Perhaps raising more questions than it answers, Liberty Ross' film ‘Cut’ takes the most visceral approach to answering the Political Fashion brief yet. Starring Ross herself as both protagonist and product, the film draws attention to the true costs of modern luxury.
View this blog entry >Even though it's called Blood Diamond I doubt this is a specific reference to the type of injustice shown in the movie of the same name.
Don't the major diamond purchasers get their sources from UN-monitored supplies now? Or are there incentives to 'cheat' this system? Anyone?
The other title is 'Cut' - the luxury items cutting into the skin doesn't need much spelling out does it?
Visually, it's really arresting.
I am not entirely sure what liberty and rupert wanted to say in this film, BUT I feel it's the absence of explanation and consequentially the absence of tub-thumping didactics that give the film its incredible visceral strength. As a visual, rather than intellectual, statement, it's one of the strongest things I've seen in a long time, with distinct echoes of those Baily/PETA anti-fur advertisements from the late-80s - remember the bleeding fur fashion show (Jean-Paul Gaultier evidently doesn't)?
Politics with feeling is usually bloody. Ross presents herself as product: consumable, consuming and ultimately consumed. There are definite echoes of the concept of vampiristic consumption of the female image within fashion magazine too... but maybe I'm over-considering a primarily visual message?
The film is also achingly beautiful, I feel. one of my favourites.
love,
Alex.
