10x

Too haute for the yellow brick road

To commemorate the 70th anniversary of The Wizard of Oz, 19 re-creations of Dorothy's ruby slippers will be unveiled in the windows and designer shoe salon of Sak's Fifth Avenue's New York City location during a gala on Sept. 4.

Three heel clicks later, the made-over ruby slippers will be at Bryant Park in New York City for Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week and reappear again at Art Basel Miami Beach.

The consumer products division of Warner Bros. in conjunction with crystal company Swarovski developed the concept behind the promotion, which will include an auction in fall 2009 benefiting the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.

With designers such as Betsey Johnson, Diane von Furstenberg and Jimmy Choo creating the designs, whatever these sparkly shoes lack in magic, they're sure to make up for in style.

So which designer you think is most likely to outshine the others with their crystal- or ruby- embedded edition of Dorothy's shoe?

Reel gems

I was one of the enthusiastic fans who contributed a whole $10.50 to the whopping $55.7 million opening of Sex and the City: The Movie.

So as not to spoil the fun for the less-than-devoted SATC followers who haven't made it to the theater yet, I'll give you the skinny on the film's scene-stealing jewelry and leave out the rest.

Oddly enough, it was the accessories worn by Samantha (Kim Cattrall)—not fashionista Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker)—that captured my attention throughout the film.

High up on my list of faves is Samantha's exquisitely massive diamond-flower ring, which happened to be the focus of several scenes. The bold gold earrings she wore with a white Dior suit and perfectly matched belt gave SATC's bad girl a pristine yet sophisticated look.

I also recall a scene where the slight raise of her arm reveals a row of narrow bangles extending from her wrist all the way to her elbow.

Samantha also pulled off one of the best scenes in the movie using a hat of fabulous proportions as a prop. Although it wasn't a piece of sparkling bling, it was my favorite accessory by far.

Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) traded in her androgynous look for a more glam one. The large oval hoop earrings that peeked out from her red wavy tresses simply screamed "I'm a girlie girl." She also showed off a pair of double loop dangling earrings by tucking her hair behind her ears.

Charlotte (Kristen Davis) wore an extra-large Chanel pin that I couldn't take my eyes off of. Pics of the movie set, which appeared on a Web site, also showed her wearing a bib necklace by Daniel Swarovski. I don't think the piece appeared in the final cut, but it definitely would've drawn attention away from Carrie, the focus of the scene.

Except for the pieces she wore during an editorial fashion shoot, Carrie's jewelry was not memorable. However, she did help me discover a daring new place to wear pearls, but first I have to buy a navel-length single strand like hers. Much to my chagrin, she sported my least favorite non-jewelry accessory—a studded black belt. She wore it with a dress, a coat and anything she could fasten it around.

If you saw any jewelry in the movie that made you go "ooh" or "eew," let us know.

And the gold award goes to…

Barring a Golden Globes-style news-conference presentation, the red carpet at the 80th Annual Academy Awards is expected to be adorned in pure gold on Feb. 24.

InStyle.com's "Red carpet retrospective" shows the A-list's love affair with platinum, diamonds and bare necks in the past, but this year, gold necklaces and bracelets have been named must-have accessories.

Last week's Vicenza Fair in Italy featured gold jewelry that was definitely red-carpet ready. Serpents, flowers and insects appeared to be popular themes at the gold-jewelry exhibition.

So who among the starlets attending the Oscars this year will woo the press and fans with their gold-jewelry picks?

'Blood Diamond'’s curtain call

In the months leading up to the release of Blood Diamond, industry seminars on the issue of conflict diamonds played to packed rooms.

But on Monday at the JA New York Winter Show, just a few retailers took the time to attend “Strengthening Industry Safeguards,” an update on the Kimberley Process and the steps the industry continues to take as part of its “zero tolerance” policy on illicit stones.

That can be taken as good news and bad news. On one hand, it’s a sign many retailers are up to speed and prepared for questions. On the other, it may represent a kind of “we dodged that one” arrogance, since the film didn’t have a major impact on holiday diamond sales or Hollywood’s love affair with diamond jewelry (as witnessed by the high-bling quotient at the Golden Globes last week).

I’m hoping it’s more the former and not the latter. Now is not the time for self-congratulations and complacency. Seminar presenter Jeff Fischer, president of the International Diamond Manufacturers Association, pointed out how some think the industry—which survived the period when conflict diamonds made up a more significant percentage of the overall supply—is impervious.

“If they think the movie has blown over and that they don’t need to do anything, then the movie really has done harm,” he said.

Plus, with five Academy Awards nominations—including Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor—the movie has its second wind. Oscar nominations may not be a true barometer of quality, but they mean business. They’re the film industry’s equivalent to a presidential campaign. Blood Diamond is officially back in the race.

Though it failed to receive a coveted Best Picture nomination, Leonardo DiCaprio’s nod for Best Actor (yes, I was wrong when I predicted he’d get nominated for The Departed instead) is a huge boost for the film. Rather then disappearing from theaters, Warner Bros. has a reinvigorated campaign. Those seemingly ubiquitous television spots will return, this time with the marketers’ favorite refrain, “Academy Award nominee...”

With the Oscars, the release of Blood Diamond in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, documentaries on the topic and continued pressure from non-governmental organizations, this is an issue that isn’t—and shouldn’t—go away. If anything, it will expand as the industry delves more deeply into developmental concerns at the heart of reducing that conflict diamond number to zero.

Bottom line: Now is not the time to throw out those Diamondfacts.org confidence cards.

'Blood Diamond'’s Oscar chances

Although it's yet to bow in theaters, Blood Diamond  got its first serious Academy Awards boost today (Oprah notwithstanding) as the National Board of Review (NBR) picked it among its 10 best of the year and actor Djimon Hounsou as best supporting actor. Clint Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima was chosen as best film of the year. Read the full story at The Hollywood Reporter.

For those unfamiliar with the group, NBR is a non-profit that consists of film professionals, educators, students and historians. Their opinions and influence are hotly debated during awards season, but without question, their annual awards serve as the first big precursor on who and what will get Oscar nominations. In the past two years, all five Academy Awards' best picture nominees were in the group's top 10.

The fact that Blood Diamond was included may mean nothing in the end, but it certainly doesn't hurt the film's chances. Also chosen by the group were Babel, The Departed, The Devil Wears Prada, Flags of Our Fathers, The History Boys, Little Miss Sunshine, Notes on a Scandal and The Painted Veil. Of the four others I've seen, I'd personally put two (The Departed and Little Miss Sunshine) ahead of Blood Diamond, while Babel, Flags, Notes and Painted Veil have thus far received more "Oscar buzz." Two notable NBR snubs, Dreamgirls and The Queen, have, up until this point, been receiving a lot more Oscar-potential ink.

Ultimately, I don't think Blood Diamond will get a best picture nomination, but if jewelers hope it drops off the radar after opening, this is an indicator that the blitz has only just begun.

And if nothing else, this makes Hounsou a serious contender for a supporting actor nomination.

'Blood Diamond' screened

Having finally seen Blood Diamond in a sold-out preview Saturday night, I think the biggest impact the film will have is to make concerned consumers raise questions. In fact, in its post-script, it urges them to make sure the diamonds they buy are conflict-free.

The film contains plenty of violent images that without any context could be damaging to the diamond industry, most notably child soldiers and the horrors inflicted by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) during Sierra Leone's civil war, as well as a diamond industry that enabled the trading of smuggled gems through a fictionalized diamond cartel called Van De Kamp (an obvious hit at De Beers). But ultimately, this isn't a message film and doesn't have the impact of something like the far superior Hotel Rwanda. Plus, it isn't saying "don't buy diamonds"; if anything, it tells people to be conscientious about the diamonds they do purchase. The strongest statement comes from Jennifer Connelly's journalist character who says people wouldn't want a diamond ring if they knew it cost another person their hand.

The plot-heavy film throws out a number of statistics and information about diamonds (it quotes the disputed figure that during the period 15 percent of diamonds were considered of conflict origin and has a mention of Global Witness). But it has such a relentless onslaught of violence (at times crossing over from compelling into video-game territory), history and fiction that the viewer is more likely to walk out feeling exhausted than suddenly enlightened about Africa and the role diamonds play, for good or ill. As one friend (someone who feels deeply about a number of global issues, but who is not in the jewelry industry) put it: "It didn't make me care." In other words, it's an action film, not a call-to-action film.

In the end, it comes off as a toss-up for the industry. Rather than an indictment, it feels like a slap on the wrist for past indiscretion and a more hopeful vision of how things have changed. It includes rather incomplete notes on the Kimberley Process and the fact that there is now peace in Sierra Leone. While it does give the rather grim statistic that there are still 200,000 child soldiers in Africa, it doesn't connect that statement to the diamond industry.

As for whether or not the film is good or bad, I think it's decent but far from great. The audience response seemed semi-positive (some applause at the end and one overheard "That was great"). I'm not sure if it's just because I've been writing about it month after month, but I was probably "over it" by the time I actually got to screen it. Usually when I see a film that really hits me, however, I want to talk about it extensively and passionately afterward, even if I've been caught up in the "buzz" leading up to it. Saturday night, neither myself nor anyone in my group of friends was particularly inspired to discuss the movie.

Blood Diamond is what I'd consider a solidly made action film that's raised up a notch by terrific performances from Djimon Hounsou and Leonardo DiCaprio. In terms of its Oscar chances, I think Hounsou has the best shot at a major Academy Award nomination in the supporting actor category. I'm sticking by my earlier prediction that DiCaprio will get nominated for best actor but for The Departed. His performance in Blood Diamond will no doubt help him get the recognition he deserves for the other film.

Regardless what the critical and commercial response is (you can read a few early reviews here), it's still a must-see for retailers and those in the diamond industry. The real ongoing story on this issue is far more interesting and compelling than this fiction, and its something jewelers must be prepared to share. Because if the film asks consumers to take responsibility for what they buy, jewelers have to be sure they've taken responsibility for what they sell.

Let's go Scorsese!

While there's been plenty of chatter about Blood Diamond, and it only seems to be increasing as the Dec. 8 release date looms, I think the diamond industry should keep in mind the success of another film that shares both the star (Leonardo DiCaprio) and studio (Warner Bros. Pictures) with that cinematic thorn in the diamond industry's side. That film, The Departed, could be a friend or foe, depending on how things play out.

Even with their big budgets, studios tend to put more behind a winning horse. Right now, that horse appears to be The Departed. The Martin Scorsese film is getting rave reviews and is now considered a favorite to get an Academy Awards Best Picture nomination. DiCaprio in particular has earned praise for his role in the Boston cops-and-mobsters thriller. And if the buzz (which can be fickle) holds, it looks as though his best shot at an acting Oscar (or at least a nomination) will be The Departed, not Blood Diamond.

It's true that the enormous success of The Departed and DiCaprio's performance could boost the pre-release push for Blood Diamond (and Warner Bros. has attached the latter film's trailer to The Departed). But when it comes to awards season, it could pull the spotlight away from the Sierra Leone-set movie.

Why does all of this matter to people who sell diamonds? It may not make a huge difference, but films with Oscar buzz and nominations have a longer shelf life. If Blood Diamond is a box office and awards season disappointment and overshadowed by its Warner Bros. counterpart, it could fade fast. That's not to say that it can't make an impression, but it won't be nearly as deep or as potentially damaging if the film doesn't have "legs" of the critic, box-office and awards-season variety. No matter how much hype a film gets before its release (Snakes on a Plane and The Black Dahlia are recent  examples) a poor performer drops faster than a lead balloon.

None of this speculation should keep retailers from making sure they're prepared for questions consumers may have about conflict diamonds, and they should see the film. But they may also want to root for Scorsese and The Departed to steal at least at some of its thunder.