|
by Mary Killen
Party',
says the dictionary, 'a gathering for social entertainment'. And in
1988 the innocent stimulation of gaiety, fun, dancing, flirtation
and introductions, were all a party-giver hoped to preside over. Oh
and the paying back of hospitality. Nowadays the opulence can be just
as great - excessive sometimes as, for example, at the party for Madonna
in the private room at the Ivy where, guests grumbled, the smell of
the white roses covering the ceiling ( in December ) was 'too strong'.
But the difference between an opulent party in 1988 and an opulent
party now is that in 1998 your host may have a hidden agenda, may
well have something to sell...
Having something to sell is one of the reasons
why the sight of a champagne-wielding reveller has now become so
commonplace in the media. Time was when only Tatler and Harpers
& Queen ran 'Party Pages'. Now every publication makes space
for them. the photographers are invited, the media is 'handled'-either
because someone wants to blow their own trumpet with a view to career
advancements and networking, or because a pr firm hopes to lodge
the indelible impression in consumer's minds that there is a link
between their product and social success.
Private parties, given for private pleasures
still happen in England, they are given by grandees and those who
have held onto their old money or even made substantial amounts
of new. But the hosts are now windier about requests from social
diary editors for coverage. It was different in the days when only
fellow glossy-readers from one's own extended circle would be having
a look but now, if you've got it, surely it's foolhardy to flaunt
it?
As one grandee commented to me 'Now that you
can no longer be rude or make jokes about any minority groups on
grounds of race or religion, the only ones you are free to attack
are toffs, so why ask for trouble by courting publicity?' ( It was
recently noted that English toffs are now the only baddies allowed
to appear in films nowadays since Gypsies, Indians, Germans and
'Natives' must only appear in heroic lights for pc reasons ).
It was different then. Tatler, which had been
effectively dormant for many years was resurrected in 1980 by Tina
Brown. Debutante balls, society weddings and lawn meets were then
about as fashionable as a convention of chiropodists would be now.
There was an idee fixe that the upper classes consisted only of
buttoned-up braying buffoons since these were the only faces, smiling
straight to camera which had tended to appear in the Tatler's little-read
social pages.
Under Tina Brown these pages were suddenly
filled with physically attractive members of the upper classes and
Tatler took off. Could she have wreaked the same magic with chiropodists
were she asked to do so today. Probably not because one major reason
that the public had become more interested in high society was because
the Princess of Wales had come into their lives and they now had
an appetite for any information at all about the world she came
from.
The Tatler's secret weapon was the photographer
Dafydd Jones who had been discovered in Oxford by Tina Brown. Jones's
eye for the movement or gesture which somehow says it all about
a person, plus his ability to blend into the background of any social
event and photograph people almost without their realising it, was
a rich asset. He caught them pushing one another into swimming pools.
screwing up their faces into ludicrous but characteristic grimaces,
spraying champagne around the place when they were Hooray Henries
and dressing up in drag at the Piers Gaveston such as Hugh Grant
and allowing themselves to be photographed snogging other boys.
In the Bystander office of the Tatler where,
in 1988 I presided with my little assistant Camilla Cecil, now Jennifer
of Harpers & Queen, we had no problem with persuading people
to allow their parties to be photographed nor in persuading them
to be interviewed on the flimsiest of pretexts.
It wasn't that they were showing off, just
that their world seemed smaller and more confined so doors were
thrown open to photographers because, it was thought, it would be
fun to see the photographs a couple of months later and people had
bought such lovely dresses and the house was looking so nice.
Mark Boxer, under whose editorship I joined
the Tatler, had a theory that if Dafydd attended twenty events a
month then at least two thousand people would buy the Tatler in
the hope that their own photograph would be in. The reality was
that only about one hundred and twenty people would appear each
month. Craig Brown, who worked there at the time, always thought
it was hilarious that it should take a month to produce a glossy
magazine when it took only one day to produce a newspaper with exactly
the same amount of words in it, but the truth was that the Tatler
text was more titivated. the hosts and hostesses of parties were
sucked up to by members of staff who rang or wrote to ask if their
party could be covered. They sometimes came into the office to look
at the photographs and be given some spare prints and although they
were allowed to beg that certain people might not be included in
the magazine on the grounds, for example, that they had gate-crashed
the party and would therefore be unrepresentative of their friends.
Sometimes a guest did not want to be caught out as being present,
since they had cancelled a former invitation to go to a better one,
but the final selection was mine, Mark Boxer's and the art editors
choice.
People genuinely enjoyed being in the social
pages of a glossy in 1988. It was simple fun and that was all there
was. One of my best friends, Gerry Farrell, whose wife Jo's thirtieth
birthday party is featured here, has always had a huge social network.
I used to ring him from, the offices of Tatler on occasion-'Gerry
we want to do a spread of party pictures showing black women who
really good dancers...can you think of any?'
'Oooh, please, said Gerry, can I be in it?'
And his response was not at all atypical.
|