I didn't see the film. I don't think I needed to. Youth cults, working class kids that's all in the past. I'm not interested in what Suggs, Weller or Elms has to say.
I think that the shop under Paul Simons has indeed moved on and good for him. JS was always worth listening to and I'm grateful he kept his shops going, through the good and bad times

I watched the film on Tuesday for the first time, in the main I thought it was good, I pretty much agree with the 3 comments above but I was irritated by the frequent mention of skinheads going to the Ivy Shop, as I've mentioned before I was 15/16 yrs old in '68/69 so probably the right age at the right time to be a skinhead, but I never considered myself one, (I thought I was part of the next generation of mods), and from memory neither did 99% of the young guys that spent their hard earned money in the IS, the term skinhead came in around '69 and for the most part was used as a derogatory term by those of us who thought (right or wrong) we were better, the guy in the herringbone tweed said something similar. Woof, I'd say 90% of the young guys shopping in the IS at that time were working class, there were a few lucky guys I guess who had middle class parents, (most of the middle class kids were hippies), I often wonder why the mention of skinheads and some sort of association with the IS still irritates me after all these years !

I watched it for the first time yesterday.

I thought it was an interesting programme. Not wildly exiting. But I don't really know how you'd make a film about a shop and it's keeper that without widening the subject out to cover Ivy League and it's clothing style as a whole. I found the same watching ego massaging tributes to Ralph Lauren and J Crew. Separated out and put on a pedestal on their own they're not fascinating viewing.

Stax and Robbie have confirmed that they were the kids JS was attracting. He had the vision and nouse to see that London probably wasn't going to be filled with Ivy wearing executives like New York. And the retailer's sensibility to sell his goods to whoever wanted them. If not he wouldn't still be there. So why shouldn't that element of the customer be mentioned? To leave out any mention of mods or skin/suedeheads would have been to edit history to suit your own fantasies of what the shop was, should or could have been. Can anyone imagine a documentary on Malcolm McLaren being commissioned on the proviso that punk isn't mentioned?

I thought Weller, Suggs, Elms, Paul Smith, Dylan Jones etc. were infinitely more interesting and eloquent than the other regular customers featured. Like them or not they have a charisma that some guy off the street can't match. And It came across that all of them, and Jason Jules, had a genuine admiration for the subject. Which for most customers I imagine is a very nice shop that sells clothes they like. Not a lifestyle.

2RS mentions that the mod scene has never managed to produce a figure of stature. What British scene has? The soul or jazz scenes (in any of their strands)? Teds? Rave? The scene is it's own strength and it isn't anyone's place to leech off it in order to be appointed or refer to themselves as a figure of stature. To me it came across that John and Paul knew this only too well.

Again, like him or not (and I stopped being a fan around 2000 when I stopped calling myself a mod) I can't think of any 'scene' that has thrown up a public figure that anywhere near approaches the stature of Weller. John Lydon? Shaun Ryder? Lonnie Donegon? I can't think of a single good reason why they wouldn't want him featured in it. And I can't think that he'd be on it for any other reason than he wanted to.

Last edited by Spendthrift (2022-05-26 06:04:28)

A key point is that John himself, and virtually all the people who have worked for him, are just not interested in pop culture and pop music. You'd get a few 'stars' coming into the shop and John didn't know who half of them were. If he had an idol it would be Charlie Parker, or Sonny Rollins, or Chet Baker - musicians of genuinely remarkable talent. He wanted to sell clothes to whoever obviously, and was always appreciative of any regular customer, but youth culture with its codes and obsessions he was just blind to. In fact it's more than that - he thought the British obsession with the trend, the trivial, the inconsequential was a product of an immature, ill-educated culture. Which is why for me to see Weller and Suggs and Kevin Rowland basically just missing the point was hard to stomach. I am glad it was made, as it must help Paul's shop, and John deserves his dues, but the way it was made - not for me.

I'm sorry Uncle, but he was perhaps the worst, adopting the Ivy Look as Official Band Wardrobe for a year purely as shock value. Look at us! We are the outrageous squares with side-partings and crewneck sweaters! Before long he was wearing a negligee and a pink codpiece. He is not a serious individual. Why the need to splash celebrities all over everything? What special insight does fame give an individual? We have celebrities all over the bloody place without whose glorious endorsement a topic seemingly remains invalid or uninteresting. Celebrity Pointless, Celebrity Big Brother, Celebrity Bloody Everything, and now Celebrity John Simons.

There he goes again, the tape measure out, boasting about his inches. Was it REALLY 6 inches Woof....?

Well Ivy is still low-key. Has it been any lower? I rarely see any ivy dress on the streets. The 'Celibrities' only seem to dip in and out with Ivy clothes. I'll go to my grave wearing BD shirts, 'correct footwear' and the rest. If I can get it and as long as there is a J Simons that would seem possible
And I will still be interested in the art, architecture, music, furniture design that for me goes with it all.

Last edited by RobbieB (2022-05-27 05:18:21)

I watched it again last night to try and balance out my own view. At various times I've been a huge fan of Weller, Madness and Dexy's as well as floating around that general American button down look, without ever visiting JS. So there was never going to be anything in there to upset me.

Looking at it a bit more objectively, I agree with 2RS a lot more. And with what AFS has just said there.

There was an imbalance when it came to the clothes. It would have been nice to see John or Paul talking the viewer through what their style of clothing actually is. What makes it something they'll stock. The difference between a JS and Hackett style jacket maybe. One guy said you wanted a Squire shirt because everyone else would be in Ben Sherman. But they never showed us the difference.

The celebs were in the main sitting in a shop full of clobber. Perfectly presented, but not to the viewer, who wouldn't have gone away any the wiser about what that folded knitwear looked like. Or what the cut of the trousers was. Granted there were lots of grainy photos of what it WAS, but the way it was edited makes it look like JS missed his chance to sell. And from the little I know about him that doesn't seem very likely?

The Guy Ritchie reference made me smile.  I've never seen anything of his and assume it's along the lines of drinking warm keg beer whilst staring moodily at a decaying Scotch egg.

Guy Ritchie is a customer of JS.

I really liked the John Simons film. I have enjoyed most of Mono Medias output.

I think when so many people on here are passionate about the subject matter the film would never satisfy everybody.

Developing niche films like this is a financial nightmare. I've got over 30 years of producing commercial films so I know.

The film ranges to cover a lot of ground it a relatively short time frame. Some of you may say there was a lot missing or it should have had more. The economics probably didn't allow for this.

Just getting an opportunity to sit down with the talking heads they managed to get hold of would have required a significant amount of time/effort.They all had something worthwhile to say.They added context.

The customers who were filmed were all really good. I've filmed really knowledgable people on subjects they should be able to speak lucidly about for 30 seconds and the moment you shove them in front of a camera they struggle to construct the most basic of sentences.

Yes, it would of been nice to show more examples of clothes but how easy would these have been to locate and get into the shop on the days when filming was scheduled. I know people on here will say "I've got a Lion of Troy they could of filmed". How would the producers know that, would you be willing to get it to wherever for a guaranteed time slot, then they've got to get it back to you, etc

A quick reality check. We talk about the stature of John Simons as if all men are interested in clothes as much as we are - yet alone a niche such as Ivy in the UK. Most men on the UK high street, in their dull shapeless clothing, haven't got a clue about what constitutes being well dressed yet alone a small independent menswear store in London.

We are lucky to have a record of the man, his background and his role.

Having said that ... haha!
On reflection it wouldn't have taken much to dress up someone presentable in clothing from the shop and quickly run through the differences between a soft shoulder jacket and a traditional English one. What makes for a good button down shirt and so on. How the Ivy look covers a whole spectrum of dress from the smart to the casual and how it is a style for someone who likes to look different without sticking out like a sore thumb. You could have covered this in a fairly short sequence without drilling down to a level of detail that would bore the average viewer. It would have conveyed some of the mystique around Ivy clothing a lot better than Suggs saying that the clothing in JS is twenty times better than any passing fad. A missed opportunity perhaps?