Television seems to have a different relationship with fashion than film does. In television, particularly within shows that are set in modern times, there is a greater expectation for on-screen characters to respond to the fashion world.

Prada's 2012 Milan Menswear show is the perfect example of my previous point. Rather than casting fashion industry models, Prada had Hollywood's most notorious 'villain actors' showcase the collection (Adrien Brody, Willem Defoe, Gary Oldman). The show reveals that fashion and film do have a close relationship, but its one that exists off-screen rather than on-screen

Although fashion and film are not necessarily fully intertwined, the fashion industry has a deep relationship with movie stars. It is interesting to note this relationship, because although we do not associate film directly with fashion aesthetics, an actor's catalogue of films influence their real-world persona, which therein influences what fashion houses and styles they have relationships with. It could be said that the fashion industry is the ultimate type-caster.

Perhaps as the result of fashion not viewing film as its 'own medium', the industry has co-opted film in more minor ways that are explicitly fashion (and commercial) rather than intertwining the entire medium of film with the industry

Understanding both the benefit and consequence of the distinction between costume and fashion

It is hard to imagine designers willingly toning their designs down for cinema

Cinema is typically more of an illusion than fashion. As both industries make technological and conceptual strides, they become increasingly immersive. Cinema continues to offer more immersion and illusion, while fashion grounds itself in reality as mentioned earlier.

The film industry aims to create immersion by avoiding distracting costume, but the industry fails to acknowledge the nuanced importance of clothing choices in building immersion.

Runways and other traditional forms of fashion media train those in the fashion industry to criticize the aesthetic and narrative implications of clothing, and yet critics feel that film is not delivering in this front. Immersion breaker.

Fashion feels much more grounded in reality than cinema, and both bodies and garments are selected for having a surreal quality. Film is not quite like this; the industry continues to reach for more niche ideas.

The photography industry has a much more interconnected relationship with fashion than film does. Photography and fashion have a more symbiotic relationship, and this may be due to the fashion industry's traditional reliance on print media.

This is also true, and very important to note. It is not only the consequence of the film industry's relationship with costume that has made fashion an afterthought in film, but also the fault of the fashion industry. Costume design is considered an afterthought by houses, magazines and therefore consumers.

Fashion as an art form is particularly unique because at times it is expected to be ostentatious and attention-drawing, and at other times it is expected to be immersive and unnoticed. Traditionally, the cinema's expectation has been that fashion occupy the latter role, not drawing attention away from the immersion of the narrative. In recent history, I believe there has been a pushback to this school of thought, and directors like Wes Anderson now aim to integrate fashion in the former manner - intentionally elaborate and aesthetically significant.

The idea that something can be 'intrinsically cinematic' is very interesting. There is an idea that even before the invention of cinema, the cinematic was already occurring in real life, and the camera merely gave us a tool to capture it as well as a term to describe it. If this is the case, then fashion certainly shares this intrinsically cinematic quality, and much of the appeal of fashion can be seen as an appeal to the cinematic aesthetic.

Designers often view the clothes they design as extensions of the body, and the silk dress here can be understood as an extension of the dancer. Vertov's approach to cinema views the camera in a similar way, as he treats it as an extension of himself.