Watch the supermodels strut for the camera and relax behind the scenes.
- Today, Calvin Klein launched its fall 2019 underwear campaign, called #MYCALVINS IRL.
- The campaign is star studded, featuring household names like Naomi Campbell and Bella Hadid.
- Through #MYCALVINS, the brand intends to both highlight and blur “the line between the public image and private realities” of what it means to be sexy.
There are fashion campaigns, and then there are Calvin Klein fashion campaigns. Today, the brand launched its fall 2019 underwear campaign, duly titled #MYCALVINS IRL, showcasing a medley of the world’s biggest stars sporting its newest undergarments.
Appealing to current culture’s collective craving for authenticity in the fashion industry, the brand writes that #MYCALVINS “celebrates two totally different perspectives of what sexy looks like. The result blurs the line between the public image and private realities of our unapologetic cast and asks the question, how do you do sexy? Perfectly filtered or IRL raw?”
This question drives the campaign’s visual element, in which photos of its star-studded cast in supermodel sublimity are juxtaposed next to images in more candid and intimate settings (Bella Hadid, for example, rests her head against her shoulder in one photo then angstily scrunches her hair up while scrutinizing her form in a mirror in another). Yet, it is the campaign video that best exemplifies the ostensible dichotomy between being “perfectly filtered” and “IRL raw.”
Naomi Campbell lounges on a couch. Diplo poses for a web camera. Bella Hadid stares into a door’s peephole. Jacob Elordi takes mirror selfies. These are the scenes—flushed with color and believable mirth—that flash in between black-and-white footage of the cast clinically posing for a crew of cameras against a white backdrop.
“Each comfortable in their own skin,” the brand notes of the campaign’s cast, “and each confident in their Calvins.”
#MYCALVINS IRL doesn’t necessarily seem to ask whether or not you feel sexier with or without filters, as much as it seems to answer its own question with, “Why not both?”