Most people (including my closest friends) aren't aware that
I've been married--more than once. In fact, I've walked down
the aisle so many times with different men (some of them gay,
no less) that I lost track after the first eight or nine...or
was it 10? Even more shocking, perhaps, is that all of these
ill-fated marriages began and ended before I had reached the
tender age of 20. Maybe it's a curse related to having the
same first name as Elizabeth Taylor.
Truth be told, my oft-wedded past is the result of modeling
in more bridal fashion shows in the late '80s than I care
to remember. I've worn countless white- and cream-colored,
scratchy, poufy, lacy bridal gowns, all of which seemed
designed to make me sweat like a hog and stumble in my hated
satin heels. Mosquito-net veils clung to my pasty lipstick
and teamed up with the dress to encourage humiliating wipeouts
by impairing my vision.
Don't even get me started on the trials and tribulations
of cavorting around a makeshift, convention-center runway
like a giant party mint with a pasted-on smile in the latest,
horrific bridesmaid dresses. The only consolation was that
I didn't have to buy the damn things or even pretend I'd
ever wear them again. (Plus, I got to scream "I want a divorce!"
immediately after each show.)
I had a flashback to those days while sitting in the audience
of a bridal fashion show at the Red Lion in Vancouver a
few weekends ago. The show was classier than most, but the
dresses still weren't anything I'd ever wear down the aisle.
They looked fine on the models; some were simple, slim-cut,
backless numbers that shone above anything I wore in shows
10 years ago. But the rhinestones, embroidery, iridescence
and the heels--it all just seemed so, well, ornate,
so fancy, so stiff (the word "gaudy" applied to only
a few cases).
Luckily for girls like me who crave simple yet elegant
style when playing dress-up, local designer Priscilla Burns
is hard at work. In a combination warehouse-retail space
in Southeast Portland, she's putting together a line of
formal wear that's refreshingly different from most. I took
a peek at the fruits of her labor during a recent visit.
The graduate of L.A.'s Chouinard Art Institute and former
swimwear designer for Speedo and Jantzen set up shop here
last spring to start work on a formal wear line she's been
envisioning for years. She put her plans on hold when an
unexpected flurry of custom bridal-gown orders came her
way over the spring and summer months. Now she's making
her vision a priority again, sewing prototypes for the collection
she hopes to sell to stores, over the Internet and out of
her retail space.
Burns describes her style as "gourmet dressing with a historic
twist"; in other words, specialty pieces reminiscent of
specific eras. The white, early 1800s-inspired, empire-waist
gown pinned on a dress form the day I visited is a perfect
example (think French Revolution). It's simple, trip-proof,
non-poufy and elegant. Even more appealing is a bias-cut,
'30s-style, lingerie-look satin dress with a soft flower
print ($52) that made me long for summer wedding invitations.
A mossy green, satin-backed number reminiscent of the same
era ($159) could be my substitute if I get invited to a
whole slew of weddings. Then again, these dresses would
be appropriate for any swanky occasion.
Unfortunately, only a handful of Burns' dresses are currently
available at her store as she focuses on building the whole
line, in addition to doing custom-design work. She's hoping
to coordinate with an Indian manufacturer to have some of
the pieces fashioned from gorgeous sari fabrics. But a few
pieces that she has brought in from other companies are
consolation in the meantime. Two styles of Gatsby-era beaded
ivory dresses ($99 and $159, also in black) with matching
slips ($66) have been snatched up by brides, their mothers
and old-time car collectors over the past several months.
If I'm ever ready to tie the knot and opt for something
other than jeans, I'm calling Priscilla Burns.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally
published February 9,
2000
|
