Skip to main content

Cleopatra or the Most Undeserved Oscar Win ever

There is a reason why I usually do not review movies from the "golden age" of Hollywood (which means any movie prior to the 1970s), and that is because back then they cared even less about historical accuracy in costuming than nowadays, which is saying a lot. Because of this, most of the "historical" movies generally ignored the period and just did whatever was fashionable at the time with a spice of the supposed period.

This is something that usually makes me laugh, rather than angry, because it results in very funny outfits (peplums particularly created a lot of funny imaginary). And Cleopatra, 1963's epic about the Egyptian queen, was for most of my childhood one of those movies. I knew the costumes were not accurate, but they fascinated me anyways in their ridiculousness. That is until I heard that the movie had won an Academy Award for Best Achievement in Costume Design, the same year that "Il Gattopardo was nominated for Best Costume Design. And they chose to give it to the fun-camp that is Cleopatra. I sometimes wonder why do I even care...

Well, today I feel like poking fun at things, so let's go over the designs for the epic of epics that is Cleopatra.


Cleopatra is a 1963 epic directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and, to this day, stands as one of the most expensive movies ever made. Its production became famous for its massive cost overrun and production troubles: such as changes in director and cast, a change of filming locale, sets that had to be constructed twice, lack of a firm shooting script, and personal scandal around its co-stars. Because of this, the movie almost bankrupted 20th Century Fox.

It also was never supposed to be only one movie. It was meant as two movies: a first part called Caesar and Cleopatra and a second part called Anthony and Cleopatra. But when it came the time to premiere, such hype had been played on the Burton-Taylor real-life drama, that the studio was afraid that no one was going to see the first part (where Burton did not appear) and so, turned the two movies into one mammoth of a four-hour movie.

Cleopatra also happens to be the height of Elizabeth Taylor's career and the beginning of the never-ending Burton-Taylor drama.

Because of all these, the movie is often more remembered for its context and significance than for the actual movie. Which, no surprise, is not that good.


The movie chronicles the struggles of Egyptian queen Cleopatra VII, starting with the Battle of Pharsalus until her death. The movie focusses on her intrigues in order to resist the imperial ambitions of Rome and her conquests of Caesar and Marc Anthony. And it covers the period between 51 BC and 30 BC.


The costume design for the movie was created by Renié Conley, Vittorio Nino Novarese and Irene Sharaff and, as mentioned in the intro, won an Academy Award for it. The approach to the designs is pretty similar to the approach the movie has to the story: it has to be big and it has to be flashy. And above all, it has to make Elizabeth Taylor the star of it all.

All of this means that their take on design is not really very historically accurate. It's more like the Las Vegas version of Cleopatra. And to top it all, it doesn't really stand the test of time.

The biggest bummer is that most of the designs are straight up 60's fashion with an Egyptian flair to top it. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves, and in order to put everything into perspective let's take a little history class.

After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, Ptolemy, one of his Generals, was appointed as governor of Egypt as the Great Alexandrine Empire fell to pieces. In 305 BC, he set aside the title of governor and crowned himself king, becoming Ptolemy I giving birth to the last dynasty of Egyptian rulers before the conquest of the Roman Empire.

Therefore, the Ptolemaic dynasty, as it would come to be known, was actually Greek, not Egyptian. But in order to be accepted by the Egyptian people, they adopted many of the traditions and aesthetics of the Pharaohs of old, including the one where they married brother to sister in order to keep the divine bloodline pure.

In their official representations (mural paintings, coins) meant for the Egyptian people, they would pose as Egyptian gods, but on their representations towards the outward world, they would pose as Greeks. Playing a double game.

Cleopatra VII was the last of these greek rulers to take the throne of Egypt and she played the popularity game better than any of her ancestors. Any woman previous to her that had wanted to rule Egypt, had had to dress up as a man because Egyptians believed that the Pharaoh was the earthly incarnation of Horus and therefore had to be a guy. But Cleopatra changed that and presented herself as the earthly incarnation of Isis (the most important female divinity). And so, she appeared in front of her people dressed as her.

Representation of Cleopatra dressed as Isis.

But despite all this, she was still Greek and the most well-known bust we have of her shows us how she actually dressed in privacy.

I can understand that the Egyptian version is much more appealing and entrancing and that many movies ignore that double game, but if you are going to embrace the whole Isis thing, could they at least not have turned it into this?

It should be, actually, something like this:

Isis is the one with the white dress,
the other is Neftis

But here lies the main problem for me; they ignored the actual historical fact that she was Greek and only dressed as a "typical" Egyptian to impress and keep the popularity going and actually dressed her as if she was Egyptian. But then chose to ignore actual Egyptian fashion and dress her as a 60's Las Vegas showgirl.

They basically took the 60's cut for dresses and tried to give it an overall Egyptian feel. This is especially noticeable in the costumes for Cleopatra herself.

The cut of the bust is completely 60's, especially the corseted under-bust that creates the typically pointed breasts of the late '50s. Most of her dresses are variations on that dress shape, which is totally wrong for an Egyptian dress. The traditional cut was actually closer to these:

It's pretty sad that paper dolls get it right when movies can't. Actually, there is only one dress that is historically accurate when it comes to cut and it appears barely for a second and it's worn by a maid:

This brings us to the second enormous beef I have with the designs: there are way too many synthetic materials and gold lamé and way too little cotton and linen.

That dress is, cut-wise, a bit more historical. It's a decent attempt at a Greek dress until you notice the fabric..... I doubt ancient Egypt had synthetic materials. It should be either cotton or linen (both materials were actually made famous by Egyptians, so it's ironic they ignore it), not this horrible looking synthetic material. Also, she is clearly wearing a corset underneath, which gives her the complete wrong bust line for Greek fashion. But that is a lost battle with 50's and 60's Peplums.

And, behold the gold lamé! Which, of course, did not exist until the 1930s, but who cares... right?? This dress really makes me mad because aside from the corset-type bust it's actually one of the most "historically correct" gowns in the movie. But once you notice the gold lamé there is no coming back. It actually ruins the complete look for me. Was it so difficult to do this dress in white linen?

The thing is, apparently, that they wanted to dress Cleopatra in gold because it looks more regal. Except that no Egyptian royalty ever wore gold lamé. She would have worn a white linen tunic decorated with lots of gold jewelry.

This whole gold affair leads up to what probably is the most iconic dress of the movie, and of Elizabeth Taylor's career. The Gold Gown she wears on her entrance in Rome.

As iconic as it is, it's actually the second most "historically accurate" design in the movie, except for the gold lamé, yet again.

It takes inspiration from the traditional representation of Isis especially on the wings, and the crown is actually really good, except that it looks like plastic, but that's fairly normal when looking at productions back then.

All in all, this is a pretty good design, probably the only one in the movie. Especially when the movie has the balls to dress her in a 60's leopard print coat later in the movie.

Really? The movie is trolling us... it has to be that

Last but not least in my tiny list of beef with these designs is the absolutely horrendous way in which everything has to sparkle and ruin the few things that were actually decent, to begin with.

The cut of the dress is completely wrong, true, and the material is also wrong. But that crown is not, except for the fact that it has glitter on it (the dress also has glitter by the way). Just to clarify; glitter did not exist in 30 BC Egypt. Not for clothes, not for crowns and definitely not for makeup.

Look at that... glittery makeup. It's true, Egyptian wore a lot of makeup (both men and women): they used kohl and they painted their eyes (heavily). It's actually one of the few ancient cultures that was not shy about makeup. But they generally used heavy basic colors. Why? because glitter was not a thing back then.

Actually, the overabundance of glitter is one of the things in the movie that helps immensely to highlight the Las Vegas feel of the whole production. Some of these designs look as if they raided a Las Vegas dance show. And that's not ok.

The whole thing is that they are making all those changes to create a sexy, exotic vibe, when the Egyptian fashion, as it was, was already sexy and exotic. More so than what they create here. So why did they do it?

So much glitter...

And to top it all, let's have a look at the hairstyles, which are a very eclectic mix that ranges from "oh, that's pretty nice and accurate" to "what on earth is she wearing on her head". Because I like to see the positive in everything I'm going to start with the first category.

Aside from the god-awful coat, the crown is actually nice and accurate, as is the following crown.

It's a really historic design and the plastic is not actually that noticeable. Good for you, movie.

The beaded-ringlet wig is also accurate and looks really nice on her. And for once the makeup is not glittery, which helps the look a lot.

She has several variations on the beaded-ringlet wig, and the vast majority of them are really good. But occasionally, they mess it up a bit.

Like here. I think they went a little overboard with the beads. Just a tad.

Here the beads are ok, what bothers me is the "thing" she's wearing as a... crown? your guess is as good as mine. I've you squint, you might say it's a Roman laurel crown, but if it's that, then it's really badly done.

That seems to be a category in and on itself on this movie; the "if you were going for this... well, it's close enough I guess" category, which includes masterful pieces such as this:

You can tell what they were going for, but it's not quite there. It actually looks as if she's forgotten to unwrap the back of the wig. It's weird at best, ugly at worst. But at least it has good intentions.

I guess this is also the case for this silver crown. The shape is alright, but the materials... it looks as if they sprayed it with silver paint. Which makes it look cheap, which I doubt was the initial intent.

The same goes for this wig. I guess they were going for the Nefertiti wig (I'm pretty sure it's not called that, but it was very popular during her reign and so, I call it that).

But once again, it's close, but not really. And it also looks cheap.

This wig is another prime example; I'm pretty sure they were trying to do the jagged cut wig, which consisted in a wig cut at three different levels (like a Christmas tree), but it's not close enough. This wig doesn't have jagged cuts, the change of length is too smooth and they actually look like waves.

But this is nothing, literally nothing, once compared to the "what on earth is she wearing on her head" category, also known as "please kill me now or I will stab my own eyes", which includes beauties such as this:

Vegas much? The shape is sloppy and the materials are cheap and awful and so is the fabric of the dress, which looks like my grandmother's drapery.... and it's just terrible to look at. Unfortunately, it's not as bad as the "floral bath cap".

Once again, this is more 60's than anything. And even by 60's standard, it's awful, terrible and disgraceful. Why would you put that on her head? But apparently, the trend caught on.

One bath cap was not enough, Cleopatra needed two different versions of the same horrible fashion. Only this time, it looks like a furry wig, which makes it even worse. It doesn't even look that good on her, and she's bloody Elizabeth Taylor. She's gorgeous, so if she doesn't look good with one of your designs, you're doing something very wrong.

As for the last category of hair-dresses, there's the "we are not even trying anymore, this is the 60's" material. This, basically, consists of the many times when they just rolled cameras with her day to day style of hair. Watch out for those beehives!

For those who don't know, the beehive was one of the most fashionable hairstyles of the '60s and it looked something like that:

Which is exactly what she's wearing! And it appears in a lot of scenes.

Here it is coupled with the most forward-fashion statement ever. Apparently, Cleopatra wore pants. That's a good one. But, back to the beehive. Look at this:

This is the least Egyptian thing I've seen in a long time,  and I've spent the last three days writing about this movie. So go figure. It actually reminds me of the Beehive Audrey Hepburn sported in Breakfast at Tiffany's, down to the shiny jewelry.

Add a little curled fringe and you have the Cleopatra look. This should be a crime. But it gets worse, look at this:

The Who's afraid of Virginia Wolf vibes are strong with this one.

Then, there's the one that really bothers me, but no one seems to get why; which is the straight, shoulder-length wig.

This is what she wears in the movie whenever she's in private, so let's back up a bit. Cleopatra was of Greek descent and she looked something like this:

So, on her private time, she would not be wearing an Egyptian-style wig. She would wear her natural hair and it would look something like this:

Compared to all the horrible styles I've shown before, this should be a minor beef. But it's not. The devil is in the details, more so in movies. And this was an easy detail.

But I suppose I should be wrapping up. The rest of the cast is also dressed in a similar mix of "oh that's decent" and "god, stab my eyes" wardrobe, so there's little to say there without getting repetitive. I guess, then, that it's time to lay down and let the asp loose so that we can all die knowing the disgrace that it is that such a movie has an Academy Award for Best Costume Design.


What pisses me off the most is the fact that these designers were not bad designers. Irene Sharaff, in particular, has some amazing work to her credit; An American in Paris (1951), West Side Story (1961), The Taming of The Shrew (1967) and Hello! Dolly (1969). So it amazes me that they turned out such a result.

But it's nothing out of my range of expectations to see an early 60's Peplum with such designs; it's actually the norm. Most of these big epic Peplums of the time were awful in regards to costume design. What does not enter in my range of expectations is that the Academy Awards would bestow the title of Best Costume Design of 1963 to this movie when it was competing against Il Gattopardo (designs by Piero Tosi), which to this day stands as one of the best (and more historically accurate) costume designs ever made.

With that said, I thoroughly apologize for the rant. I was going over the list of movies that had won an Oscar for Costume Design back when I was preparing the Oscar retrospective for our Tumblr (here) and just got really mad at this fact. And sometimes you just need to get it out.

I hope you enjoy the night and hope I don't get too upset about who wins in tonight's Oscars Gala.


If you enjoyed this article and would like to support the blog, 
consider buying me a Coffee? 💛💛

If you want more content like this, subscribe! Or come say hi on FacebookTumblrTwitterInstagram and help us grow!

DISCLAIMER: I claim no credit for images featured on this site unless noted. Visual content is copyrighted to its respective owners, and inclusion here is under fair use for criticism, comment, and news reporting purposes. If you own the rights to content here and wish it removed, please contact me.


  1. Pero… ¿Quién ha dicho que para ser merecedor de un premio Oscar, los diseñadores de vestuario tienen que ajustarse a los cánones de la época que retratan con sus vestidos… o lo mismo… que ser “políticamente correctos”?. Llevo muchos años estudiando y analizando las condiciones que reglamentan la Academia de Hollywood y cómo es su “juego de roles” al momento de premiar una película en cualquier apartado técnico y artístico y la conclusión a la que he(mos) llegado en el área de diseño de la Universidad para la que laboro es que la autenticidad o la veracidad son los aspectos más regulares entre las producciones que suelen premiar en Hollywood, con esto quiero llegar a otro punto: Los propios estudios de Hollywood les conceden licencias creativas a sus diseñadores por lo tanto ellos (los diseñadores) no están obligados a ser fiel a ninguna época determinada. En “Cleopatra” sus tres diseñadores de vestuario realizaron un trabajo mastodóntico, sublime, colorista, aunque muchos de sus vestidos no se ajusten a la época retratada, pero que en cambio sí va muy de la mano con su diseño de fotografía y los lineamientos de su diseño de producción, en pocas palabras, los elementos se complementaban a la perfección en la producción y eso es lo que entra por los ojos y a la postre le dio su más que merecido premio Oscar. Ahora… si queremos hablar de exactitud histórica más de la mitad de las películas que han resultado ganadoras en esta categoría tendrían que devolver su estatuilla, comenzando por “Anna Karenina” (2012), dónde la misma Jacqueline Durrán admitió tomar patrones de la década de los 40 para ajustarlos a la recatada y puritana sociedad moscovita del Siglo XVIII, pasando por “Maria Antonieta” (2006) donde algunos de los vestuarios no son elaborados en los mismos textiles presentes en la corte del Rey Luis XVI, incluso, algunos vestidos del segundo plano ni corresponden a la época francesa. Después diría Milena Canonero que fue una adaptación libre sin tantas pretensiones porque así se lo pidió Sofia Coppola.

    1. Primera, ya sabemos que la veracidad histórica no determina si se gana un premio o no. Y, como hemos empezado el artículo diciendo, Cleopatra es una película que hemos visto muchas veces, y nos encanta.
      Pero la valía de cualquier premio concedido queda condicionada también por el nivel de los demás nominados. Y por increíble que sea el nivel artístico en Cleopatra, más increíble me parece el realizado en El Gatopardo (con la cual competía). Además, nuestra critica no es hacia los diseñadores. Sabemos que los estudios imponen este tipo de cosas. Lo único que queríamos decir es que, aunque nos guste Cleopatra, a nuestro parecer tendría que haber ganado El Gatopardo.
      Evidentemente esta es nuestra opinión, como todo lo que se publica en este blog. Aquí no sentamos cátedra, solo hablamos de lo que nos gusta o no nos gusta.
      Y, evidentemente, la Academia puede darle el premio a lo que quiera. Pero nosotros podemos decir que no estamos de acuerdo. Que es, realmente, todo lo que se dice en este artículo.
      Pero, déjame que aborde tus otros puntos. Tanto Anna Karenina como Maria Antonieta justifican sus decisiones creativas con la idea (tema) mismo de la película. Son, para nosotros, cambios hechos para subrayar una idea. En el caso de Anna Karenina, para establecer una conexión entre la rigidez y hipocresía de la sociedad moscovita del XIX con la rigidez y hipocresía de la America de los 40 y 50. Y, además, se desarrolla la historia entera en un teatro. Digamos que el realismo queda descartado en la cabeza del espectador desde el primer minuto de película. Maria Antonieta, sin ir tan lejos, sigue una idea semejante. Intentando conectar las fiestas locas y la figura de Maria Antonieta con nuestra actualidad. Intentando transmitir que no hay tanta diferencia entre ambos mundos.
      Ahora, mi pregunta ahora es la siguiente, porqué razón Cleopatra incluye elementos totalmente anacrónicos en su vestuario? Como se conectan estos con la historia o la tesis de la película? En nuestro parecer, de ninguna manera. La película aspira a ser una gran épica histórica. Y la inclusión de elementos de los 60 tiene más a ver con la idea de que el público no verá a Elizabeth Taylor guapa sino.

    2. Anacronismos… Bueno, podemos comenzar por el contexto cultural en el que se desarrolla la trama de la película: Año 51 A.C. Alejandría, la ciudad más rica, ostentosa y cosmopolita del mundo, incluso por encima de Roma, que para ese entonces libraba una lucha desenfrenada por controlar el mundo. Alejandría no sólo era el epicentro cultural del mundo Helenístico, sino que daba alojamiento a miles de judíos, sirios, españoles, persas, romanos, egipcios, hindúes y hasta normandos, es decir, de todo un poco de los sitios o lugares que recorrió Alejandro Magno a lo largo de su intensa campaña conquistadora.
      Pese a la recatada y puritana educación que recibió Cleopatra y al hecho de que la sociedad Ptolemaica era muy recelosa de sus costumbres y tradiciones, Vittorio, Renié e Irene, probablemente usaron todos estos elementos globales (no pertenecientes aquí, pero tampoco allá) para propender representación simbólica de todos los estamentos que constituyeron la cosmopolita sociedad Alejandrina, pese a que el libreto centra su foco de acción en la vida de una sola figura. Por eso muchos de los atuendos de la película rompen con el patrón tradicional de cortes, escotes, colores, texturas, brillos y hasta accesorios de la época… precisamente esto me lleva a plantear un segundo anacronismo imperante en la producción: el carácter impetuoso, atrevido, provocador, irreverente y morboso de la reina protagonista. Que muchos vestuarios lleven un escote más pronunciado a lo permitido en la época, que muchos de ellos hayan sido confeccionados en tejidos impensables para la antigüedad como los sintéticos, el uso excesivo de dorados o transparencias sólo acentúan la personalidad particular de Cleopatra. Y un tercer anacronismo es el teatro político de la época (coquetería de amor/odio entre Roma y Egipto) y la forma teatral e inventiva con la que Cleopatra seduce al hombre más poderoso del mundo. Esas licencias creativas que hablé en el anterior comentario sólo se pueden permitir para acentuar caracteres que de otra forma serían imposibles más allá del ridículo.
      Y sí, el vestuario de “El Gatopardo” es bellísimo, con mucho rigor histórico pero también los anacronismo justificados dan gloria. Cualquiera de los dos, en mi opinión, eran dignos ganadores.
      Posdata: El artículo es hermoso, aunque me haga falta una corta brecha para amarlo al 100 por ciento. Me gustaría que hicieras un post sobre el vestuario de James Acheson para “Relaciones Peligrosas”(1988).

    3. Estoy totalmente de acuerdo; los anacronismos justificados también son un arte y pueden ser brillantes. Aún así, nunca me convencerán los de "Cleopatra", pero eso es una opinión personal... así que tampoco le haré más hincapié.
      "Dangerous Liaisons" (Relaciones peligrosas) es una película que tenemos en la lista de "pendientes" desde hace tiempo, así que hacerla la vamos a hacer... lo que los calendarios, ahora mismo están un poco borrosos.
      Gracias por el feedback constructivo y el interés!

  2. One thought about the glittery makeup- the ancient Egyptians did use mostly kohl for their eyes which is black and matte and helped protect from sun glare. But, they also ground up precious minerals in order to make colored pigments for their art. Plus, they crushed the carapace of various types of iridescent beetles specifically for makeup use. They also used gold dust to add both color and sparkly shimmer to their bodies and faces and also powdered lead (which probably explains a lot.) Anyhow, Cleopatra could have achieved glittery eyes quite easily since all the available luxuries in Egypt belonged to her.

  3. You say that the costumes are 60's costumes with an Egyptian flair to it but actually, Cleopatra invented the 60's fashions, so it's the other way around.

  4. Did they intend to make the costumes historically accurate in the first place? I love the costume design. It was an opulent 60s movie, with opulent 60s costumes. Maybe I am alone here, but I wouldn't look at this movie as trying to be historically accurate at all.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Burning Question: What's wrong with Belle's gown?

Since the first promotional pictures of Disney's new Live-Action remake of Beauty and the Beast hit the internet, there has been a lot of discussion around Belle's iconic ball gown. And, even months after its release in cinemas, there still continues to be a lot of buzz around it. Why? Mainly, because a lot of people feel that it is just doesn't look that good. The thing is, Belle's animated yellow ball gown is, at this point, an iconic staple of animated cinema. Everybody knows it and everybody loves it. And, as a result, everybody can see the new one and say "this is not the costume I know". Therefore, everyone can compare it down to the smallest detail and see that it just doesn't quite look right. Today, my goal will be to try and dissect the design in order to answer the burning question everyone has been asking themselves: what's so wrong with the "new" dress? Or, to put it bluntly, why is it so incredibly underwhelming?

Disney's Cinderella(s) and the evolution of the "princess" aesthetics

Every girl, at some point in life, has wanted to be a princess. It has become undeniable that the concept of the "princess" is, for better or worst, inseparable from girlhood. We live in a "princesses" obsessed era, and we have for a long time now. And a lot has been said about it, with loud people yelling over the internet about the positive and negative aspects of it. So it was about time for me to join the yelling contest, I guess. If I'm going to talk about princesses, the logical place to go is to the Global Mogul Conglomerate that has led the trend and, in many ways, defined it: Disney. They have, undeniably, redefined the fairytale and have turned the term "princess" into a best selling Licensed Entertainment Character Merchandise. The thing is, even though princesses have been part of the fairy tale canon for a very long time, they didn't become the central figure until Walt Disney placed them there. In the tales that the G

Historic Accuracy in Costume Design: The 16th century

I've never been a purist with historical accuracy as long as the changes made have real reasoning behind (generally a narrative or symbolic one). I will always think that La reine Margot (1994) costume design is one of the most gorgeous and smart designs ever, even if said designs' main premise is to purposely bend the period in regards to costume. But there are certain things that bother me in regards to historical accuracy in costume which I realized when I found myself constantly irritated while watching The other Boleyn Girl (2008). This led me to post a question: when is it right to bend history? why is it interesting sometimes? whilst other times it's simply horrendous? To me, when these changes are made for the narrative's sake, I'm usually on board (like the 2012's "Anna Karenina" designs, which mixed the 1870's fashion with 1950's fashion in order to enhance the sense of theatricality and falsehood in Imperial Russia). But wh

Crimson Peak: Dressing Edith Cushing. The Butterfly

"Beautiful things are fragile" - Lucille Sharpe - Opposite Lucille stands our main character in the movie: Edith Cushing, a young and naive American with ambitions to become a writer. She meets and falls in love with a handsome and charming, but impoverished, English baronet: Sir Thomas Sharpe. They eventually marry and return to England, to the Sharpe's dilapidated mansion: Allerdale Hall. There they live with Thomas's sister: Lucille. The deadly apparitions that haunt the house will force Edith to slowly uncover the buried secrets of Crimson Peak. And so, Edith is to become a fragile butterfly caught in a moth's trap. PART II: THE BUTTERFLY Edith has considerably more frocks and gowns than Lucille does. It's only logical. Edith is our protagonist and, as such, has a bigger emotional arc throughout the movie, and she undergoes bigger changes. These are, in part, expressed through the costumes she wears and how these change throughout the mo

A look into Star Wars: Padme's Dresses. Annex B

Love her or hate her, Padme and her costumes can never be far from our minds. They are too iconic, and probably one of the few memorable aspects of the prequels, so it's really fun to talk about them. And so, I've decided to continue what I started and focus on the costumes I left behind from Episode II . So let's dive back into it! A BRIEF REMINDER What are the Annexes? Well, the Annexes focus on all the costumes that were "left behind" in my selection of Padme Costumes for the A look into Star Wars: Padme's Dresses series. Here, I point out influences, likes, and dislikes, and anything that might feel relevant whilst digging into the gigantic wardrobe of this Galactic Queen. With this out of the way, let's go! ANNEX B: THE ATTACK OF THE CLONES Episode II: The Attack of the Clones brings the character and her designs to a completely different level; she is not a queen anymore, which unfortunately means that she no longer has amazingly weird an

Crimson Peak: Dressing Lady Lucille Sharpe. The Moth

"At home, we have only black moths. Formidable creatures, to be sure, but they lack beauty. They thrive on the dark and the cold." - Lucille Sharpe - CRIMSON PEAK is Guillermo del Toro's new film. Released this past October, the movie is written by del Toro himself and Mathew Robbins (who has also collaborated with the likes of Spielberg and Lucas throughout his career). The movie aims to be a gothic romance movie through and through, and it stars Mia Wasikowska, Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain. The story goes as follows: Edith Cushing, a young budding American author, meets and falls in love with a handsome and charming but impoverished English baronet: Sir Thomas Sharpe. They eventually marry and return to England, to the Sharpe's dilapidated mansion: Allerdale Hall. There they live with Thomas's sister: Lucille. The deadly apparitions that haunt the house will force Edith to slowly uncover the buried secrets of Crimson Peak. In the movie

Moulin Rouge and the art of Kitsch

The spring of 2001 saw the release of Moulin Rouge! unexpectedly shake the movie industry and the box office simultaneously. Despite the many awards, including 8 nominations at the Academy Awards, and the impressive box office numbers, the movie quickly became very polarizing for audiences. Love and hate seemed to be the only two possible reactions to the movie itself. But that should not come as a surprise. The film was directed by Baz Luhrman, who has consistently been, throughout his career, one of the most polarizing filmmakers of his generation. I still have to meet anyone who simply doesn't mind his movies (which include Romeo+Juliet , Australia and The Great Gatsby ); it's either absolute love or absolute loathing. There is no middle ground with him. And that's mainly because he himself doesn't compromise when it comes to his style, which is so characteristic at this point (fast and frantic editing, vivid use of flashy colors and sparkle and stories a

Marie Antoinette: Working with an historical basis

A couple of months ago, I talked extensively about the narrative aspect of the designs for 2006's  Marie Antoinette (see here ). But that's only one half of the story. This movie is, after all, a period piece, so let's have a look at how they translated that period into the costumes. MARIE ANTOINETTE : WORKING WITH AN HISTORICAL BASIS Period accurate pieces are actually the hardest to get by; that is because clothing in past centuries was way more complex and expensive than our 21st century standards. Because of this, most costume designers end up being constricted by their allotted budgets and have to make compromises with accuracy. This was not the case with this movie. Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette had a rather large budget, which allowed renowned designer Milena Canonero the freedom to create period-accurate pieces (the inaccuracies were only added for narrative purposes, not budget constrictions). Because of this, Canonero decided to work off

The Costume Vault Anniversary!

Good day, beautiful readers!! First of all, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone! Today is a very special day for me, here at The Costume Vault . It's our anniversary!!! We're celebrating our third anniversary! Though to be honest, I didn't actually start this project seriously until last year... So, I'm a three-year-old, with the experience of a one-year-old...? Oh, who cares. Today, three years ago, I published our first article ever. So, today is a day of celebration. This project started out of a deep love for movies and costuming and a need to share that. And also boredom... I had quite the free time back then, to be honest. But the project took off, and now I continue even when I don't have as much free time. But it's worth it because I get to share my love for movies and costuming with you. To this day, I've written sixty articles, most of which I am quite proud of indeed. And what's even better, you seem to enjoy reading

The Dressmaker. Part I: A glamorous outsider

2015's The Dressmaker is the wet dream of any costume lover in all of its 120 minutes of runtime. The Aussie film directed by Jocelyn Moorhouse is the adaptation of the Rosalie Ham's homonymous novel. After quite an impressive run in the Festival Circuit (it premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival) and garnishing numerous nominations and wins worldwide, it finally got a theatrical release, becoming a box office success and the 11th highest-grossing film of all time in its home country. So there certainly was a lot of hype around it when I finally got to see it and had a lot of expectations to live up to. ABOUT THE MOVIE So, is the movie actually that good? ... Sort of? Well, it's complicated. That's my official review tagline: it's complicated . The thing is; the movie has a ton of problems of all sorts. A lot of it doesn't work, but what does work, works really well. Let's start with the negatives. First of all, the movie is a t