Heidi Klum and Tim Gunn explain the difference between Making The Cut and that other show
TV Features Interview
Many Project Runway fans were devastated when longtime hosts Heidi Klum and Tim Gunn left after 16 seasons for a new then-unnamed Amazon show. Last week, the first three episodes of Making The Cut finally dropped, showcasing 12 new designers; a noticeably higher production value, with shoots in Paris and Tokyo; and an online Amazon store that immediately offers each week’s winning design in limited quantities (all Making The Cut’s fashions are currently sold out). But best of all, the series marks the return of Heidi and Tim, visiting Parisian nightclubs and Tokyo open-air markets in between acting as mentor to the contestants (Gunn) and as part of a judging lineup that includes Naomi Campbell, Nicole Richie, Joseph Altuzarra, Carine Roitfeld, and Chiara Ferragni (Klum).
A few days before the series premiered, Klum and Gunn talked with us about the differences between their new show and their previous one, those “cinematic” production values, and acceptable fashion in the time of the coronavirus.
The A.V. Club: What did you want to do differently in this show that you didn’t do on Project Runway?
Tim Gunn: We wanted to be more relevant to the industry, and that’s why the main topic of the show is branding. It’s much more than talking about a pretty dress; it’s talking about what is the vision, who is the customer, what’s your distinctive point of view? Heidi’s always talking to the designers about cutting through the noise. There’s so much product out there, how do you differentiate your work and yourself?
Heidi Klum: I think before we had a silly competition, and now we’re looking for a brand, something that can sustain, something that will hopefully be loved and enjoyed around the world. We had to test [the designers] on different criteria to see do they also have the business hat on or are they just creative? Can they delegate? Because we have seamstresses for them. As the season goes further and further toward the end, there are more things they have to do that real businesspeople have to do if you’re going to have a big global brand. So it’s very, very different, our questions are different. They have to know more who they are and most importantly, who they’re designing for.
AVC: It should be really interesting to find out how the winning pieces sell on Amazon.
TG: We’re eager to find out the same thing!
HK: We hope that we found the best people, that people love it, and this all goes toward our designers. They’re all artists, and so it’s very exciting for them. We see their faces light up when we’re able to tell them, “This will be available right now on our online store.” They’re like, “Oh, my gosh, this is live right now? People can actually buy this?” Because finally people get to wear their creations. That’s what they all want. It’s beautiful.
AVC: It’s mentioned on the show that you two hand-picked these 12 designers. What was your process for doing that?
TG: We met everybody. I’m not sure what the total number was on how many submissions there were, but we met with about 75 designers. And it was difficult.
HK: [But] it was fun times meeting with all these people, from various places all over the world. Some come with a rolling rack, some come with a suitcase full of stuff. I’m trying things on, and you’re trying to get into their heads quickly on who they are. We look at their clothes, and they need to speak for themselves. But we’re also obviously doing a TV show so we want to make sure, “Hey, who do we actually have here, who is behind these clothes, are they really making them themselves or what’s happening there?” Really trying to get a grip quickly on these people. And we feel like we’ve picked the best bunch.
AVC: They’re all so supportive of each other. There seems to be a lot less drama.
TG: They’re old souls. It was very gratifying to see them building a community and helping each other. It was very moving.
HK: And we’re not used to that; we’re used to catfights and people throwing others under the bus, and that really wasn’t the case here. They were really nice to each other and helpful.
AVC: What can the average unfashionable viewer like myself take from watching the high-end fashions being created on Making The Cut?
HK: I hope 1) that you take some joy from watching it, and 2) I think it explains to you and any people how fashion actually happens, the creativity, the process, plus the business side of it, how it actually comes about. And when you put something on, it gives you a little bit more of a sense of like, “Wow,” what all went behind making this jacket, for example. Someone had to pick the fabric, the cut, etc., etc., all these things. And what do you take into your closet? Hopefully some of the winning looks!
TG: I mean, we all need clothes. They’re part of our lives. And I really believe that Making The Cut will expand people’s vocabulary of how to talk about clothes.
AVC: What kind of brand are you guys ultimately looking for?
HK: Well, hopefully something that people can fall in love with. Because we are going to be seen in 400 territories by many different people in different countries. When we’re looking for a winning look, we’re trying to keep that in mind, like the world is watching. Before it was really like only people here were watching. Now it’s people from all over are watching. So we’re hoping that people are responding, especially to the winning look, and we hope that they buy and therefore support the designers. We hope that people agree with us and fall in love with that person and what they create.
TG: And that the winning designer has a broad appeal.
AVC: You can see that being an issue with some of the designers, like Esther with her primarily black palette, or Martha with her pastel bows and sequins.
TG: And that’s the challenge.
HK: You’ll have to keep watching, to see where this is going to go.
AVC: The production level on this series is so high. All the location shots are gorgeous. What was it like moving into a different arena on that level?
TG: To be honest—Heidi, I don’t know about you—I didn’t know that the show would have this production value. When I started to see cuts, I was just flabbergasted. I said to our director, “Forget about the Emmys. We’re going straight to the Oscars!”
HK: [Laughs.] Yeah, it’s beautifully shot. It’s super-cinematic. When you see the first episode, when we’re in front of the Eiffel Tower, it looks like it’s fake. It’s almost to the point of “Can we make this a little less good-looking? Because I think people will think we shot this on a green screen.”
But what we wanted to do is not just show people this beautiful world or for us the travel, but really for the designers, how it trickles down into their work. Being in these different places, having those different assignments, you can see it in the clothes. It inspires them to do things that they wouldn’t do if they were just shooting in the studio. Before they would be in the studio, and they would go to the fabric store, and every now and then there’s an outing. When you really leave leave the country, where everything is completely different, the culture, it makes such a difference in their work. It makes it more special.
TG: That’s all we changed, just the location, and then pow! You have a whole new generation of inspiration.
AVC: Did you two come up with the various weekly challenges, like “couture” and “collaboration”?
TG: It was part of a large dialogue. Sara Rea was with us for the last 11 seasons of Project Runway. She was our showrunner. And when Heidi and I had this great meeting with Amazon, we said, “We have a favor. Could you please meet with her?” And she’s our uber-executive producer, we have this synergy. Heidi and I have a synergy with Sara that’s just phenomenal and we can finish each other’s sentences. It was just a big collaboration.
HK: I think also after working with her for so long, we took so many mental notes over the years of things that didn’t work out, but also things that worked great. So we get to do all the things that we wanted to do but couldn’t really do, so it’s kind of a mish-mosh of new ideas and dreams we had, and here we are.
TG: And if we get to do it again, and we hope we do, we’ll make more changes.
HK: Because now the world is looking again different than when we created this show. So you always have to have your thinking cap on, and you always have to rethink, revisit, think some more. This is the world we’re living in right now, so I’m sure this will also have to be revisited again differently. It’s the same with fashion: Fashion changes, everything changes, you have to keep your eye out there and your finger on the pulse, to be relevant, to be now, and to be realistic.
AVC: To that end, can we get Tim Gunn and Heidi Klum’s official approval to stay in stretchy pants for the duration of the pandemic?
TG: Absolutely, Gwen. Whatever it takes. Tim Gunn himself has been in pajamas a lot.
HK: So have I.
16 Comments
Did Heidi Klum marry Tim Gunn? If not, maybe correct the headline.
I saw that in my RSS and thought, does Tim Gunn have a sister also named Heidi?
I watched the first two episodes, and we had fun watching and snarking. I did had some issues with who they gave camera time to, though. Martha (aka fashion designer barbie) got tons of air time, while a bunch of the other designers hardly got anything. So far, we’re still calling them murder coat, fashion vampire (that one guy has very pronounced canines), etc. So far, the first two designers to go home were no-brainers. In each case, they sent something out so egregiously awful that there really was no excuse, especially with the time and resources they’re being provided. Two days and access to professional seamstresses, and someone just sends out un-altered lengths of fabric pinned in place around the models? The rest of the designers seem like they actually know how to make clothes, so hopefully it’ll improve from here.
I felt a little bad for the Paris Hilton drag-on-a-dime lady. Like, she has no taste and she can’t sew? And you’re going to put her up against some decently talented folks…? Okaaay. The other designers were at least nicer to her than the producers. I felt less bad for the “I design for all body types!” woman. At least the trashy lady knew she was outclassed; this designer seemed a bit delusional. Overall we’re enjoying it, though have some familiar complaints (like the first ep *winning* look, which we thought was go-home-worthy). I wish they’d veer from the tired “something-for-everyone!” idea of fashion brands, as mentioned in this article. It’s not like Alexander Wang isn’t recycling the same extremely limited palette and pieces season after season (among a million other designers). Brands don’t exist to be all things to all people. I’d argue the opposite: they provide a very specific and very narrow point of view.Anyway, rant rant rant. We’re gonna watch the whole thing. 🙂
Definitely agree – to be really successful, a brand has to have a clear identity, which kind of means not being for everyone by definition. That felt like Amazon talking, not fashion world advice. I felt like some alarm bells went off when the body inclusivity designer was talking about the same garment looking great on anyone from size 2 to 14 – you can certainly make versions of the same look that look good on a wide range of sizes, but the exact same physical garment shouldn’t fit everyone, unless it’s a mu-mu or something else huge and shapeless. And, tailored, well-fitting clothes generally look much better on someone bigger than something huge and shapeless does.
1000% agree. I think those parameters are more interesting for a challenge anyway– like, designing beautiful clothes for different body types vs. broad categories. Or the “create something couture AND something for KMart!” challenges, which is evidently how the producers interpret business savvy. Have you checked out Netflix’s Next in Fashion? It’s fiiiiine, depending on your tolerance for Tan France and Alexa Chung (mine is low, and getting lower). For some twisted reason they decided team challenges were the way to go for everything, up through the last few episodes. Which—what?? We mostly ffw’d through everything and just watched the runways. You could safely just watch the finale, which was really beautiful and kind of moving. The final two collections were legitimately good and interesting and different (from each other), and both designers seem like LOVELY people that you’d want to see more from. Anyway, the show pulls the same “now let’s design LINGERIE!” bullshit, wherein every designer needs to be capable of producing sexy bras, or athleisure-wear, or what have you. It’s so frustrating to see someone really sharp and talented get the boot when some middling Macy’s private-label designer wins the day because they know how to create boring basics.
The hosts on Next in Fashion didn’t bug me too much, but the teams thing did, because the designers who didn’t come into things with a pre-identified partner were all screwed. These sorts of fashion shows are one of the things my mom and I can consistently enjoy watching together, so we end up watching them all eventually
From watching this the difference is they got a shit ton of money to make it. Also Naomi Campbell is amazing because she’s unfiltered and kinda terrifying.
Too much overbearing music. Otherwise, it was fine.
Confession: I haven’t watch “the other show” in about 10 years.I watched the first two episodes, and what jumped out at me was a stark contrast in the beginning of the show, and the last 20 minutes.The beginning of each episode is really positive, with pressure coming out based on the challenge. The designers and Tim are pleasant and supportive working towards the goal each day.Then the fashion show happens, and the tone changes from one of support to one of tension and fear. The four judges spend 10 minutes shredding everything, There is this feral glee a couple of them take in just shitting on what is being presented. Very little of it is constructive, and because I’ve spent the first part of the show developing serious empathy for the contestants, watching that group tense together like calves not wanting to be singled out is rough. Then to have someone who is an established designer justify themselves so you can yell at them individually doesn’t make it better.I mean, I’ve delivered some bad designs in my time. If I’d had someone say I “disrespected” the art I was doing, I’d think that person is insane, not a good judge of quality or taste.In the original show, you didn’t have that level of empathy. Some of the contestants were awful, so you didn’t have the investment in their success.Maybe it’s me.
You are not alone. I couldn’t figure out what was causing my headache after the first two shows, but – yes – I think you’ve identified it. There’s a bit of whiplash from the change in tone and the REALLY harsh language. “Disrespecting” the art? **eye roll** Each designer did as good as they could with the resources available and whatever talent they could bring to the work.. The self-righteousness indignation was idiotic and really uncomfortable to watch.Also, the show offered us that ridiculous and unqualified woman who’s vision of 2003 era Britney Spears apparently qualified her as a ‘designer.’ This, in a clear effort to provide some cheap laughs and schadenfreude – a complete reality show trope that has NOTHING to do with providing respect to fashion or art. Anyway, I wasn’t thrilled that the ugly spirit of Nina Garcia apparently lives on in this show.
I am going to assume they needed to pad out the group, and found a woman whose muse is Shar Pei or Lisa Frank. This world is filled with a lot of people who would wear that look.But it’s cruel to take that person to Paris, and then have Naomi Campell play in her blood.
She’s not my brand of biscuit, but I am from the South, and this is a region that still embraces Lily Pulitzer. I’m sure her stuff sells to the country club set. I was actually disappointed she couldn’t construct better, since her style was so different from everyone. We get it, you’re European, you like black. I wonder how they’ll do now that athleisure is as formal as we get for the foreseeable future.
Meh-be I’ll watch episode 3…meh-be I won’t. This wasn’t any better than PR except for the already mentioned production value. The designers are as talented as the last crop of PR designers…or gasp…even less.
“I think before we had a silly competition”Real classy to shit on the show that you executive produced (and made you even richer) in order to promote your new show
I’m not the target market, but kind of a bummer concept imo. Pretty dresses are so much more interesting than brand/marketing strategies on how to “cut through the noise”. Actually designing and creating something from scratch is interesting and hard. “Who is the customer and what is your point of view” is snoozefest MBA stuff.