Review

Killer Dress: The Red Menace of In Fabric Has a Mind of Its Own

Marrianne Jean-Baptiste stars in Peter Strickland's nervy, pervy, but only semi-worthy horror film
Image may contain Human Person Clothing Apparel Door Sleeve Interior Design Indoors Hair and Long Sleeve
From A25/Everett Collection.

Early in Peter Strickland’s In Fabric, Sheila (Marianne Jean-Baptiste), a divorced bank clerk looking for a fresh start, buys a dress. It’s for a date: she’s been sifting through the personal ads of late, and though she knows this shouldn’t matter to her one way or another, her ex-husband seems to have started anew with another woman.

It’s no spoiler to say that the dress Sheila buys—red, gorgeous, perfectly complementary to her size and shape, even though it isn’t her size and is sexier than what she’d usually go for—is up to no good. It has a way of slithering out of Sheila’s bedroom and into that of her son Vince, an ornery-cool artist type whose kinky girlfriend, Gwen (Gwendoline Christie), Sheila hates. The dress destroys Sheila’s washing machine, too, and is implausibly durable, impervious to even a vicious dog attack that ought to have torn it to shreds. Perhaps worst of all is the mark it leaves. Sheila can’t help but notice that since wearing the dress she’s started to develop a rash above her breast: puckered, red, awkward, and more than a little worrisome.

So begins Strickland’s stylish though not totally satisfying horror flick, a deviant, giallo-esque tour of this fashionably blinkered director’s mind. I never really took to Strickland’s well-liked previous films, the naughty and unnatural The Duke of Burgundy, for example, or Berberian Sound Studio, both of which share In Fabric’s cult-like devotion to creeping sonic textures, coiffed and cluttered visual schemes, emphatically odd acting styles, sexual perversion and, relatedly, body fluids. In Fabric is a richer, stranger movie than its predecessors, however—it’s got more going on, though only somewhat for the better.

The movie’s style is pulling it in too many directions. Those scenes of Sheila at work, for example, are droningly absurd, with Sheila’s bosses meting out reprimands for things like going to the bathroom too often. There’s Sheila’s home life, on the other hand: straightforward (the dress notwithstanding) but for things like Sheila peeking through the keyhole of her son’s door to spy on him having sex with Gwen.

And then there’s the world the dress came from: the world of Dentley & Soper’s, a mysterious department store that seems always to be flooded with breathless whispers, the sighs and excitement of shoppers whose hunger to buy-buy-buy the store’s attendants—mysteriously dressed women who speak with the curiously accented diction of a faulty translation app—seem to feed on.

These scenes are the film’s highlights. They’re where the silent creep of the uncanny seems to flow into the movie. You don’t necessarily know what it means that these dark-spirited attendants, who seem like relics of another time, open the store every day by beckoning hordes of shoppers through the doors with cult-ritualistic fervor. You don’t know what it is they’re doing with those mannequins of theirs—why they talk to them, sexualize them, as if they were people.

But these are the kinds of questions the movie succeeds at making pleasurably mysterious. Whereas, for much of its runtime, In Fabric seems more intent on being an intriguing story in desperate need of an approach that proves worthy of that intrigue. There’s a gap at work in Strickland’s filmmaking—between the mysteries he’s trying to conjure and the style standing in the way of accomplishing just that, a style that for all its impressive design rarely peels the rind off of the story’s core conceits.

It all just sort of happens—ingeniously, but boringly. Strickland has a great imagination for coming up with a world in which to let his characters deviate and play. But he doesn’t seem to understand what’s interesting, vital, about that world. It’s strange that a movie willing to show you semen spraying mid-air, or someone taking a taste of a mannequin’s menstrual blood, would somehow still fall short of really going there.

And yet that's the feeling In Fabric provoked in me for much of its run time. Watching the film’s insistent close-ups on Jeanne-Baptiste’s skin in that dress, sensing the contrast between her blackness and the blank whiteness of those mannequins and store ads, sensing that breadth of difference between the bodies high fashion is imagined to belong to and this other, more normal body, I got a prick of discomfort—the good kind. Images like these, rife with bodies and skin and scars , saturate the movie. They are charged, dangerous; Strickland tries to find particular power in the image of women looking in the mirror. But he ultimately proves too infatuated with his mirror tricks and splashy sound design and winking sexual perversion—all of which announce the movie’s fetish for atmosphere about as elegantly as a fog machine at a middle school dance—to make use of the lively questions and discomforts his own film raises. Even as much of this proves sort of relevant to the plot, it somehow feels secondary to the less pressing, less interesting arc of Strickland's grand design.

If In Fabric is initially hindered by the literalism of Strickland's vision, it still manages to prove irritatingly suspenseful, at times even pleasurably shocking. That’s especially true of the latter half of the movie, when the dress chooses a new pair of victims, Reg Speaks (Leo Bill) and Babs (Hayley Squires), and the film intriguingly seems to repeat itself, only more effectively than the first time. It becomes a better movie—and makes you wish it’d been a great one.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

— Why Baby Yoda has conquered the world— Scarlett Johansson on movies, marriage, and controversies
2020 Oscar nominations: 20 movies that are serious contenders — 29 of the brightest stars who died— The decade’s best shows, episodes, and where to stream our favorites — V.F.’s chief critic looks back at the films that helped define the year in cinema— From the Archive: Julia Roberts—Hollywood’s Cinderella and the belle of the box office

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hollywood newsletter and never miss a story.