While not ostensibly about the place of women in contemporary society, the images of Unzipped represent the tension and dichotomy of two extreme conceptions of women: the hyper-feminine sex object, and the successful, masculine career-women. The film unfolds through the male gaze, violates the space between public and private, legitimates female subjugation, and upholds stereotypes of both extreme conceptions of "women." The camera's view of attractive females makes them sex objects by its leering, sexual viewpoint. The opening clip depicts a woman pulling a dress over her pantied buttocks. The camera focuses on the blond smiling reporter when she questions Isaac about the theme of his show, instead of his reply. It objectifies the female body by explicitly focusing on body parts such as navel, feet, and breasts, rather than the human face. This lack of respect displays the core value of females in a patriarchal society to be sexual in nature. The title alludes to a scene of Isaac unzipping a woman's outfit all the way under her crotch. The unconscious thrust of the film is the male control over female sexual depictions.Males have a public business role and an unarticulated private one, whereas the film consistently shows the models' familial or social lives intruding on their professional lives. In Naomi Campbell's first fitting, Isaac teases her about her engagement. During the second fitting, she receives a social phone call. A model complains in an interview about her husband waiting for her at home, and behind the scenes at the show, the camera focuses on Cindy Crawford talking with partner Richard Gere. The most blatant violation of public and private spheres is the scrim the models change behind at the show, sexualizing their work. The audience sees the chaos, quick changes and naked bodies that are not typically intended for the public. Even while Isaac is asking the women if they would mind being seen in a bra and underwear for the show, the camera captures them in exactly these garments for the film. Ostensibly for artistic effect, the scrim and the chosen clips for the film add to the unstable nature of women in the work force.The film legitimates the subjugation of women in several ways. Isaac wonders how much it costs to book the "girls." Later, he says he's not suggesting that they be seen changing; he doesn't "give a sh*t if they want to do it, because they are gonna have to." The fact that his wishes prevail displays the male power to force women to conform to social or economic pressure. By not crediting the models as they appear on screen, the producers objectify and dehumanize them. When the viewer sees two people ripping a woman on the floor between them to remove her high-heeled boots, it's symbolic of her social struggle for equality, torn between two male conceptions of her.Male stereotypes of women tend towards the two extremes of sex kitten or professional woman. Eartha Kitt tells a story of how Orson Welles bit her neck and pushed her aside "like a little mouse." Making cat sounds, she emphasizes the animalistic, sexual nature of her undulating body. Naomi's nipples show through her tee-shirt while she wears the jacket of a beast; she's eroticized while looking like an animal. The sex kitten, embodied by the models, is also concerned about appearances. Backstage, the camera captures hair being curled, makeup being applied, and the pain of eyebrow-tweezing. When an interviewer asks a model about the difficulties of being glamorous, her work is framed in terms of appearance... while the camera focuses on Isaac working under her skirt, reminding the viewer she is a sexual object. The models themselves are vocal about their concerns. Cindy Crawford says, "you're a little close. My pores are not that small." Linda Evangelista screeches, "I must be out of my f*cking mind undressing next to the two best bodies in the business." Here we see concern about body image and appearances, and a reference to other women as bodies, a clear example of the subjugation of the female to a patriarchal order. The navels and bare breasts reveal more about the women's bodies, and public depictions of them, than the clothes Isaac has fashioned to cover them.On the other extreme, emasculated, professional women may be seen as the positive standard of the new woman to which all media should aspire. Whereas the models have no cited names, the professionals have a title when they appear on-screen. Supposedly, they earn respect from the camera that views each of them as a person not a body; however, these successful women are denied independence, as they are always in the frame with Isaac. The professionals are also stripped of all femininity. Polly Mellon, Candy Pratt and Sandra Bernhard all have gruff sounding voices and wear man-tailored shirts and suit jackets. They co-opt the male power system to gain respect and take away the threat of women in the work force. They are denied a gendered identity, even while they are still denied complete equality with men. They are seen on the phone, eating or talking, never behind a desk like Isaac. Successful women gain respect, but not to the extent that they are feminine.This is no longer a film about fashion, or even a look behind the scenes of a show, but rather a portrayal of women. Nina asks Isaac why he distracts the audience with a scrim, because the clothes look so good. Its real purpose is to access the models' bodies, having nothing to do with fashion design. Women are either viewed as sexual objects, or men in women's bodies, both of these depictions narrow and incomplete. The sign systems for fashion and female identity become entangled and inseparable. Through the camera's male gaze, the violation of public and private, and the advocacy of stereotypes, women continue to be devalued and unjustly portrayed.

OK - so i decided to rent this because i get such a kick out of watching Isaac on his show. he's so funny and witty and entertaining - he could be that proverbial entertaining phone-book- reader. but the thing about this movie that is really so great and wonderful is not the "insider's look into the fashion world" or the "glimpses of stunning supermodels" or whatever - but rather the fact that this movie documents something rarely shown: how the creative process works, from the initial idea or spark, where it comes from and how it's developed (for Isaac - from movies and music - anything in the culture - and then he starts drawing and chatting about his ideas with family, friends and colleagues to develop it), all the way to making that idea into something tangible and concrete (and really, what i appreciate about what the movie shows, is how such a seemingly abstract or novel "idea" can be developed into an entire fashion collection). i study architecture, and the parallels are absolutely there for anyone in any creative or design field. i gave it a 9 out of 10 only because i wish it had been longer. PLUS another benefit of the movie: you get to see/hear Isaac play the piano. so fun. and his mother is a hoot! plus i really loved seeing a few of the really great style arbiters - Polly Mellen, Candy Pratts, Ingrid Sischy - on film. wish Andre Leon Talley had said more. and it was so fun to see mark morris and Sandra Bernhardt too! all in all a fabulous film for anyone in or interested in the creative and design fields.

Isaac Mizrahi is what he is. I really don;t think he let his defenses down enough for this, although it seems that way at times. The film does not go far enough into the creative process, but it really makes up for that as showtime approaches. His co-workers are more interesting than the models, although they all seem to genuinely like working with the designer. The music adds much to the introspective yet whimsical tone of the film, and during the fashion show it really livens things up. I wish there were a soundtrack available. Put it this way, if you are interested in fashion or Mizrahi himself as a celebrity, you will like this, if neither is the case, you'll hate it.

I have seen few movies as ridiculously shallow and pretentious as this movie with the exception of maybe Jawbreaker or Titanic. Mizrahi is mistaken to think that his personality is enough to carry an entire film. We are subjected to bad singing and bizarre dance moves. He shows off his primadona authority by courageously demanding that a skrim be placed at one of his shows to reveal the models change clothes. This somehow makes him a pioneering innovator. The concept of a documentary about a fashion designer working on a collection is a great idea, but Mizrahi wants to show off his character and his connections. At times he shows us the various sources of his inspiration, but that doesn't seem to be the primary focus of the film. That primary focus is the rantings and ravings of a self-centered fool.