The | First Monday In May

The Spectacle of Hierarchy: Curatorial Authority, Cultural Diplomacy, and the Labor of Luxury in The First Monday in May

Bolton represents the traditional museum ideal: scholarly rigor, aesthetic sensitivity, and a deferential approach to source cultures. In one pivotal scene, Bolton agonizes over a video installation by Chinese artist Yang Fudong, worrying that juxtaposing contemporary Chinese cinema with imperial robes might be “orientalist.” His vocabulary is one of anxiety and reflexivity. The First Monday In May

The film’s title itself is ironic. The “First Monday in May” is the Met Gala—an event that, in 2015, had become a global media spectacle. But the film spends only its final 25 minutes on the Gala itself. The preceding 65 minutes are devoted to research, installation, negotiation, and doubt. Rossi’s argument, therefore, is that the real story is not the red carpet, but the invisible labor and ethical compromise that make the red carpet possible. The “First Monday in May” is the Met

The film’s climax is not the Gala itself, but the morning after, when the museum opens to the public. Rossi films a young Chinese-American woman staring at a Guo Pei dress next to a Tang dynasty horse. She whispers to her friend, “It’s like they’re talking to each other.” For a brief moment, the curatorial thesis—that objects across time can converse—achieves its intended effect. The film suggests that despite the corruption of the fundraising machine, the democratic encounter between a visitor and an object remains the museum’s core redemption. The First Monday in May ultimately performs a double gesture. On one hand, it is a hagiography of Andrew Bolton and, by extension, the Costume Institute’s ability to elevate fashion to the status of fine art. On the other hand, it is a sharp ethnographic critique of how money, celebrity, and Western institutional power shape narratives about other cultures. Rossi’s argument, therefore, is that the real story

In a meeting with Chinese museum consultants and scholars, Bolton presents his thesis: that Western designers (Galliano, Saint Laurent, Poiret) misappropriated Chinese iconography, yet in doing so, created a new artistic language. The Chinese delegates listen politely before one notes: “You are showing Western fantasies about China, but you have almost no contemporary Chinese designers in the main galleries.” Bolton’s response—that the exhibition is about the Western “look” of China, not China itself—is met with silence.

For scholars of museum studies, fashion theory, and cultural diplomacy, the film remains an essential primary text. It asks a question that it cannot answer: In an era of neoliberal arts funding, can major institutions produce intellectually honest exhibitions when their survival depends on the very celebrity-industrial complex they claim to merely observe?