It’s no secret Hollywood liberals are overly coddled and entitled little brats, and Meryl Streep just proved it with her reasoning for refusing a free $100,000 dress from high end clothing design company Chanel.
While we peasants couldn’t even afford such an expensive dress, let alone be offered one for absolutely nothing just because our wearing it may inspire others to shop for the company’s products, Streep couldn’t be bothered when Chanel’s Karl Lagerfield offered her one of his most recent designs. The worst part is it’s not because she hated the embroidered gray silk gown since she initially placed the order for it, and she didn’t have a falling out with Lagerfield either.
In fact, from the time she ordered the custom-made, high-dollar attire to the time she canceled it, absolutely nothing changed about the dress or her relationship with Lagerfield.
So what did?
Lagerfield refused to pay her to wear it to the Oscars, so when another designers called to offer her a free dress plus compensation for donning it at the awards show, Streep happily obliged.
More from WWD.com [emphasis mine]:
It seems that Streep was quite taken with an embroidered gray silk gown from Karl Lagerfeld’s most recent couture collection for the house. The dress was ordered, with Streep requesting an adjustment to the design — a higher neckline. Done. Such personalization is what couture is all about, along with exquisite execution, and, in the case of Chanel, Lagerfeld’s design brilliance. What more could the world’s greatest living actress want for Hollywood’s biggest night?
Turns out, she wants a paycheck. With work on the dress well underway in Chanel’s atelier, word came from Streep’s camp to cease and desist. “I made a sketch, and we started to make the dress,” Lagerfeld told WWD. Days later, a phone call came in from a member of Streep’s camp. “’Don’t continue the dress. We found somebody who will pay us,’” Lagerfeld quoted the messenger.
After learning of Streep’s awful reason for canceling the work in progress, Lagerfield only had the following to say:
“A genius actress, but cheapness also, no?”
Indeed. Another entitled limousine liberal who wants the world on a platter while supporting politics and policies that put the rest of us in the poor house.
Surprising? No. Disappointing? No. Deplorable? Absolutely.