Dress of discord: what is Marilyn Monroe's famous outfit, and why Kim Kardashian is accused of destroying it (8 photos + 1 video)

So, the dress Kim chose is not just a dress. This is a valuable exhibit and quite an important milestone in the history of fashion.





What kind of dress is this and why is it so cared for? I suggest we figure it out together.





It is believed that it was this outfit that Marilyn started the trend of “naked dresses” on the Hollywood red carpet. Although the woman performed in it not at a film premiere, but at President Kennedy’s birthday, singing the famous “Happy Birthday, Mister President.”



The thinnest beige dress with crystals is one of the loudest and most famous creations of Jean Louis, a French fashion designer who loved bold experiments. So the dress for Monroe was an experiment: bold, daring and even a little arrogant. His story is full of rumors and speculation, the most important of which I want to debunk - of course, it’s not diamonds that shine on the dress, they’re just crystals. However, they shone incredibly. And the dress was very revealing. It was sewn directly onto Marilyn so that it fit as tightly as possible. Moreover, the dress was so thin that it was impossible to wear underwear under it - this added piquancy to its story.



The outfit had a rich history, but for some time it was the property of the Ripley Museum, whose management lent the iconic outfit to Kim Kardashian. And this fact alone has infuriated many people - where is Monroe, and where is Kem? Who does this woman think she is? In general, a moral dilemma arose - is it allowed for someone to try on the legendary outfits of deceased celebrities? Isn't this an attempt to "hype" at someone else's expense?

Society was divided. The question is still open and controversial. The second complaint was more justified and reasoned - Kardashian’s image with this dress came out modest and not even the most advantageous. And the reason for this... skin color. On Kim's dark skin, the dress simply did not look as elegant and inviting as on snow-white Marilyn. The feeling of nakedness was gone, making this dress just... a dress.



Kim also failed with the overall image. The dyed hair should have been let down and the lips painted red to recreate the image of Marilyn. The slicked-back ponytail and nude makeup were called a stylistic failure. And if I want to argue with the scale of the failure - everything is not as bad as they are trying to show, then I agree with the fact that the image is unfinished. The dress is very feminine, so it would look better not with a “bald head”, but with curls.

However, Kim received a real barrage of negativity not for this, but for the fact that she did not fit into the dress. The woman desperately starved for three weeks, but the dress never came together on her buttocks. Then they ripped it open and provided it with ties so that Kim could at least just pull it off from behind. And this action already caused indignation - the woman not only put it on, but also ruined the outfit by opening the seam and attaching ribbons to the lower back. Many considered this a real outrage against the outfit.



And although Kim’s back was covered on the red carpet, photos of how it happened appeared online. The dress was just cracking and no amount of shapewear could fix it. People are now indignant - is an hour on the red carpet worth the risk of tearing a dress at the seam? Does the tenant have the right to rip and alter the dress? The Ripley Museum was silent, Kim did not comment on the situation, and people still do not calm down: they want justice.



But the truth is that the dress itself was generally undamaged. Physically, it's still the same dress as before. The question is different: is it even possible to borrow and rent out museum exhibits? Doesn't their value and importance suffer as a result? The dress that Marilyn Monroe wore is one thing. The altered dress that was ripped open for Kim Kardashian is completely different. In general, the discussion is rather philosophical.

What do you think about this? Should we blame Kim for anything or the dress (which returned to the museum intact) - just a dress that was not damaged after all. Or is the museum itself to blame, within whose walls the dress was “modified”?