SUMMER OF UGLY SHOES
Celebrities started it – and now the horrors have invaded the High Street
APAIR of chunky trainers are not what a lady might usually pair with a Valentino gown worth tens of thousands — yet that’s exactly what tennis ace Serena Williams wore to the royal wedding.
But then the old rules about footwear — once blissfully simple: heels for formal, flats for the house and trainers for the gym — have been up-ended. Welcome to the summer of ugly shoes.
Suddenly designers seem to have given up on elegant styles and are churning out an assortment of deliberately unappealing, clunky footwear — Serena’s trainers were also by Valentino and cost £570 — be that awkward of shape, thick of heel or downright frumpy (yes, even your granny’s orthopaedic shoes are more fashionable than stilettos right now).
the ‘ugly shoe’ is a trend — and a term — that’s been gaining ground over the past two to three fashion seasons, quickly spreading to A-listers and even the High Street.
the very opposite of traditionally ‘sexy’ heels that famously lengthen the leg, these shoes are not only offputtingly ‘ugly’, they are intentionally man-repelling.
Man-repelling is a counter-intuitive concept that’s been gleefully adopted by the fashion world — now utterly in thrall to the world of social media — ever since a website and Instagram by that name won more than two million followers.
Man-repelling, as the name suggests, involves wearing clothes or shoes your husband or boyfriend is probably not going to like.
And that is exactly the point. In our post-Weinstein world, it’s a political as much as fashion statement. It’s an A-lister’s way of showing the world they are dressing to their style rules and whims, rather than those imposed by all controlling Hollywood studios and producers. (Interestingly, lesserknown models and actresses remain more traditional in their approach to the red carpet).
TEETERING coquettishly in torturous contraptions is so passé. the message is that today’s women are strong, sartorially confident and as comfortable in their shoes as they are in their skin.
But where did it all begin? I’d say the Cannes Film Festival, almost exactly three years ago. there was a global outcry when it emerged that three women were apparently banned from entering a screening for wearing flat shoes.
As even BAFtA-winning actress emily Blunt broke ranks to criticise the decision: ‘everyone should wear flats, to be honest. Just when you think there are these new waves of equality…’, fashion sniffed a rebellion and a fringe trend became an unstoppable juggernaut.
the next season saw flats become the new ‘It’ shoe and as feminism rode high on the political agenda once again, the statement-makers explored androgynous clothes, clumpy-soled trainers, the return of platforms and even — in the case of French label Celine — £700 rubber Wellington boots.
As interest in the Kardashians and their skin-tight approach to fashion waned, the style set’s passion for increasingly unsexy footwear grew.
Style icons such as Sienna Miller helped resurrect clogs from the doldrums of the nineties (and footwear brand Swedish Hasbeens saw unprecedented success).
And in September 2016, redcarpet favourite Christopher Kane horrified front row fashionistas with virtually every model in his London Fashion Week show clad in crystal-embellished Crocs, retailing for up to £300. Yes, that’s Crocs, the wipe-clean footwear of choice for surgeons in the operating room, that first became popular in the nineties, but were almost entirely shunned by the fashionable. Until now.
In September 2017, luxury French fashion house Balenciaga took the man-repelling staple one step further, creating Crocs with 7-in platform heels. the shoes were completely sold out via pre-orders before they even hit the shops in February this year. Currently pairs are available online for over £600. Meanwhile, cult brand Celine — led until the end of last year by British designer Phoebe Philo — carved a niche with heavy-soled
sandals and trainers so beloved by Victoria Beckham that they are one of the few items not made by her own label that she is prepared to be photographed in. Where the fashion forward stride, the High Street is sure to follow. In some shops you have to search quite hard to find a single pretty pair of shoes. Zara have upwards of 30 to 40 ‘ugly’ styles, including wedge sandal trainers, glittery platform wedges, heavy-heeled gingham sandals. Even M&S, more known for their classic and comfy styles, have introduced a line of ‘fashion-led’ orthopaedic footwear. And LK Bennett, the Duchess of Cambridge’s favourite shoe brand, has ditched daintier styles to embrace ‘ugly’ (see their new season Colleen Brown Leather Sandals).
And eBay revealed earlier this week that they had experienced an unprecedented surge in searches for Crocs last month: a staggering 25,000 times in just 30 days (at one point once every minute).
But do everyday shoppers really care about their shoes’ man-repelling status? I’d venture that, really, we just want a pair of shoes that don’t emphasise our bunions or cracked heels. And while many may miss the more traditionally pretty approach, ugly shoes do have their benefits. For one, they are supremely comfortable, and you don’t need to carry around a second pair to change into.
For those of us who suffer from what is now commonly known as ‘cankles’, a wider, a chunkier shoe might just be our saviour. After all, it leaves our legs looking slim in comparison.
One thing’s for sure, for practical or politically correct reasons, the ugly shoe is having a moment. Whether we — or our husbands — like it or not.