1960年代復古風隨《廣告狂人》謝幕

And so, farewell to “Mad Men.” Farewell to the blogs and fan sites that tracked the story line (and more important, the outfits) of each episode.

別了，《廣告狂人》(Mad Men)。別了，那些追蹤每集情節（更重要的是，每集服裝）的博客和粉絲網站。

Farewell to Don and his perfect suits, to Peggy and her plaids, to Joan and her jewel tones and sheaths.

別了，唐(Don)和他完美的西服；別了，佩姬(Peggy)和她的格子裙；別了，瓊(Joan)和她的珠光寶氣以及緊身連衣裙。

Since Sunday, viewers everywhere have been in mourning, at least judging by the Twitterati.

從週日起，各地的觀衆都在嘆息該劇劇終，至少從Twitter名人的帖子來看是這樣的。

I, however, am not among them.

不過，我不在嘆息之列。

Not because I am happy to see the end of what was one of television’s smartest series, a pioneer of what is now generally accepted as the current golden age of small-screen serials.

不是因爲我樂意看到一部精彩的電視劇劇終——如今已被公認爲電視劇的黃金時代，而它正是這個時代的先驅。

But because I can’t help but hope that with the end of “Mad Men” comes the end of a period in fashion that has seen designers become trapped in the past to an almost stifling degree. At least the past as it looked in the 1960s (which in the beginning, let us not forget, looked a lot like the late 1950s) and early ’70s.

我只是忍不住希望，隨着《廣告狂人》的終結，一個時尚階段也能終結，在這個階段，設計師們被困於過去的時代，幾乎窒息——至少是困在20世紀60年代（不要忘了，60年代初與50年代末非常相似）至70年代初。

Even for an industry that generally views history as a grab bag of potential inspiration to be dipped into and mixed and matched at will, this has been extreme.

時尚界通常視歷史爲潛在靈感的百寶囊，可供隨時汲取、混合搭配。即便如此，目前這一階段對歷史的依賴也太過極端。

For as long as the show has been running — ever since its debut in 2007 — we have been, it seems, suffering from what Hadley Freeman in The Guardian newspaper dubbed “madmenalaria.”

從該劇2007年首播至今，我們似乎患上了哈德利·弗里曼(Hadley Freeman)在《衛報》(The Guardian)上所稱的“廣告狂人狂熱症”(madmenalaria)。

She defined the term as “the desire to dress like a character from ‘Mad Men,’ ” though I would revise that and call it the mass fashion conviction that all consumers want to dress like characters from “Mad Men.” The show’s visual impact was so intense, it went viral and seemed to recode designers’ creative DNA.

她對“廣告狂人狂熱症”的定義是“想像《廣告狂人》中的人物那樣着裝”，不過，我想把它的定義改爲，大衆時裝公司認爲所有的消費者都想穿成《廣告狂人》中的人物那樣。該劇的視覺衝擊力非常強大，以病毒級傳播，彷彿重組了設計師們的創意DNA。

It was apparent not just in obvious brand extensions, like Banana Republic’s “Mad Men” collection (designed in collaboration with the show’s costume supremo, Janie Bryant), but in more pervasive, unspoken ways: in silhouette and print; in hemline and seam. And in the clear belief, visible on catwalks everywhere, that the 1960s were the answer to every moment of pallid inspiration, or aesthetic doubt.

《廣告狂人》對時裝的影響體現在品牌的發展當中，例如香蕉共和國(Banana Republic)就推出了《廣告狂人》系列（這個系列是與該劇的服裝主管賈妮·布賴恩特[Janie Bryant]聯合設計的），而且很多心照不宣的地方在設計中更加隨處可見：裁剪和印花，褶邊和接縫；它的影響滲入了在秀臺上普遍存在的一種鮮明理念：如果你缺乏靈感或者產生了審美懷疑，就去回顧60年代吧。

It was visible, for example, on many of Frida Giannini’s Gucci runways, including the tablecloth shades and A-line shapes of leathers for autumn-winter 2014; the pastel tunics and ruffled hostess dresses of spring-summer 2013; the bright Beatle trouser suits and caftans of spring-summer 2009.

在弗麗達·詹尼尼(Frida Giannini)爲古馳(Gucci)設計的很多時裝秀上都可以看到這種理念，包括2014年秋冬的檯布漸變色和A字皮裙；2013年春夏的粉色長款襯衫和褶飾女主人連衣裙；2009年春夏的披頭士風格鮮豔褲套裝和寬鬆束腰長裙。

It was there in Rossella Jardini’s Moschino, from the bows and bouffants of spring-summer 2009 to the Mary Quant-inspired spring 2013 collection.

它還體現在蘿塞拉·亞爾迪尼(Rossella Jardini)爲莫斯奇諾(Moschino)設計的2009年春夏系列的蝴蝶結和寬鬆裙子上以及以瑪麗·匡特(Mary Quant)爲靈感的2013年春季系列中。

It was in Giambattista Valli’s most recent autumn-winter show, full of puffed-sleeve printed tunics over matching trousers and drop-waisted schoolgirls shifts, and in MaxMara’s ode to Marilyn Monroe’s 1962 photo shoot with George Barris.

它還體現在詹巴蒂斯塔·瓦利(Giambattista Valli)最近的秋冬時裝秀上，那場時裝秀中充滿泡泡袖印花長款襯衫和配套褲子，以及低腰直筒女學生連衣裙；還體現在麥絲瑪拉(MaxMara)向喬治·巴里斯(George Barris)1962年爲瑪麗蓮·夢露(Marilyn Monroe)拍攝的照片致敬的系列。

It was visible in practically every brand that edged from the 1960s to 1970s for the season currently in stores, including Alberta Ferretti, Pucci and Etro.

其實，它體現在所有品牌上，它們把六七十年代的服裝搬到當季店鋪裏，包括阿爾伯特·菲爾蒂(Alberta Ferretti)、璞琪(Pucci)和艾綽(Etro)。

I like a miniskirt and maxi-dress as much as the next woman; they are, generally, flattering and easy to wear. And there’s no question that seeing them on Megan and Company was a potent reminder.

和普通女人一樣，我也喜歡超短裙和超長裙——它們通常討人喜歡，易於穿着。毫無疑問，這些裙子穿在梅根(Megan)和她的朋友們身上更是有力地提醒了我們。

But this has begun to feel less like a relevant statement about what women want now and more like a retreat; an assumption, which I would characterize as false, that the past is a safe place to dress.

不過，這種風潮好像不是在表達如今的女人想穿什麼，而是在逃避，認爲最安全的着裝方式是迴歸過去，我認爲這種想法是錯誤的。

There is a natural human tendency to idealize and whitewash days of yore, to cast them in the rosy glow of the mind’s eye.

理想化地描述並粉飾往昔，把往昔置於想象中的玫瑰色光環中，這是人類的天性。

But most of us are self-aware enough to understand that even as we do this, we are lying to ourselves. We recognize those dangers when it comes to politics (see: Bush and Clinton). Why should clothes be any different?

不過，我們大部分人都有自知之明，在粉飾過去的同時就已意識到自己是在自欺欺人。我們知道這種傾向在政治界的危害（看看布什和克林頓吧）。可是，在時尚界又何嘗不是如此呢？

Granted, it is easier to remake something than to make something new. Anyone who has faced a blank page knows that. But if fashion’s ubiquitous default to the 1960s over the last seven years has exposed anything, it is its own lack of imagination, not only about clothes and consumers, but about the relationship of culture and dress.

毋庸置疑，改造比創造容易。任何曾經對着白紙一籌莫展的人都知道這一點。但是，在過去七年裏，時尚界對60年代的普遍模仿至少暴露出，這個行業缺乏想象力——不只是對於服裝和消費者缺乏想象力，而且對於文化與服裝的關係也缺乏想象力。

Such borrowing is predicated in part on the assumption that by decontextualizing a style you also strip it of any possible negative implications: military, dynastic, what have you. It becomes an aesthetic form that exists on its own terms, as opposed to one that symbolizes all sorts of complicated societal or political convulsions.

某種程度上，這種借鑑是基於這樣的假設：把一種時裝風格從它自身的環境中剝離出來，就能同時去除它所有潛在的負面寓意：譬如戰爭和王朝。它會變成一種獨立存在的審美形式，不再象徵任何複雜的社會和政治動盪。

Yet if “Mad Men” showed us anything (besides how cool a skinny suit could look, and that wide ties really were not a good men’s wear moment), it is that the decade chronicled was a complicated, often unhappy, occasionally destructive time.

但是，如果《廣告狂人》向我們展示了什麼的話（除了修身西服看起來多酷，寬領帶真的不是男裝的點睛之筆），那麼，它最主要展示的是，60年代非常複雜，往往不太愉快，偶爾具有破壞性。

The show was a potent reminder that the sexual revolution and women entering the work force and the rise of consumerism and the Age of Aquarius (all that) had a dark side, and claimed their own victims. That’s part of why it was such a powerful show.

它有力地提醒我們，性革命、女性進入職場、消費主義的盛行以及太空時代都有陰暗的一面，有些人在其中受到了傷害。這是該劇具有強大影響力的一個原因。

The clothes had resonance because the characters who wore them were intricate and multidimensional, not just because Joan’s brocade sheath was really glamorous, or Megan’s psychedelic chiffons made Pucci feel cool.

那些服裝能引起共鳴，是因爲身穿那些服裝的劇中人物精緻複雜，而不只是因爲瓊的織錦緊身連衣裙真的魅力四射，或者梅根的迷幻雪紡連衣裙讓璞琪看起來很酷。

But that kind of emotional identification gets lost on the runway, and the retail floor. And then we are left with what?

但是，在秀臺上和零售店裏，那種情感上的認同消失了。那麼，我們還剩下什麼？

Form without content. Which is why devolving to such familiar forms seems like a safe bet, and why it really isn’t. It’s empty and disposable — which is in turn why the 1960s keep being identified as a “trend,” with the associated implication that at some point they will also be identified as “over.” Even though that “over” has yet to come.

只剩下空洞的形式。所以，借鑑這些熟悉的形式看似穩妥，實際上並非如此。它是空洞的，可以被丟棄，所以，60年代的風格一直被認爲是一股“潮流”——“潮流”暗含的意思是，在某一時刻它將“終結”。雖然“終結”尚未到來。

But perhaps we are finally there. Perhaps the curtain had to fall on the show before it could fall on that part of the ready-to-wear shows. Perhaps the history hamster wheel that we seem to be on — which has seen us cycle through the 1970s as well as some of the big hair and bigger shoulder pads of the 1980s (yes, we are there again) — will finally stop turning.

但是，我們也許終於走到了終點。也許只有在該劇落幕之後，它對成衣秀的影響力纔會終結。也許我們對歷史無休止的模仿（是的，我們曾模仿70年代的風格以及80年代的大波浪頭和高墊肩）纔會最終停止。

After all, during the last round of collections, the most striking pieces — from Louis Vuitton, Dior, Proenza Schouler, Narciso Rodriguez — had a streamlined momentum that wasn’t dragged down by any decade-related reference, or identity. They were clothes that went striding into the future, freed from the weight of the past.

畢竟，在最新一批時裝系列中，最引人注目的系列有流線形的趨勢，沒有被任何與60年代有關的元素或身份拖住——例如，路易威登(Louis Vuitton)、迪奧(Dior)、普羅恩薩·施羅(Proenza Schouler)和納西索·羅德里格斯(Narciso Rodriguez)——這些服裝大踏步走向未來，沒有往昔的負累。

Isn’t that what we all want? Don Draper would have understood.

這難道不是我們所有人都想要的嗎？唐·德雷珀(Don Draper)應該會理解的。