About Jalyn Tani Lang

My passion for fashion has been the constant through my various careers as teacher, modern dancer, environmental attorney, and mother of two daughters, now grown. Through personal shopping, wardrobe and closet consultations, I guide clients in defining and expressing their own unique sense of style.

How They Suited Up for the Impeachment Battle In a political drama that turns on the telling detail, the details of dress matter too.

How They Suited Up for the Impeachment Battle

In a political drama that turns on the telling detail, the details of dress matter too.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, at a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Nov. 19.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, at a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Nov. 19.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Vanessa Friedman

By Vanessa Friedman

The fourth presidential impeachment hearings in the history of the United States, whose public phase came to an end on Thursday afternoon in the columned environs of the House Ways and Means Committee hearing room, may have hewed to decorum, but they were a battlefield nonetheless.

It was clear in the language, between those who used words like “bombshells” and “smoking guns” and “explosive” and those who used words like “boring” and “flop”; and clear in the spin, as Democrats and Republicans sparred over demands to keep the whistle-blower’s identity secret.

And it was clear in the optics of many of the witnesses, who dressed as if girding themselves for the thinly disguised war that their testimony would likely spur.

They may not have been wearing actual armor, but the references were impossible to miss.

Does it matter?

Representative Jim Jordan at the hearing on Nov. 19.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

It has escaped no one that while the purpose of public hearings is transparency, the side effect is theater. (Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, did keep calling them “a show trial,” after all.) And the audience was not simply the reality-television star whose administration is in the dock, or the body politic of the moment, but the body politic of the future. The images, and the words they frame, will also become part of history.

The actors in this drama are playing their parts and costuming themselves not just for the social media age, but also for posterity. How we present when we say something — our decoration, our camouflage — helps shape the way it is received.

There is a reason that both the bow tie of George P. Kent, the State Department official and witness, and the jacket of Representative Jim Jordan, ended up with their own Twitter accounts. (The bow tie actually has two.)

There is a reason that everyone became fixated on the seeming twinkle in Ambassador Gordon D. Sondland’s eye, the smile that seemed to play around his lips. They undermined the card-carrying-member-of-the-establishment messaging of his dark suit and subtly patterned Republican red tie, just as his testimony undermined the no-quid-pro-quo White House story line.

And of all the images, after the hours of questions and answers, grandstanding, interpreting and debating, it is not the many dark suits with red or blue ties and the little Congressional lapel pins that are the de facto Hill uniform that remain seared into memory. (Though they were consistently, consciously, modeled by Adam Schiff, the Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mr. Nunes, as well as by David Holmes, the political counselor in the American embassy in Kyiv, and David Hale, the under secretary of state for political affairs.)

George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, left, and Ambassador William Taylor are sworn in at the impeachment hearing on Nov. 13.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

It was, rather, an actual uniform: one that was formal in its rigor, unmistakable in its messaging, and representative of a different kind of national institution.

In many ways, Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman’s decision to appear in his Army dress uniform, medals arrayed on his breast, buttons agleam, was simply the most obvious statement of an implicit position, one shared by most witnesses, albeit expressed in various individual ways.

It was one that stood aside from partisan politics, that prized country above self, that understood testifying as a duty — but also understood the rules of combat.

Colonel Vindman said as much to Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of Utah, who first put the uniform on the table as a topic of conversation (followed quickly by President Trump, who told reporters, “I understand now he wears his uniform when he goes in.”).

Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

In response to a not-so-subtle attempt by Mr. Stewart to portray the choice as a ploy, Colonel Vindman said, “I’m in uniform wearing my military rank” because “the attacks that I’ve had in the press and Twitter have marginalized me as a military officer.”

It was a symbol, just as Mr. Jordan’s decision to shrug off his suit jacket was a symbol of his willingness to be the Republican Party’s attack dog.

After all, as he said in the “House Freedom Caucus” podcast in March, apropos of his tendency to tote his jacket over an arm instead of wearing it: “You get in these hearings, and if I think the witness isn’t being square with me and it’s going to get kind of heated, I mean maybe it’s just me, I just don’t feel right with the jacket on.”

The imagery taps into the cinematography of stripping down before you get in the ring; of every boxing or schoolyard tussle movie ever made. Even when he wasn’t ceded the floor, Mr. Jordan was telegraphing readiness to rumble.

Jennifer Williams, the special adviser to the vice president for Europe and Russia.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Not that Colonel Vindman and Mr. Jordan were the only participants dressing for a fight. They were simply the most obvious.

While Mr. Kent’s bow tie got most of the viewing attention during his appearance, his three-piece suit was equally notable. All five buttons of the vest were tightly buttoned, even though men’s wear rules tend to dictate that the bottom button be left undone, as it is in a suit jacket.

The vest formed a kind of extra protective layer for the witness, just as the silk scarf guarding the neck of Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, demanded a closer look. Reportedly a traditional design from Hermès known as the Grand Uniforme, created in 1955, it featured a pattern of gold helmets and what looked surprisingly like swords.

Fiona Hill, the former senior director for Europe at the National Security Council.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Elaborate, almost Napoleonic hilts, with tassels and ropes and other elements of martial pageantry. As if there were any doubt that a woman who started her testimony paying homage to her fellow diplomats in “hardship” positions, a woman of calm, carefully considered answers, did not anticipate what weapons may be deployed.

There was more: Jennifer Williams chose to appear in a hunter green coatdress with a black belt cinching the waist, almost military in line, and Fiona Hill, the former top Russia expert on the National Security Council, wore a gold chain around her neck, with a matching gold chain around one wrist. It was visible as she raised her left hand to gesture while she crisply handled questions about who knew what in the chain of command.

Coincidence? It’s possible.

But given the attention paid to the moment, now and forevermore, given how much care and preparation each witness put into his or her testimony, given the way the whole case may turn on the telling detail, it seems unlikely these details, no matter how minor they seem, would be overlooked. They tell their own part of the story.

Vanessa Friedman is The Times’s fashion director and chief fashion critic. She was previously the fashion editor of the Financial Times. @VVFriedmanA version of this article appears in print on Nov. 22, 2019, Section A, Page 16 of the New York edition with the headline: Sartorial Rules of Combat (No Jacket Required). Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

The Troubling Ethics of Fashion in the Age of Climate Change Is it possible to create beautiful clothing that doesn’t imperil the environment?

Mask: Airinium. (Photo by Guerin Blask for The Washington Post)By Robin Givhan NOVEMBER 18, 2019 

The companies at the top of the fashion pyramid spent much of the fall previewing their luxury wares for spring 2020 and making their semiannual argument for the value of beauty, craftsmanship, and lots and lots of stuff. In their pursuit of the next new thing to entice consumers, editors and retailers left a giant carbon footprint as they jetted from New York to London, Milan to Paris. Sustainability was not always front of mind for many of them, but it was nonetheless there in the offhand comments about the inherent waste of runway show sets, the luxury market’s growing exasperation with fast fashion and the existential angst that fashion was little more than white noise in a cacophonous news cycle.

Amid the anxiety, a lot of the clothes presented on the runways and in showrooms were emblematic of ready-to-wear at its most creative and daring, as well as classics of the highest caliber. In Paris, Valentino designer Pierpaolo Piccioli deployed his exquisite eye for color to create Day-Glo gowns that exuded elegance and dresses with fauvist appliqué. At Alexander McQueen, creative director Sarah Burton made a conscious decision to focus on the crafts of dressmaking and tailoring, and to support the small, artisanal textile houses and mills throughout the United Kingdom. Her spring collection was full of intricate embroideries, hand-cut silk organza and crochet. And in New York, Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen distilled fashion to its simplest form with a collection of trousers, coats and pristine shirts that ignore the ebb and flow of trends.

There’s something that recommends all these clothes: beauty, quality, utility. But in the world of everyday consumers, people are asking: Are there any clothes that are both guiltless and desirable? Is it possible to buy fashion that does not imperil the environment?

The sustainability puzzle is the problem that affects every corner of the fashion industry. Fashion’s global production chain pollutes the environment. Its factories, pushed to their limit, too often abuse an overwhelmingly female workforce. Because fashion’s fundamental operating principle rests on planned obsolescence, brands are in a ceaseless cycle of replacement and replenishment. Fashion’s job is to goad you into wanting, needing more.

None of this is lost on its practitioners. As the industry works to convince consumers that life will be that much better with another pair of special-edition sneakers or a hand-painted party dress, it’s also making sustainability part of its business models. The two largest luxury conglomerates, the Paris-based Kering Group and LVMH, have both made commitments to reduce their carbon footprints and their water consumption, better preserve raw materials and improve waste management. LVMH has invested in safeguarding the Amazon and in renewable energy. Kering has made a commitment to being carbon neutral across its supply chain.

Masks: Airinium and Off-White. [Photo by Guerin Blask for The Washington Post.]

“When it comes to climate change, we can no longer wait to take real action,” said François-Henri Pinault, chairman and CEO of Kering, in a statement this fall. “While we focus on avoiding and reducing our [greenhouse gas] emissions to meet our Science-Based Target, we will offset all our remaining emissions and support the conservation of vital forests and biodiversity around the world.”

In New York, longtime environmental advocate Eileen Fisher has shared her expertise in circular design with the street style brand Public School. (Her company collaborated with Public School on a collection in 2018.) Designer Gabriela Hearst has shifted to biodegradable packaging and often uses fabric remnants from high-end textile mills in her production to reduce waste. “People say, ‘Oh you know we need to save the planet.’ No, no, no. Obviously you do not expose yourself to nature,” Hearst said to The Washington Post earlier this year. “You think you’re going to save the planet? Nature is a natural force. We are going to get exterminated.”

Consumers are also considering their culpability in the climate crisis. Ask a basic question about how to be a more deliberate shopper and you will quickly learn so few of them have clear-cut answers. Is it better to buy organic cotton or to buy cotton that’s grown locally? Organic is generally better. But doesn’t cotton production require an overabundance of water? Yes, but only because conventional cotton has been bred that way. Is fake fur a bigger burden on the environment than real fur? No, but you’ll still want to consider how that faux pelt is made. Just how bad is cashmere? Well, that’s complicated, but wool is arguably a better choice. What about carbon offsets? The math gets a little fuzzy.Because fashion’s fundamental operating principle rests on planned obsolescence, brands are in a ceaseless cycle of replacement and replenishment. Fashion’s job is to goad you into wanting, needing more.

So what should a conscientious fashion consumer consume?

The simplest answer to a shopper’s dilemma might be a paraphrase of the advice that food writer Michael Pollan offered to those of us perplexed by our mealtime choices: Buy clothes. Not too many. Mostly plant-based.

It is possible to buy something as simple as a white shirt, that wardrobe staple, whose production has a minimal impact on the environment and whose manufacture upholds fair labor practices — one that is also stylish.

In her recent book, “Fashionopolis: The Price of Fast Fashion and the Future of Clothes,” Dana Thomas explores the mess that the industry has made of the environment through its emphasis on disposable fashion and production chains that stretch halfway around the globe. A perfect white shirt, Thomas says in an interview, would be cut from organic cotton so that it could be composted without releasing toxins into the soil. It would have mother-of-pearl buttons, no plastic collar stays, and it would be roomy enough to be worn with its shirttails hanging but sleek enough to tuck into a pencil skirt.

Thomas, who is based in Paris, believes that she has found something very close to the perfect white shirt — one that she has worn in front of audiences as she has embarked on a book tour because she knew that the first question people would ask would be: What are you wearing?

She has favored a white cotton shirt from Stella McCartney, a brand that was built on the idea that luxury fashion can also be gentle on the environment and that eschews both fur and leather. Thomas’s shirt cost about $550.

She recognizes that most people can’t afford to spend hundreds of dollars on a white shirt, and that even those who can pay that much often refuse to do so. But shoppers should understand that sustainability is about more than just the cost of the raw materials used by a clothing company, says designer DooRi Chung, who teaches fashion design at Marist College in New York. “It’s about the supply chain,” Chung says, and that includes “how you treat your workers.”

If the fashion industry paid factory workers for the true value of their labor and was as mindful of its environmental footprint as it should be, Thomas says, then several hundred dollars is precisely what a high-quality white shirt should cost. But instead of buying 10 shirts, customers should simply buy one.

This argument is not new, but Thomas underscores our outsize consumption habits by pointing to the fact that we have been enabled by clothing prices that have never been lower. The original Diane von Furstenberg wrap dress, which appeared on the cover of Newsweek in 1976 and was hailed as fashion salvation for working women, was priced at about $75. That translates to about $340 today — a dollar figure that would make a lot of women balk. But a shopper today doesn’t even have to spend that much on a wrap dress. She can buy a new one for only $248. At full price.

In the 1950s, a man’s suit cost around $45. That’s the equivalent of about $430 today. A shopper can walk into H&M and buy a suit in the men’s department for a mere $105. Zara has them for $150. One from J. Crew totals $428. Again, that’s all at regular prices. And in a retail environment when every day there’s a discount, who pays full price anymore?

Mask: Marcelo Burlon County of Milan. [Photo by Guerin Blask for The Washington Post.]

Since the post-World War II years, the price of clothing relative to the median household income has fallen while prices for housing, health care and cars have risen. Clothing prices, to be sure, are not the only items to become less expensive: Food prices have fallen significantly in the past 30 years, particularly the cost of beef, chicken and pork. Part of that drop is because the meat industry has become more industrialized and consolidated — and like the fashion industry, relies on cheap labor. Electronics have become dramatically more affordable as well. But unlike with clothes, few people have closets stuffed with iPhones.

The average consumer buys 60 percent more clothing today than 15 years ago, according to the “State of Fashion 2019” report by McKinsey & Co. and the trade publication the Business of Fashion. And so, instead of two adults comfortably fitting their entire wardrobe in one of those modest prewar closets, folks now require walk-in closets the size of studio apartments just to store a wardrobe of shoes. We are clothing gluttons. Even people who say they don’t care about fashion still have drawers overstuffed with T-shirts, jeans and hoodies. In fact, folks who shop for basics may be the worst offenders of all. Their castoffs aren’t going to consignment shops or vintage stores. They aren’t outlasting their first owner and being passed along as an heirloom. They’re going into landfills.Each complicated answer eventually spirals down to consumption. The simplest, best path to sustainability is not anti-fashion; it’s anti-gorging.

And yet, the same youthful consumers who came of age in the era of Instagram and who consider clothing old after only a couple of wearings are among the most attuned to environmental and social issues. They want guilt-free newness. That contradiction suggests that perhaps it’s best to search for that perfect white shirt in a consignment shop or through a digital resale merchant such as the RealReal. That would certainly reduce one’s personal environmental impact. Or maybe the ideal answer is to rent it. The success of the sharing economy certainly attests to people’s enthusiasm for this option. But renting clothes does little to wean us off the belief that newness is next to godliness. And as Thomas says, these rented garments must be constantly dry cleaned, packaged and shipped. While companies can employ green dry-cleaning processes and limit packaging, the clothes still have to travel miles upon miles from one renter to the next.

“It works better on a local scale rather than a global one because of the carbon footprint,” Thomas says. A small rental company can make its deliveries by foot or by bicycle. But then, would the cost to the customer tick up enough that it would make better economic sense to simply buy? And if we’re all furiously renting and consigning, aren’t we still enabling our gluttony? Maybe just buy less.

That’s what each complicated answer eventually spirals down to: consumption. The simplest, best path to sustainability is not anti-fashion; it’s anti-gorging.

The most sustainable white shirt may be cut from locally grown, organic cotton. It may tick all the boxes for fair labor practices and a minuscule carbon footprint. But the best white shirt — the perfect shirt — is the one that a shopper buys and wears for years. It’s the singular shirt that stands in lieu of a dozen cheap ones. It is the shirt that hangs, uncrowded, in a room the size of a closet.

Robin Givhan is The Washington Post’s fashion critic.

Stylist: Rika Watanabe. Photo Editor: Dudley M. Brooks. Design and Development: Emma Kumer.

Secrets of “Downton Abbey” Style

Secrets of ‘Downton Abbey’ Style

They may not be on the London Fashion Week catwalks, but the film’s clothes are going to matter.

By Melanie Abrams

  • Sept. 13, 2019

LONDON — One of the most feted designers here this week — someone whose work has been admired by the Duchess of Cambridge — will not, actually, participate in London Fashion Week.

Yet it is possible the slinky 1920s gowns, cloche hats and tiaras created or sourced by Anna Mary Scott Robbins, the costume designer behind the big screen version of the small screen hit “Downton Abbey,” which opens in Britain on Sept. 13 and in the United States on Sept. 20, may be as influential as any pieces about to appear on the catwalk.

They represent the yin to London Fashion Week’s yang: a reimagining of historic styles that will contrast with some of the more conceptual, boundary-pushing looks for which the city is famous.

So expect to see Lady Mary (played by Michelle Dockery), the eldest daughter of the Crawley family, managing the estate in a gender-bending pinstripe shirt, necktie and waistcoat. Get ready for Edith (Laura Carmichael), Lady Mary’s younger sister and, since her marriage, the wealthy and socially superior Marchioness of Hexham, radiating glamour in a patterned velvet coat or heavily beaded gowns. And check Lady Cora (Elizabeth McGovern), as their mother, the Countess of Grantham, wearing a heavily embroidered blouse fashioned from a tulle scarf to welcome King George V and Queen Mary at Downton.

A few weeks before the film premiere, Ms. Robbins, 41, whose six-foot frame was clad in a practical black jumpsuitsat in her compact studio in southwest London amid costumes for her next film (“Last Letter From Your Lover”), a mood board, a sewing machine and a well-stocked book shelf, to talk about crafting “Downton” style, and how it relates to clothes in the real world.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

Even though you are creating 1920s clothes, does the contemporary world inspire your work?

My starting point was the designers of the time. But this is the thing, what I’ve always said is that I love fashion and am very aware of fashion and the designers out there, and am digesting information as a designer in this modern age. So how I curate the costumes from the 1920s must to some extent be affected by my viewpoint as a contemporary woman.

Can you give an example?

I wanted to dress Lady Mary in a Fortuny Delphos gown. Mariano Fortuny didn’t design dresses with a V-neck, but I wanted to do something that felt contemporary and relevant so I reimagined the shape of that original dress and played around with various necklines and settled on this one, which is more dynamic, edgier and a bit cooler for Lady Mary. So that’s how I modernized something that was very much of its time.

I always look at interesting necklines for Edith. And she really suits a pussy bow. So we added this tawny russet silk pussy bow to an original dress under a velvet coat that lifted the costume so that it had a focal point. Pussy bows are from current catwalks but were also fashionable in the 1920s, so that’s the balance I try to find: pieces that sit perfectly within that world but that are understood by a modern audience, so they are coveted.

Did you mix any contemporary materials in with the vintage?

We did. There was a Fortuny velvet, so a completely contemporary velvet — it’s peachy orangy, called fawn, and it has tiny little flecks of gray. I’ve always loved Fortuny and admired his palette, so we brought it through for one of Lady Edith’s coats.

We sourced lace from the French company Sophie Hallette, which we would dye and incorporate into pieces. For a tunic for Lady Cora, there just wasn’t enough old lace to be able to cut a pattern out of it. So there’s lace panels and then pleated chiffon and it was all dyed interestingly because the lace has a sort of satin sheen to it so we had to dye it slightly darker than the rest of the chiffon so that it felt tonally complete.

Do you see similarities between your way of working and that of a contemporary designer?

I love the way Maria Grazia Chiuri looks at a textile, or just one piece from the Dior archives, and then this entire collection will come out of it. I do that with the 1920s. I pull something that is completely original and look at its construction and pull it apart and reassemble it in a very relevant way for our characters as seen by a modern audience.

And editing the costumes is editing a collection. You know when some pieces are stronger than others.

Do you watch fashion shows?

I have been to some shows, like Dior, Valentino and Burberry. I go because I love the theater and a show is exciting — it can make the hair on your arms stand up if beautiful or innovative or surprising. Molly Goddard is fun and her fashion makes you smile.

I’m interested in Givenchy, because it has just rocketed and I’ve always loved heritage labels and how they kept the essence which made them what they were. I look for print, color, textile craft, cutting technique, beautiful storytelling, inspiration and things that are beautiful. Every designer has a different forte that I might subscribe to for that reason.

I might see beautiful color combinations, like aubergine with a sage green, which might become a starting point within a scene. Valentino’s use of colors is inspired.

With Iris van Herpen, it’s how technologically advanced she is. I can’t wait to see what she is physically able to achieve in terms of wearable art, and where the dividing line is between wearable art and clothing.

Who do you follow on Instagram?

Rick Owens is interesting because Fortuny has worked with him. He’s very opposite to a lot of my design sensibilities, but he is unique and his work is thought-provoking and you can be interested in different design sensibilities. I have to be interested in everything because I don’t know where I am going to be taken next.

I’ve recently started following Clare Waight Keller from Givenchy, but her personal account because I think she gives a beautiful amount of information. There is a back story and still the intrigue of how these couture pieces are put together. I think her style is honest and quite giving. Often the post can be a teaser with no information given, and that’s that. She has a human, approachable way of showing what her world is like as this talented woman in a high-profile job. So if I were better at Instagram, and I spend more time at it, I would like to be able to do that and show that side of my job.