothes worn by Hepburn in in this woman’s sartorial transition film. While Edith Head was responsible for the pre-transition costume design, couturier Givenchy was given the stunning Parisian wardrobe for Sabrina (Bruzzi, 2004, p6). Unlike Edith Head’s traditional “storytelling wardrobes”, Givenchy’s haute couture design has a distracting, disruptive potential to film narrative. In the case of Sabrina, there is nothing more surreal than the personal Parisian wardrobes of a chauffeur’s daughter. That is to say, traditional costume designers like Edith Head tend to choose a “safer style” to suit the characters and narrative, whereas couture designer like Givenchy might prioritises costume over the narrative, though it could distract the spectators from the film story. The divergence between Edith Head and Givenchy became a symbol of the differentiation of traditional costume designer and haute couture designer (Bruzzi, 2004, p5). Unlike the former, whose clothes designs are “in middle of the road in terms of the current fashion trends” (Head, 1983, p97 quoted from Bruzzi), couturiers are seen as agents of fashion, and make contributions in creating a style and defining the items as fashionable.
The couturiers label is the most distinguishing feature of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, while compares to other ‘makeover chick flicks’ such as Pretty Woman (1990). The haute couture designer label is equivalent to the artist’s signature, which can be distinguished from other couture and non-couture design. The studio-designed dresses in Pretty Woman “are homogenized” (ibid: p15). However, in Sabrina, the stunning embroidered organza evening gown is an embodiment of the Givenchy style, the fashion trend and Paris. It shows up in the ball scene, interrupting the film narrative and to solicit an attentive gaze. In case of Funny Face, similarly, Givenchy’s flawless haute couture design for Hepburn has the inherently spectacular quality in the rags-to-riches narrative. It does not aim to “suit” the protagonist (who initially is a bookish store assistant) but rather functions as an attraction and a visual spectacle in its own right. Apart from these two films, clothing functions even more independently of narrative and character in Breakfast at Tiffany. The publicity for this film was that “Miss Hepburn is a fashion show herself” (Moseley, 2002, p41). In a word, the couture costume is not longer subservient to film narrative and characters, but plays a more intrusive role in fashion films, pausing the flow of narrative.
Male gaze and female gaze
Sabrina begins with a ball scene takes place in the Larrabee estate. Sabrina, a British chauffeur’s daughter, is hiding outside and longing for the world she does not belong. When David Larrabee, the man she desires for, is going out from the ball to meet a nameless young girl at a secret rendezvous, Sabrina jumps down and attracts his attention. He stops, quickly and simply says, “it’s you Sabrina, I thought I heard somebody” and immediately goes away. Sabrina mumbles to herself, “no, it’s nobody.” Indeed, to this wealthy libertine, the frumpy, plain chauffeur’s daughter is invisible. In contrast, there is the second Larrabee ball scene when Sabrina returns back from Paris smartly dressed the Parisian wardrobe designed by Givenchy. Dressing in the embroidered organza evening gown, Sabrina becomes the centre of attention. And most importantly, she gains the attentive gaze of her Princess Charming. The two contrasting attitude toward Sabrina demonstrate that the sartorial transition is associated with the acquisition of certain kinds of femininity and hence the acquisition of the Prince’s gaze. From a pubescent chauffeur’s daughter to an adult with femininity, Sabrina’s transformation takes place chiefly through a variation of clothes.
The iconic clothes are significant means of the acquisition of femininity as well as the transition of social status. In Sabrina’s pre-transformation period, there is a clear social distinction between Sabrina and David Larrabee, which has indicated by the initial scene in which she is upset about David’s disregard, but her father talks to her that, “I want you to marry a chauffeur like me”, and “don’t reach for the moon”, which demonstrates their social distinction. However, in the latter part of the film, the iconic dress designed by Givenchy has blurred the social distinction between Sabrina and the Larrabees –the upper social groups. In The Language of Fashion, Roland Barthes (2006, p22) points out the social psychology of clothing and asserts that clothing function as a signifier of social distinctions. In the case of Sabrina, the flawless dress (or rather “fashion” per se) provides possibilities for the protagonist to change her social identity and also enhances her social position. From Cinderella to Cinderella with a beautiful dress, her social class has not changed, she is still the chauffeur’s daughter, yet she can attend the upper-class ball which she can only stay outside when she was wearing the frumpy clothing or rather “without a beautiful dress”, and she also succeeds in wooing the young master of the prominent Larrabee that used to be “the moon” she can never reach for.
From invisibility to the acquisition of the Prince’s gaze, Sabrina’s change of physical appearance raises a question of “looking”. Unlike Laura Mulvey’s male gaze theory, Sabrina is not depicted as an erotic object for the male characters to view. Instead, she is represented as a feminine ideal of fashion for female spectators to look at. She is a woman’s star, “classy, not sexy” (Moseley, 2002, p48). Moseley (2002, p40) argues that Sabrina as well as Hepburn’s other fashion films are, in essence, a complex statement of fashion and beauty, which produces “a gendered attractionist aesthetic” and also provides an intimate space for female spectator. In this space, the film shows the details of clothes and fashionable style to attract female gaze. A striking example is the moment when she arrives at Long Island from Paris that the film reveals her as “the most sophisticated woman at Glen Cove Station”. This is a visual glorification of Sabrina’s transformation: the camera details her sophisticated figure, including her elegant pose, the Parisian suit, ornaments. This revealing scene therefore creates a space for female gaze, as Moseley argues, this space allows and encourages the female spectators to read the details of the dress (2002, p42). Another example of female gaze is the opening sequence in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Accompanied by the theme music, this moment portrays Hepburn’s elegant image, not necessarily for the gaze of male characters or male spectators, but rather to encourage the female gaze. Especially when the camera captures the cutaway, crescent-shaped details on the back of her dress, as if to invite the female spectators to detail reading the dress and to admire the fashion and style. In a word, the Hepburn and Givenchy collaborations are in essence a discourse of fashion and feminine culture, and they provide a space or rather open up a fashion showcase for female spectators to look at.
City and fashion
Paris is not only the capital city of France but also the undisputed capital of high fashion. As Gertrude Stein wrote in Paris, France (1940), “Paris was where the twentieth century was. It was important too that Paris was where fashions were made” (quoted from Joannou, 2012, p473). This fashion capital of the world is powerfully associated with haute couture, which can be traced back to the nineteenth century (Steele, 1998). Haute couture has enjoyed the status and prestige commensurate with high art (Joannou, 2012) and also signifying the Western sophistication.
Hollywood invents a formula for representing France in the Cinderella makeover films. In both Funny Face and Sabrina, as the sacred land of fashion, Paris functions as an important contributor to the female protagonists’ sartorial transformation. In Sabrina, Paris has powerfully associated with fashion and specifically denoting the European sophistication (Moseley, 2002, p40). Similarly, Funny Face also takes place within a Parisian fashion setting. However, unlike Sabrina, this film has an ambivalent attitude to the city. On the one hand, it satirizes the hyper-feminine Parisian ‘New Look’ fashion (Cantu, 2015, p23) especially in the ending sequences when the Quality Magazine fashion show is destroyed by Jo and thus in a complete mess. The film also mocks the other cultural aspect of Paris –Existentialist philosophy, which spoofed as “Empathicalism” in film (Cantu, 2015). On the other hand, Funny Face worships the Parisian style as well as the haute couture fashion, and admires the cultural landscape of Paris. A musical number performed by Jo (Hepburn), the fashion photographer Dick Avery (Fred Astaire), and the editor of a leading fashion magazine Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson) shows their respective desire and admiration of Paris.
Section two: character as a mannequin
Clothing and body
In addition to the interactions between clothing and narrative, Hepburn and Givenchy collaboration also raises a question about the relation between clothing and body. In The Body and Society, Turner (1985, p1) notes that human beings “have bodies and they are bodies”. Entwistle (2000, p323) adds a prominent point to the relation between bodies and dresses that “human bodies are dressed bodies”. Indeed, body and clothing are constantly and intimately connected: while the body gives life to the clothing, the clothing works on the body with social identity and meanings (Twigg, 2013, p6). Barthes prioritises human body over the clothing, in his words, “It is not possible to conceive a garment without the body… the empty garment, without head and without limbs (a schizophrenic fantasy), is death” (1973, p107 quoted from Bruzzi, 2004, p31). However, fashion has complicated and enriched the relation between clothing and body. In The Consumer Society, Jean Baudrillard (1998, p196) asserts the finest object in the consumer society is the body:
its omnipresence (specifically the omnipresence of the female body, a fact we shall have to try to explain) in advertising, fashion and mass culture; the hygienic, dietetic, therapeutic cult which surrounds it, the obsession with youth, elegance, virility/femininity, treatments and regimes, and the sacrificial practices attaching to it all bear witness to the fact that the body has today become an object of salvation. It has literally taken over that moral and ideological function from the soul.
 (Baudrillard 1998, p196)
As Bruzzi (2004, p30) has argues, the interconnection and interaction between clothes and body are essential to fashion. Hepburn’s sartorial transition films, for example, do not prioritise body over clothes but rather emphasise the value of clothes themselves. In these Cinderella fantasies, Sabrina, Funny Face as well as Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Hepburn’s slim body suggests the mannequin in department stores, which is perfect for looking at and consuming. In the case of Sabrina, the protagonist remains invisible when she was wearing the plain, regular clothes but only after she has dressed the couture costume can she receive the male characters’ looking-at-ness. Likewise, Jo’s body remains “absent” when she was wearing the bookish outfits, she is noticed only because her “funny face”. That is to say, only after donning the clothing, Sabrina and Jo acquire femininity as well as the male and female gaze. In other words, the clothing makes their bodies alive. More specifically, In Funny Face, Jo is modeling the special collection designed for her in Paris, and the fashion magazine photographer captures her in freeze frames, pausing the flow of narrative and making these moments purely iconic. This display has clearly engaged the spectators’ attention in the dresses and Paris attractions, but not in Hepburn’s body. The body of Hepburn is rather used as a mannequin to display the dress and thus establishes and reinforces the ideologies and values of fashion.
Stars and self image
As is stated above, with the rise of fashion films, the icons-designers partnership becomes more magical and powerful. As fashion agents, stars and fashion designers lead the fashion trend, and tell the audiences what to wear and what to desire. They not only play a significant role in fashion film history but also influence the on- and off-screen world. Before the discussion, let us first take a look at the above-mentioned story about Hepburn’s first met with Givenchy, that she knew exactly what she want and picked the perfect dresses for herself from a whole new Paris wardrobe. This story can be read as a symbol of the establishment of Hepburn’s iconic fashion figure. Ernest Lehman, the screenwriter of Sabrina, has pointed out the significance of the “Sabrina’s look”:
The way Audrey looked in Sabrina had an effect on the roles she later played. It’s fair to say that if she had never gone to Paris she wouldn’t have had that role in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. The Sabrina clothes fixed her image forever.
(quoted from Collins, 1995)
The close association between fashion designer and star not only has defined the sartorial image of Sabrina, Jo or Holly Golightly in fashion cinemas, but more importantly, it blurs the distinction between fairytale narrative of transformation and reality per se and thus establishes Audrey Hepburn’s on- and off-screen persona.
Both in the big screen and the reality life, Hepburn is established as the embodiment of fashion, and thus becomes a perfect figure to be commodified. The most appealing part of this ‘Hepburn met Givenchy’ story to the reader (especially the female) is “she got the clothes right”. As is stated above in section one, fashion is powerfully associated with the attainment of feminine ideals and spectatorial gaze, that is to say, once you got your clothing right you establish your femininity and build your image. The on- and off-screen image of Hepburn strongly affects the female spectators. According to Moseley’s audience studies on Hepburn's ongoing appeal for young British women from the 1950s to the l990s (2002, p48), a female interviewee remembers specially the Hepburn’s style in My Fair Lady and expresses an admiration of her gloves, bags and shoes displayed in the film. In Stardom and Celebrity, Stacey (2007, p315) examines that the female spectators are closely connected with Hollywood film stars in 1940s and 1950s through the commodity consumption:
Female spectators remember Hollywood stars through their connection with particular commodities and the ways in which they were worn or displayed. Typically, this association is made in relation to clothes, hairstyle, make-up and cosmetics, and other fashion accessories. It is the commodities associated with physical attractiveness and appearance that are especially remembered in connection with female stars.
(Stacey 2007, p317)
Therefore, designers and stars function as diffusion agents of the fashion and showcase their commodity images and design labels and brands through fashion films. The musical number “Think Pink” in Funny Face offers a striking example of the fashion diffusion. Maggie, the fashion Godmother of a leading fashion magazine, announces “pink” has become the new fashion gospel. The “think pink” slogan pushes pink as a woman’s colour and thus convinces the female spectators to embrace their femininity. As Maggie sings, “I wouldn’t presume to tell a woman what a woman ought to think, but tell her if she’s gotta think, think pink”, the fashion magazine functions as persuasive agent to tell female readers (also consumers) what to think and what to purchase. Additionally, the protagonist Jo, who is initially an anti-fashion “empathicalist”, then turns into a fashion model by the magazine, and “finally becoming fully commodified” (Cantu, 2015, p25), which implicitly demonstrates the power and the danger of fashion agents’ manipulation of female consumers.
Like this satiric musical marketing slogan, fashion also uses films as a means to implicitly sell its connotations to the spectators (largely female): fashion can transform you into a new self with social status and prestige; and after become the one you desire to be, you can find your own princess charming. The consumption of fashion raises another question about the subjectivity of the female spectator. In The Consumer Society, by examining stars or rather the ‘heroes of consumption’ and ourselves (consumers) in detail, Jean Baudrillard asserts that stars mimicry is in essence self-copying:
the celebrity is usually nothing greater than a more publicized version of us. In imitating him, in trying to dress like him, talk like him, look like him, think like him, we are simply imitating ourselves... We look for models, and we see our own image.
(Baudrillard 1998, p196)
Following this line of discussion, it can be argued that female spectators are in a paradoxical position: they are both the objects and subjects of commodity. As Doane asserts that
the cinematic image for the woman is both shop window and mirror, the one simply a means of access to the other. The mirror/ window, then, takes on the aspect of the trap whereby her subjectivity becomes synonymous with her objectification.
 (Doane, 1989, p31)
That is to say, in the process of consuming the commodities (fashion icons and stars), the female spectator prepares to be “consumed” herself. According to Stacey (2007, p314), the female spectator play the combining role of a spectator as well a consumer; they tend to the fashion image in the big screen and consume the stars and ultimately produce the self as an object of the male gaze.
Conclusion
To conclude, from the early catwalk show to narrative-based, fashion film has been use as a vehicle to showcase the fashion and consumer imagery. By using the Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations as a case study, this essay explore the differences between traditional costume design and haute couture design and also examines the relation between narrative and clothes in fashion cinemas. The essay also examines the importance of the Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations within the historical development of fashion films and argues that Givenchy’s designs for Hepburn not only play a distinguishing role in filmic history but also have the sociological significance. By establishing Hepburn’s on- and off- screen images, they have influenced the female spectators.
To examine how has film been used as a showcase for fashion and consumer imagery, I conduct a detailed analysis research method of the Givenchy and Hepburn case study, and bring together materials and scholarship including fashion theories and consumption studies. The text-focused method is useful with regard to the limited investigation of Givenchy and Hepburn collaborations, however, if future research will be undertaken I would seek to use a broader range of approach such as audience studies. It is worth exploring how the audiences (especially female) view and interpret the fashion films in their own ways in relation to their own social and political agendas.
 
References
Andersson, T., 2012. Fashioning the fashion princess: Mediation transformation stardom, Journal of AESTHETICS & CULTURE, Vol. 4
Baudrillard, J., 1998. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, London: Sage
Beyfus, D., 2015. Hubert de Givenchy: My relationship with Audrey Hepburn was 'a kind of marriage' [online] available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11731823/Hubert-de-Givenchy-My-relationship-with-Audrey-Hepburn-was-a-kind-of-marriage.html
Bruzzi, S., 2004. Undressing Cinema: Clothing and Identity in the Movies. London and New York: Routledge
Cantu, M., 2015. ‘Clothes make an awful difference in a girl’: Mlle. Modiste, Irene and Funny Face as Cinderella fashion musicals, Studies in Musical Theatre, 9(1)
Craik, J., 1993. The Face of Fashion, Cultural Studies in Fashion. London and New York: Routledge.
Collins, A. F., 1995. When Hubert Met Audrey. [online] available at: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2014/02/audrey-hepburn-givenchy-style
Edwards, T., 2011. Fashion in Focus: Concepts, Practices and Politics. London and New York: Routledge.
Entwistle, J., 2000. Fashion and the Fleshy Body: Dress as Embodied Practice, Fashion Theory, 4(3), 323-347
Gaines, J., 1990. Costume and Narrative: How Dress Tells Woman’s Story, London: Routledge.
Gibson, P. C., 1998. Film costume.
Joannou, M., 2012. ‘All right, I'll do anything for good clothes’: Jean Rhys and Fashion, Women: A Cultural Review, 23(4), 463-489.
Kawamura, Y., 2004. Fashion-ology: an introduction to fashion studies. Berg.
Moseley, R., 2002. Growing up with Audrey Hepburn. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Moseley. R., 2002. Trousers and Tiaras: Audrey Hepburn, a Woman's Star, Feminist Review, 71, 37-51. Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals.
Mulvey, L., 1989. Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Stacey, J., 2007. With Stars in Their Eyes: Female Spectators and the Paradoxes of Consumption, in: Stardom and Celebrity: A Reader, ed. Sean Redmond，Su Holmes
Roland, B., 2006. The Language of Fashion. Oxford: Berg.
Smith, D. M., 2002. Global Cinderella: Sabrina (1954), Hollywood, and Postwar Internationalism, Cinema Journal, 41(4), 27-51. Published by University of Texas Press.
Twigg, J., 2013. Fashion and Age: Dress, the Body and Later Life. London: Bloomsbury Academic
Valerie, S., 1998. Paris Fashion: A Cultural History. 2nd ed. Oxford: Berg. [online] available at: http://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/clothing-around-world/paris-fashion
Valerie, S., 2010. The Berg Companion to Fashion. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

　　《龙凤配》影评(二)：记忆中的你固然很好，但身边的更好

  放在现在来讲，故事情节稍稍有点偏向玛丽苏。蜕变之后，当初喜欢的人注意到自己，连带着商业奇才也爱上她。但和玛丽苏狗血剧不一样的是，女主没有白莲花一脸无辜样，男主也没有霸道总裁。
 去巴黎学习烹饪，在各个方面都是极差的，和蔼的老人一眼就看出她的感情不顺。环境再加上他人开导，她的眼界格局早已不是当初那个小姑娘所能比拟的了。有了气质，学会了穿搭，更是身披优雅，所以，往常忽略她的戴维一眼就注意到她却认不出她。
 当初远如月亮的人主动接近自己，足以让她乐到九霄云外去了。以戴维哥哥的身份，莱纳斯和她乘帆船出海，去看歌剧电影，一起吃饭共舞。相处之下，发现了一个与平时不一样的莱纳斯：之前的他，带着雨伞公文包，不苟言笑，一个决定就促成百万的生意；但真正的他，有回忆有过深爱的人，也并不是一天到晚只会做生意，也曾质疑过自己。
 替他掖帽子的那天，遇到了戴维，意识到自己可能喜欢上莱纳斯。她让戴维抱她，为她展现日后的美好生活，都是为了把脑海中的莱纳斯赶走。她拒绝和他的约会，却发觉自己没有自作多情。从来都是那样勇敢的她，自然把自己的心思说了出来。
 得不到的东西是最好的，她对戴维就是这样的感情。9岁留下的记忆成了她心中的暗恋，远远观望他的生活，在见到或者见不到他的日子里，觉得他更加美好。这算不上是真正的爱情，他们没有深入地了解过彼此，充其量算是她情窦初开时的寄托吧，戴维亦是出了名的花花公子，她对他的吸引还只停留在外表。
 莱纳斯就不一样了，他们曾长谈，她知道他不为人知的一面，改变了之前对他固化的看法。她第一次进他办公室，十足是一个可爱的姑娘，后来的交流谈心更是慢慢注意到了别的东西。
 她可能比莱纳斯更勇敢一点吧，尽管夹着个戴维，她还是勇敢表白了。莱纳斯的举动，可以理解却也不能理解。他向她坦白，是觉得不能再骗她，这当然含着喜欢的成分，他为她和戴维安排好一切，取消了商业合并计划，这也是因为爱她。那他为什么不勇敢一点，和戴维坦白，他才是那个和她两情相悦站在她身旁的人呢。
 戴维和莱纳斯两人的感情应该胜似很多兄弟的感情吧。不争夺家产，莱纳斯安排好戴维的“工作”，让他安心拿退休金不用像他一样忙忙忙，居然可以不打招呼就拿他的婚事做生意。戴维呢，意识到莱纳斯和莎宾娜两人情感的变化，绅士退出，安排好一切并“帮助”莱纳斯做出真正的决定，同样地，不打招呼就将他们的事登在报纸之上。
 莎宾娜父亲一直以来的观点就是：即使坐在同一部车上，也有前座后座之分，中间还隔着一层玻璃，这就是所谓的阶层。但莎宾娜打破了这层玻璃。

　　《龙凤配》影评(三)：赫本为何是赫本

看龙凤配，是为了看赫本。一直好奇赫本为什么会成为世界级的影星，之前看过一本关于赫本的影评传记，并且写了一篇《赫本为什么会成为赫本》的书评。
今日看来，赫本之所以是赫本，还应其与时代背景联系起来；正如同梦露之所以是梦露。
豆瓣看到一篇影评亦写得有部分道理。赫本高贵优雅，赫本仁慈博爱，作者将赫本成名与珠宝、华服联系起来，是华服、珠宝让世界看见、记住赫本；电影中，同样是华服、中跟鞋、耳环、宠物狗，让大卫看到了萨宾娜。如果萨宾娜还是车库上方的那个萨宾娜，没有到过巴黎、没有玫瑰人生的见识、没有让自己变得更好，又怎么能吸引大卫甚至莱纳斯的注意呢？
是外在让人看见，是内里让人久处不厌

　　《龙凤配》影评(四)：赫本的“玫瑰人生”

2017.5.26.小西天。看经典老电影在于剥开历史环境并一定程度上地剥离当下，诉求人类社会的共同命题。这部片子给我个人带来很好的观感，比利·怀尔德的幽默和奥黛丽赫本的动人，愉悦而感动。爱情主题并非坚不可破，但爱情本身不也是如此么。赫本提着晚礼服走过花园的时候像个精灵，美得沁人心脾，毫无防备地感慨落泪。

进场的时候看到一个老人坐在装置精巧的轮椅上，椅子的位置很偏，在第一排前面靠右的位置，观感会很累。散场时，身边总有人哼着起赫本在片中唱的《玫瑰人生》，心底里也时不时地跟着旋律低吟。走出资料馆，又看到那个老人，看他一个人操控着轮椅，慢慢远去。

　　《龙凤配》影评(五)：很庆幸可以走到你身边，很遗憾没能走进你心里

看赫本的老电影永远都是一种享受，1954年的《龙凤配》虽已过去60多年，但是还是有好多感同身受的情节，是的，单恋的女孩可以卑微到尘土里，是可怜可悲令人心疼的，莎宾娜甚至只能爬到树上偷偷看他每一场party,当她想轻生的时候她留信给爸爸说不要叫大卫来，大卫甚至不会为她而哭，当她身处巴黎有漂亮衣服时，第一个想法是要是大卫看见就好了，她不是没想过放弃，甚至把大卫的照片撕掉但一时的冲动又有什么用还是给爸爸写信要爸爸把透明胶寄给她。我想巴黎的学习对她是有用的，最起码老厨师告诉她不要看起来像一匹“马”，于是两年之后回国的她在车站让大卫认不出来，她变得优雅漂亮。不再是以前那个穿着老土的小女仆。甚至足以让大卫一见倾心，显然大卫喜欢的不是那个土里土气的小女仆，他以前甚至不会多看她一眼，他喜欢的是现在的莎宾娜，打扮时髦漂亮的莎宾娜，甚至对她有说不完的话，甚至忘了自己已经订婚，甚至不怕父亲门第观念的束缚。同时，漂亮的莎宾娜竟也吸引了商业巨亨大卫哥哥的目光，虽然一开始接近莎宾娜是为了让她远离大卫去巴黎从而促成商业联姻，但一段时间相处之后，他和莎宾娜互相爱上了对方，故事的结局就是当莎宾娜只身登上前往巴黎的轮船，他才后知后觉自己已经爱上了她，并追上了莎宾娜。故事左不过是一个麻雀变凤凰的故事，结局也很荒诞，本来爱着大卫的莎宾娜最后爱上了他的哥哥并跟他的哥哥在一起了。不能说莎宾娜开始对大卫的爱不够深，只是我觉得单恋很需要勇气，可能莎宾娜坚持了那么久终于等到那一天，却近情情怯，发现一切跟自己原本向往的并不一样。当她意识到自己跟大卫的哥哥有的很近并已经喜欢上他的时候也挣扎过拒绝过，但爱情就是这么奇妙，甚至一些事没有发生之前你自己都不知道你到底喜欢的是谁。然而让我们回过头来想一想，如果莎宾娜没有去巴黎没有听老厨师的那句话没有开始打扮自己，那么她会不会让兄弟两个为她倾心，我想应该不会，当然也有可能答案是肯定的，但那几率太小了不是吗？任何一个女人，哪怕赫本，穿着女仆的衣服也只能是一个女仆。尽管并非所有女人穿上黑色洋装，包上白色的围巾，一双船型鞋，都会魅力非凡。中国还有句古话“人靠衣装马靠鞍。”没错，灰姑娘没有水晶鞋，王子连正眼都不会看她。爱美之心人皆有之，我想这句话不无道理。最后，愿每一个单恋的女孩都得偿所愿并被温柔以待。

　　《龙凤配》影评(六)：不，是月亮在追着我

比利怀德是个不会让人失望的导演，即使在《龙凤配》这种富家男与小资女终成眷属的cliche故事里，也能依然秉持他那种结合微妙讽喻与恰到好处的幽默的个人风格。在这部50年代的黑白片里，你可以饶有兴致地看着赫本换衣服与谈情说爱，并轻松愉悦地记住那些俏皮而充满智慧的小段落。
“不，是月亮在追着我”
法国归来的Sabrina的气质品位直线上升，当然这个麻雀变凤凰的过程被电影省略了，只见她明眸皓齿，穿戴修身得体的套装与帽子，旁边是精致的行李箱，手里牵着一条贵妇宠物犬。这个姑娘不在乎心上人有未婚妻，并坚信一切都不同了，阶级与婚约都不是问题，她坐在摇椅上开心地说，现在是月亮在追着我。
这是一句气质略高于通俗偶像剧，却又达不到女性觉醒高度的台词。语气之自然，让你会忍不住脑补到底是什么样的经历让她产生了这样的想法。这不失为对女性成熟自信的一种赞美，但后续情节的不匹配，却渐渐让突如其来的魅力失去了应有的锋芒。这种违和感构成了一种讽刺。如果每个人的改变都可以如此轻松和简单，也许如此突兀转变的角色只有高贵美丽的赫本才能让人接受，才能让人忘记独立与成长是个多么漫长艰辛的过程。
“ 我以为我长大了，但可能只是换了个发型而已。 ”
Sabrina通过回国前的书信，展示了自己的成长结果，她说我懂得了不再只作生活的旁观者，学会了如何参与生活，如何做自己。 如果电影将角色停留在这一刻，或者截止于回来后身穿纪梵希光彩照人的那一身行头，我将误以为这种蜕变会来的更彻底些。但新潮的发型与得体的裙子在现实中并不能让灰姑娘顺理成章地成为公主，她必须逃离原本的家园，且不说无缝融入权贵的家族关系，在路上时就要经过马车上颠簸，皇宫里奔跑。而穿平底鞋的赫本天生就是公主，这个角色并未给予她太多挑战的难度，Sabrina不知道自己会爱上什么样的人，念念不忘到巴黎的第一天一定要在大雨中不撑伞的浪漫，会为成熟男人回忆伤痛恋情而心动，轻率地接受邀约，会雀跃，黯然流泪，转身如天鹅般优雅地离开，却依旧有童话的完美结局。
比利怀德很好地照顾到了大众期待皆大欢喜的心态，设置了一些冲突，引申了一点励志，抖了几个包袱，规避了一部分现实，蜻蜓点水般借上一代之口说出了逾越阶级之难，又让适合扮演硬汉的亨弗莱·鲍嘉借角色之口抱怨着身为日理万机的中年企业家，却要和20岁出头的小姑娘谈恋爱这件事的荒谬性。这些小吐槽，连同小觉醒，在玫瑰色的爱情童话里，就像蛋糕上的跳跳糖，有些俏皮的异样，但终于融入甜腻。