or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › What do you wear when you go out?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What do you wear when you go out? - Page 3

post #31 of 69
Quote:
I've been looking for a slim, black velvet sportcoat and a nice cafe-racer jacket. Both great options for weekend wear.
Get the H Hilfiger velvet blazer from this winter's line, it's inexpensive enough that you won't worry about the abuse it will take in clubs/bars. The styling is absolutely first class as well... ticket pocket, slim fit, side vents, and stitching on the lapel. Continuosly check ebay for a Schott Cafe Racer jacket.
post #32 of 69
i agree 100% with those of you who said it's better to go clubbing on weeknights. it's a different breed who stays out till 4:00am on a wednesday. i also agree about not going to any clubs that have a dress code. that's the first signal that you're about to enter a lame, uptight, and/or ghetto club, the second signal being any security other than a doorman. i tend to wear suits when i go out. not because i'm dressing up, but because that's what i typically wear anyway. at the clubs i go to, it's very common to see guys in suits as well as guys in t-shirts and jeans and everything in between. if it's a dance club i'll leave my jacket in the car. a few of you have mentioned that you like to pair jeans with blazers when going out. i've never gotten used to this look. jeans will always be casual pants to me. to wear them with a dress shirt or blazer or leather soled shoes just seems like you're trying to pass them off as something they're not. it also screams '80s yuppie look to me. p.s that mini-thread within a thread about ryan phillipe sounded a little creepy to me. gregory, aspire to be yourself and no one else.
post #33 of 69
Quote:
p.s that mini-thread within a thread about ryan phillipe sounded a little creepy to me. gregory, aspire to be yourself and no one else.
haha, I was thinking the same thing... lol.
post #34 of 69
Quote:
Steve McQueen is my standard for cool
Ahhh, now we're talking. I tend to like under-stated actors. Guys like Phillipe are a little too self conscious for me. To me, cool is guys like McQueen. Benicio Del Toro. Clive Owen. Sam Rockwell.
post #35 of 69
Quote:
Quote:
Steve McQueen is my standard for cool
Ahhh, now we're talking. I tend to like under-stated actors. Guys like Phillipe are a little too self conscious for me. To me, cool is guys like McQueen. Benicio Del Toro. Clive Owen. Sam Rockwell.
McQueen is before my time. It is not necessarily Phillipe, the actor that is cool, but the character (and his wardrobe, car, house, etc...) he plays. In other words, I should be praising the scriptwriter that wrote the movie. It is the modern transcription of the famous original, which is impressive, not to mention making it a "teen" movie, which as we all know, they never turn out into above average. Jon. (And yes, my English composition professor already told me I use way too many commas)
post #36 of 69
His character is cool? I seem to recall him being cruel, juvenile and egomaniacal, for the most part.
post #37 of 69
Quote:
His character is cool?  I seem to recall him being cruel, juvenile and egomaniacal, for the most part.
Agreed--and Malkovich was better as Valmont in Dangerous Liaisons. Seriously, there are vastly better style icons than Phillippe. Oh right, the topic. Paper Denim or Levi's jeans, T-shirts I've worn the hell out of/slim dress shirts, waist-length jacket/track jacket/leather safari jacket (from DDC, it's pretty cool, if seldom worn--but it was cheap), trainers/boots. Seems like it's a uniform nowadays. Despite liking suits, I don't wear them all that often outside of work, though that probably will change when I move later this year.
post #38 of 69
Quote:
His character is cool? I seem to recall him being cruel, juvenile and egomaniacal, for the most part.
Yeah, that persona is a type of cool. But, you must understand, just because something seems / is cool (To certain people ), does not mean it is right, or moral for that matter. None, the less...on screen it looks cool. Jon.
post #39 of 69
Benicio del Toro and Steve McQueen. I definitely dropped the ball on that. Also, Robert Redford in his Cool Hand Luke days. And yes, John Malkovich is much cooler than Ryan Phillipe in the same role. Malkovich gives the role a sense of real malevolence, whereas Ryan Phillipe in that role just strikes me as an spoiled punk kid who I could bitch slap into submission without breaking a sweat. BTW, I think that if you do the suit thing when go out - it should definitely be a *very* dark color, if not actually black, quite slim fitting, and should be worn with boots or loafers (although I hate loafers) - definitely not balss or bluchs. Otherwise, you will look like some corporate sucker just off work.
post #40 of 69
Quote:
Benicio del Toro and Steve McQueen. I definitely dropped the ball on that. Also, Robert Redford in his Cool Hand Luke days. And yes, John Malkovich is much cooler than Ryan Phillipe in the same role. Malkovich gives the role a sense of real malevolence, whereas Ryan Phillipe in that role just strikes me as an spoiled punk kid who I could bitch slap into submission without breaking a sweat. BTW, I think that if you do the suit thing when go out - it should definitely be a *very* dark color, if not actually black, quite slim fitting, and should be worn with boots or loafers (although I hate loafers) - definitely not balss or bluchs. Otherwise, you will look like some corporate sucker just off work.
Must we resort to violence? The nice thing about the character is that he does not need to resort to violence to meet his needs / wants. Instead of shooting everything in sight (a la Arnold) Valmont uses his mind, charm, etc... to achieve his goals. Jon.
post #41 of 69
Quote:
Must we resort to violence?
Resort to violence? I wouldn't be resorting to violence. It'd be my number one option.
post #42 of 69
Quote:
Also, Robert Redford in his Cool Hand Luke days.
You mean Paul Newman? If so, I second that. He was a little goofier in Butch Cassidy (co-starring Redford), but still a very cool mofo. As for wearing suits for clubbing, etc, I think you can get away with a simple lace-up or monkstrap. It'd have to be plain and slim--I'm thinking John Lobb's Perrier. No double soles, no wingtips, no cap-toes.
post #43 of 69
Quote:
You mean Paul Newman?
Yes. I always get those two mixed up, for some reason.
post #44 of 69
Quote:
that mini-thread within a thread about ryan phillipe sounded a little creepy to me. gregory, aspire to be yourself and no one else.
Your advice is appreciated. The problem is that this entity 'yourself' is being continually defined and exists only through the sum of actions and choosing. Every choice I make is a redefinition of myself, and hence I cannot 'aspire to be myself' since 'myself' does not exist as a complete entity until I am dead. And who among us can truly say that we have not been influenced by some people we look up to and choose to aspire to be more like them? If by "being oneself" one means looking back at one's past, this is a poor guide for life because it implies repeating the history of choices and actions that one has made in the past. It is better to look outside, and combine the best parts of the best people, to better oneself. To put my liberal arts education to good use, let me quote Jean Paul-Sartre. Read it in full--it may change your life. I am not an atheist, but I find this philosophy a very good guide for navigating life. "If one considers an article of manufacture as, for example, a book or a paper-knife "” one sees that it has been made by an artisan who had a conception of it; and he has paid attention, equally, to the conception of a paper-knife and to the pre-existent technique of production which is a part of that conception and is, at bottom, a formula. Thus the paper-knife is at the same time an article producible in a certain manner and one which, on the other hand, serve a definite purpose, for one cannot suppose that a man would produce a paper-knife without knowing what it was for. Let us say, then, of the paperknife that its essence that is to say the sum of the formulae and the qualities which made its production and its definition possible "” precedes its existence. The presence of such "” and "” such a paper-knife or book is thus determined before my eyes. Here, then, we are viewing the world from a technical standpoint, and we can say that production precedes existence. When we think of God as the creator, we are thinking of him, most of the time, as a supernal artisan. Whatever doctrine we may be considering, whether it be a doctrine like that of Descartes, or of Leibnitz himself, we always imply that the will follows, more or less, from the understanding or at least accompanies it, so that when God creates he knows precisely what he is creating. Thus, the conception of man in the mind of God is comparable to that of the paper-knife in the mind of the artisan: God makes man according to a procedure and a conception, exactly as the artisan manufactures a paper-knife, following a definition and a formula. Thus each individual man is the realisation of a certain conception which dwells in the divine understanding. In the philosophic atheism of the eighteenth century, the notion of God is suppressed, but not, for all that, the idea that essence is prior to existence; something of that idea we still find everywhere, in Diderot, in Voltaire and even in Kant. Man possesses a human nature; that "human nature," which is the conception of human being, is found in every man; which means that each man is a particular example of a universal conception, the conception of Man. In Kant, this universality goes so far that the wild man of the woods, man in the state of nature and the bourgeois are all contained in the same definition and have the same fundamental qualities. Here again, the essence of man precedes that historic existence which we confront in experience. Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world "” and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing "” as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. ... Quietism is the attitude of people who say, "let others do what I cannot do." The doctrine I am presenting before you is precisely the opposite of this, since it declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further, indeed, and adds, "Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realises himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is." Hence we can well understand why some people are horrified by our teaching. For many have but one resource to sustain them in their misery, and that is to think, "Circumstances have been against me, I was worthy to be something much better than I have been. I admit I have never had a great love or a great friendship; but that is because I never met a man or a woman who were worthy of it; if I have not written any very good books, it is because I had not the leisure to do so; or, if I have had no children to whom X could devote myself it is because I did not find the man I could have lived with. So there remains within me a wide range of abilities, inclinations and potentialities, unused but perfectly viable, which endow me with a worthiness that could never be inferred from the mere history of my actions." But in reality and for the existentialist, there is no love apart from the deeds of love; no potentiality of love other than that which is manifested in loving; there is no genius other than that which is expressed in works of art. The genius of Proust is the totality of the works of Proust; the genius of Racine is the series of his tragedies, outside of which there is nothing. Why should we attribute to Racine the capacity to write yet another tragedy when that is precisely what he "” did not write? In life, a man commits himself, draws his own portrait and there is nothing but that portrait. No doubt this thought may seem comfortless to one who has not made a success of his life. On the other hand, it puts everyone in a position to understand that reality alone is reliable; that dreams, expectations and hopes serve to define a man only as deceptive dreams abortive hopes, expectations unfulfilled; that is to say, they define him negatively, not positively. Nevertheless, when one says, "You are nothing else but what you live," it does not imply that an artist is to be judged solely by his works of art, for a thousand other things contribute no less to his definition as a man. What we mean to say is that a man is no other than a series of undertakings, that he is the sum, the organisation, the set of relations that constitute these undertakings." Full text (lovely reading) http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/marxist....re.html
post #45 of 69
Quote:
Quote:
Also, Robert Redford in his Cool Hand Luke days.
You mean Paul Newman? If so, I second that. He was a little goofier in Butch Cassidy (co-starring Redford), but still a very cool mofo. As for wearing suits for clubbing, etc, I think you can get away with a simple lace-up or monkstrap. It'd have to be plain and slim--I'm thinking John Lobb's Perrier. No double soles, no wingtips, no cap-toes.
Speaking of Robert Redford, he played the ultimate sartorial figure: Jay Gatsby, with the three-piece suits, the Turnbull shirts and ties plus that wonderful yellow Rolls Royce. Regarding (movie) style he overtakes Phillipe's Valmont in every way, he is better dressed, has a better car and more power, of course he is lacking in the relationship department (that damn Daisy). As one reviewer said: "The movie is an opulent, stylish extravaganza that may be more faithful to the "look" of Fitzgerald's novel than to its spirit, yet brings a good deal of entertainment along the way." Jon. Yes, this was my attempt to end the whole Valmont discussion.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › What do you wear when you go out?