Whether you like Gwyneth Paltrow or not, as a businesswoman she understands an important principle of being an entrepreneur: You can also benefit from negative attention. “If people roll their eyes at me, I can make money out of it,” she said in a 2018 speech to students at Harvard University. The actress and entrepreneur behind the wellness platform Goop had already drawn the ire of the social media mob several times at the time: She recommended jade eggs that you put in your vagina and let homeopaths have their say on her page who recommended a goat’s milk diet. Last December, Goop promoted a $75 bag of animal dung as a gift tip for Christmas.
Any shitstorm has never really hurt Paltrow’s business, but has always drawn a lot of attention to herself and Goop. The recent excitement surrounding the trial in which Paltrow faced a retired optometrist is no exception. Brief on the content: As a plaintiff, the 76-year-old accused the actress of hitting and colliding with him in the back during a ski trip in the mountains of Utah in 2016, a collision that left him with multiple injuries and one of trauma owed personality change should have carried away. According to Paltrow, it was exactly the opposite: he reportedly crashed into her back. In the civil trial, the jury found the 50-year-old not responsible for the accident.
The trial went on for almost two weeks, but reading the numerous Twitter comments and articles that have appeared about it, one cannot help but suspect that, for some observers, it could have gone on forever. This is mainly due to Gwyneth Paltrow’s wardrobe: Every day she appeared in a new look, in which she looked exactly like a woman who buys a skin serum for 150 euros in a shiny white Goop boutique at the Tesla for the weekly market in a hip residential area from Los Angeles and wears cashmere sweatpants on a plane. That means: wealthy, but in a way that only the insiders register as such. A generously cut, cream-colored knitted turtleneck, a high-necked polo dress with sturdy boots, a double-breasted gray blazer with a delicate knitted top and golden link chains peeking out.
It looks spotless, tidy, yet casual and, above all, very expensive. How expensive is what fashion fans talk shop about on social media. Are the glasses from Gucci or Ray Ban? Prada boots? Surely the coat is from The Row? Prices are googled right away (Smythson’s notebook retails for $250), but what’s most intriguing is the way Paltrow signals taste and status without resorting to the usual clumsy fashion tricks: logos, fur, shrill catwalk trends. Instead, crumpled leather bags and flowing silk blouses suggest that these are “basics” of the very first category, which anyone who knows what is good will recognize. Even without a logo.
In fashion, this aesthetic is also referred to as “quiet luxury” or “stealth wealth”, secret wealth. It makes it clear: the wearer does not need to underline their status with extravagant klimby. In the context of a courtroom, this still seems a little too self-confident at first glance, as if you are symbolically positioning yourself over an annoying inconvenience that you, as a VIP, actually have no time for. However, Gwyneth Paltrow wore exactly what she usually wears, at least a more serious, trial-ready version of it. She wore what she liked, what she could afford and what she thought was appropriate for the sober setting.
One thing is certain: if Paltrow had only played another role here – as a dressed-up diva or as a strict uniform wearer in a suit – she would have drawn criticism in any case. Time and time again, stars involved in legal disputes influence the discourse around their court hearings with their outfits, whether consciously or not. Martha Stewart outraged in 2004 during the shady stock sales trial with a Birkin bag, one of Hermès’ most expensive bags. Paris Hilton drew a smile when she faced a driving trial in 2007 while looking like a boarder.
In such situations, stars are always faced with the question of whether to downplay or play off their fame. Paltrow tried neither: she didn’t dwell on false modesty, but she was respectful of not outshining the place she was in. Can’t really blame her for wearing clothes from her own Goop collection. Paltrow believes the accuser, who is seeking $300,000 in damages, is using her celebrity status and wealth for personal gain. From her perspective, she’s been pushed into a public court show that she didn’t choose herself. Why shouldn’t she use that for herself too? After all, she’s a businesswoman.
