The Chicago Tribune discusses
Reese Witherspoon's sartorial disaster at the Golden Globes, where she won Best Actress in a Musical for Walk the Line.
No doubt Reese Witherspoon is still savoring her win at this week's Golden Globes. But her rep's not too thrilled about that old dress she was wearing.
Old dress? Yes, and not as old as Witherspoon reportedly was led to believe, according to the New York Post.
Witherspoon was told her silver-and-white Chanel gown was "vintage," but apparently "vintage" meant 3 years old . . . and worn by Kirsten Dunst at the 2003 Golden Globes after-parties.
Oops.
"I'm not angry," Witherspoon's rep, Nancy Ryder, told the Post, "just a little disappointed. But the big deal is Reese won the Golden Globe."
The used nature of the frock wasn't the only thing wrong with it, according to E! Online. The "Walk the Line" star got it half right with the sequined bodice and strappy sandals, the site opined. But, "her cocktail dress with full skirt is straight out of a '50s sock hop. Too bad her prim and proper bun tips the style scales into the domestic doldrums." Ouch.
Everyone is reporting on this story, but they all seem to be leaving out the most important part: who exactly from Chanel told Reese Witherspoon that her gown was "vintage" when it clearly was not? Why would they do such a thing to her? And even more importantly -- why did they give her such a fugly dress, regardless of whether it was new, used or vintage?
