The Captain scouted the boards for mention of this before posting so if someone has already covered this, lock my ass up. But why isn't the major topic of conversation around here about the major scandal with Reese Witherspoon's dress? Apparently, Reese had to wear Kirsten Dunst's hand me down's from 3 years ago to the Globes and Chanel didn't tell her and now she's all pissed. Man, that has got to be hard on Reese and I am starting a fund right now to buy her a new dress all of her own so she'll never have to borrow clothes again. I've got $1.37 raised and I think I might have $5.00 or $6.00 by the end of the day. If anybody wants to contribute, send some cash my way.

Two things I wonder about this whole situation: 1) Is Reese really upset not because it's the same dress but because Kirsten, according to close sources, never wears underwear and 2) Who was the lucky chick wearing Drew Barrymore's bra?

i'd like to express my sincere grief and sorrow with regards to the reese witherspoon dress tragedy. i think it's an event the world will never forget, though i hope we will one day find the strength to recover, rebuild and move on.



ps: i do not know what the hell was up with the drewbies.

is there a pic of reese?

Hey Captain Chaos, I got some change in my pocket, that should be enough for a spool of thread..Double horror of horrors! Natalie Portman, has suffered the same indignity also.Apparently Debra Messing wore the same strapless black Channel dress in 2001!Here are the offending pics:





from the L.A. times:

Holy merde!

First Reese Witherspoon. Now Natalie Portman?

The still-trembling House of Coco is about to be royally rocked by yet another Golden Globes dress debacle.

Unconfirmed reports are surfacing that Portman’s so-called "vintage" black lace Chanel frock worn to Monday’s Golden Globe Awards is another recent repeat. Embarrassingly, the same strapless Chanel frock may have been worn by Debra Messing to the 12th Annual Glamour Magazine Women of the Year Awards back in 2001.

How could this happen? Is it really the same dress? No clue. And it's too late to reach the Chanel PR folks at this late hour (almost 7 p.m. PST on Thursday).

No doubt they're all home, heavily medicated (two Tylenol PMs) after a horrible day of apologizing to Witherspoon's camp for giving the actress the same dress worn by Kirsten Dunst to the 2003 Globe post parties and calling it vintage.

But if this Portman/Messing report turns out to be accurate, it's fairly safe to say that heads will roll — Marie Antoinette style — soon at Chanel’s corporate headquarters.

Granted, Portman was a only Globes presenter, not the night’s big female Globe winner like Witherspoon. And the fashion pressure is not nearly as hot for presenters as nominees.

But Portman is a former Oscar nominee, an acclaimed dramatic film actress and last year's winner of the best actress in a supporting role (drama) Globe.

Anyway, Debra Messing? Even if it was back when she was still a hot skinny fashion clothes hanger (one baby ago), she’s still just a "TV sitcom star". Let's hope Chanel at least remembered to have the dress dry-cleaned.

Poor Natalie. But also, poor Chanel. Coco must be turning over in her grave. Time will tell if the powerful French design house can stitch up their frayed image by Oscar time. If they can’t, fashion critics will be counting the Oscar Chanel designs on one finger: Nicole Kidman. If she attends.

Quel Scandale! Reese's used gown, Mariah's scary couture — Chanel's major fashion faux pas
Move over. Armani. Chanel made the bigger splash on the red carpet at Monday’s Golden Globe awards. Chanel dresses were spotted on hot young actresses Reese Witherspoon, Emily Mortimer, Natalie Portman and Vanessa Paradis as they strolled the red carpet.

But the House of Coco also made a couple of serious fashion faux pas.


Mariah Carey wore a gown especially designed for her by Chanel's Karl Lagerfeld — a skintight plunging neckline crystal-splattered gown that looked more Mae West than Maison Chanel.

So why was Carey’s name was left off of Chanel’s press release? "Was it left off?," asked Gretchen Gunlocke-Fenton in Chanel's New York fashion public relations office. "That could have been because we're never sure what the actresses will wear until the last minute. And she had several fittings in Los Angeles after she met personally with Karl in Paris."

Oh-kay.

And many in the fashion world are wondering why Witherspoon ended up in a Chanel gown previously worn (horrors!) by Kirsten Dunst. Reportedly, Witherspoon was excited to wear a "vintage" gown by her favorite designer, thinking that “vintage” meant a classic frock worn in some bygone era. She had no idea it was a Dunst redux.

It was only after the Globes that Witherspoon’s camp learned the dress was worn by Dunst to a 2003 Golden Globe Awards party, with her hair done just like Witherspoon's. Yikes.

Chanel issued this statement: "Chanel apologizes for the oversight that Reese Witherspoon's dress was previously worn to a Golden Globes after party three years ago. We are honored that Reese chose to wear Chanel and thought she looked beautiful. We congratulate her on her well-deserved win."

Witherspoon's publicist, Nancy Ryder, has told reporters that she and her other clients will boycott Chanel. And other star's stylists are horrified that this duplication occurred.

“A star in the best actress category should never be seen in a dress that’s been seen before anywhere, even on the runway,” sniffed a top L.A. fashion PR gal. “Most actresses today insist on a couture gown especially made for them."

But considering Carey's cheesy couture creation, maybe Witherspoon was lucky

Awwwww. See? Difference is, Natalie's hot.

Kirsten Dunst without underwear, eh...



what else was it that you said?

I want everybody out there now selling either multiflavored popcorn tin cans or Krispy Kreme donuts so we can raise some money for Reese. Damn it, it's bad enough she has to sleep with that load Ryan Phillipe every night. Now this injustice.

Life is hard.

Speaking of hard, let's look at Drew Boobymore again.

CaptainChaos said:

Damn right, son. I'd like to pollenate her Flower Productions.

Poor, poor Reese!

mrDespues said:

I really don't understand what the big fucking deal is

So what they wear the same dress - there's a stretch of years in between, who cares.

The bigger deal is that the dress is fucking HIDEOUS - that's the tragedy





.
[Edited 1/21/06 4:29am]

Natalie Portman looks stunning!

I'm a huge fan of Reese's pieces.

I'm failing my future wife (after she leaves that load Ryan Phillipe) because I have only raised $4.00 for her new dress. But you know what? Reese's fine ass shouldn't have to rely upon loser fashion companies to make her dresses or, in this case, give her Kirsten Dunst's stained castoffs. No, Reese is creative, she's talented and she is self-reliant. From now on she should just make her own dresses. So I went online and found this:





Reese, tell Chanel to shove it up their asses!

ok...enough about reeses dress,,it was ok,,made her look Flatter than she is though.

My beef is with drew...My grammys boobs look "perkier" than hers!!! HOOLY SH$% drew,,,Buy a fricken support bra!!!

Just do it!!! You are so much prettier than that~

More proof of just how stunningly materialistic people are. The shock! The horror! The humiliation of wearing 2nd hand goods!






I still can't believe that anyone took this "scandal" seriously at all.