If 2010 was a series of 'moments', the story of Bonnie and Clyde (or more specifically the 1967 film; the real Bonnie had a limp and severe scars from burns towards the end of her crime career) has definitely had it's moment within the past twelve months.
|The real Bonnie and Clyde - Phographer unknown|
This year has sprouted not one but two editorials that pay obvious homage to the public's favourite outlaw couple (Mickey and Mallory Knox from Natural Born Killers coming a close second). The first to appear was shot by Peter Lindbergh for the March issue of Harpers Bazaar, the second shot by Aram Bedrossian (no idea which magazine though, let me know if you know please) this month. Inevitably, people are writing that Bedrossian's shoot is 'following in the footsteps of Lindbergh', which is fashion code for 'might be blatantly copying Lindbergh'. Though, with such iconic source material, how could they not be equally derivative?
|Spot the difference 1 - Lindbergh|
|Spot the difference 1 - Bedrossian|
|Spot the difference 2 - a still from Bonnie & Clyde (1967)|
|Spot the difference 2 - Bedrossian|
|Spot the difference 2 - Lindbergh|
I'm not trying to be a party pooper or the girl who cried plaigarism. As I said before, it's hard not to come to the same aesthetic conclusions when you're drawing inspiration from a film with such a strong image. Both editorials have some amazing, totally original images. They also have different moods. The Lindbergh shoot is full of movement, while Bedrossian's work is more contemplative and static.
|A super cool action shot from Lindbergh|
|A beautifully composed shot by Bedrossian|
It's a very close call, but I prefer Lindbergh's shoot. Which one do you like best?
All photos via Fashion Gone Rogue