The Relationship of Costume Design in Film With the Interest of Young Adult Women as Fashion Product Consumers in Indonesia

This study discusses the relationship between costume design in films and the interest of the audience, especially young adult women, triggers of their interest in similar fashion products as consumers by using outfit styles from three films, The Devil Wears Prada (2006), Sex and The City: The Movie (2008) and Crazy Rich Asians (2018), which were selected through a questionnaire answered by 20 experts in the fashion field. The analysis was conducted on 258 young adult women (18-24 years old) domiciled in Indonesia through a questionnaire to find out their perceptions and preferences on outfit styles from the costume designs in those three films. Based on this analysis, it can be seen that if the audience is interested and feels that the outfit worn by the character fits them, then they will have the desire to wear fashion products that are similar to the appearance of the costume design in the film.

Magic shoes: Dorothy, Cinderella, Carrie

The stories of Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz (Fleming 1939) and Cinderella focus on magic slippers that can only be worn by the ‘right’ person. In various cinematic versions of Cinderella (most notably the 1911 Méliès version), the Prince tries the glass slipper on the feet of a number of ‘wrong’ women before finding the perfect match in Cinderella. In both The Wizard of Oz and Cinderella, as in more recent films that invoke these narratives such as Sex and the City (1998), shoes are a commodity associated with rites of passage and, ultimately, with power. This essay examines the economy of magic shoes, symbolic exchange, and sexual difference, arguing that these films are as much about shopping and the act of trying on as they are about finding one’s feet in a male-dominated world.

Euphemistic dysphemisms and dysphemistic euphemisms as means to convey irony and banter

This article aims to determine whether euphemistic dysphemisms and dysphemistic euphemisms, two concepts defined by Allan and Burridge (1991, 2006), can convey irony and banter, which are defined, among other linguists, by Leech (1983, 2014\). He argues that irony and banter are ‘second-order strategies rooted in violations of the CP [Cooperative Principle] or the PP Politeness Principle], and working in contrary directions’ (Leech, 2014: 100). There are many similarities in the definitions of X-phemisms and those of irony and banter: in the cases of irony and euphemistic dysphemisms, an apparently polite utterance is not interpreted as such, whereas in the cases of banter and dysphemistic euphemisms, an apparently impolite utterance is not. I use examples from American TV shows ( House, M.D., Sex and the City, How I met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, Grey’s Anatomy) to describe the underlying mechanisms of the functioning of these four devices. The results of the study show that dysphemistic euphemisms can convey banter but that euphemistic dysphemisms cannot convey irony, though they can sometimes convey banter.