Skip to main content

A look into Star Wars: Padme's Dresses. Part IV

After having looked at the three most iconic designs of the first of the "Star Wars" prequels, I've decided to move onwards and start looking into the designs of Amidala’s wardrobe in the second installment of the prequels: “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones”.

The first of the designs that we will be breaking apart will be the “Travel” gown. 

She wears this dress during her journey back to Naboo, disguised as a young matron from the Thousand Moons system. It’s not one of the most remembered gowns, but it’s a very striking piece of design with very interesting influences.

The dress consists of a mustard-colored overdress which is a stiff upside-down cone that reaches from her shoulders to her ankles. It is decorated with purple paisley designs with olive green leaves, and a feathery purple design running down the front, back, and sides. The bottom hem is decorated with a simple diamond design. On her shoulders, she wears a kind of full-shouldered pauldron of the same mustard color with an abstract floral design. The loose sleeves are of a lighter material, and are drawn at the wrist by a lower-arm band of the same design as the pauldrons. 

The main influence behind the design is pretty clear: it’s based on the Russian traditional gown. This poses a really big change in relation to the look and feel of the design, straying notably from the east-Asian influences of "The Phantom Menace" designs. And although they maintain some of the visuals of the first movie, this change of inspiration marks a pretty radical change in the look of the character.

This change in the look gives a sense of discontinuity between the two movies that is not always good for the overall story. But in the case of this specific design, this change is actually logical. In the movie, she is supposed to be dressed as a young woman from another system, so it is only logical that her look would be so different from the established Naboo look.

The main purpose of the dress is to disguise the former queen. Because of this, the dim color palette is more than fitting. The mustard colored dress matched with the golden veil and the brown-green sleeves help to maintain the desired low-key appearance. It’s not a gown that stands out in a crowd. It’s discreet and simple, but, because of the cut of the dress, conveys Amidala’s innate elegance and regal airs.

Because of this, the fabric used is very important in the design. It mixes two different types to create the effect of a simple but regal gown: on one hand there is the fabric used in the overdress, the pauldron and the lower-arm band, which is a very heavy looking and rigid fabric in line with the image we have of regal gowns. On the other hand, there are the sleeves, the fabric that loops under her neck and the lace, which are very light and flowing, giving the design a more day to day feel to the dress.

As I've mentioned, the historical influence on the design is very clear. Both the shape and weight of the dress take its main inspiration from the traditional gown for noble women of 16th-17th century Russia.

Both dresses date from
the mid 16th to 17th
century Russia

Both gowns share the same rigid and tube-like overdress that successfully disguises the feminine shape as well as the loose sleeves with the lower-arm band.

The main difference resides in the fact that the Russian overdress is, generally, more decorated and luxurious (they usually sew pearls and stones into elaborate brocades) whilst Amidala's is fairly simple. This simplicity is actually due to a narrative necessity more than a whim of the design. The need for the gown to be a disguise is the reason why they change the heavy brocade for the more delicate and discreet floral pattern.

For this very same reason, the design also swaps the highly decorated collar for a more simple full-shoulder pauldron.

The Grand Duchess Xenia
Alexandrovna dressed as
a 17th century royal woman for
a ball at the Winter Palace.

Another remarkable aspect of the dress is the color itself. Through episode II and III most of Amidala’s wardrobe is dark blue, purple, dark red and black, with the exceptional white. All these are colors usually identified with royalty. This design strays from this and goes with a green-yellow palette. This is done to underline the fact that this is not an “official” gown. She wears this dress because she doesn’t want to be recognized. It’s also because of this that the gown takes the “shapelessness” from the traditional Russian gown. Most of her dresses are pretty revealing, stressing the feminine shape of the character. By hiding that shape under the conic overdress she becomes almost a different person.

This change in color, though, is not unique to this design. It's actually done a couple of times throughout both "The attack of the clones" and "Revenge of the Sith", and it's always associated with a less "official" situation.

Last but not least, let's have a look at the headdress.

The headpiece is made of a coppery metal with a tight skull cap with ridges running up into an intricate, fan-like crown. The Flower of Life emblem decorates the crest of the headpiece in a continuous pattern. Under this piece, there’s a length of mustard-colored fabric that loops under her face and wraps around her neck. This headdress is sometimes covered by a golden lace veil.

And so, this design not only hides her very distinctive body shape, it also completely covers her hair. This is another big change, because throughout the movies she always wears her hear visible and in hairstyles that tend to call attention to it.

The headdress without the laced veil

The influence behind the headdress doesn't stray too much from the main influence for the gown: it is clearly influenced by the Russian kokoshnik.

The kokoshnik is a traditional Russian headdress that has been used since the 16th century.

17th century kokoshnik

As seen in this picture, the kokoshnik shares a similar constitution: a flowing fabric that looks around and under her face and a highly ornamented headpiece. This particular piece has no veil over it, but some of the later versions of this type of headdress do (as the versions shown in these 19th century paintings).

The shape of the main headpiece is clearly also inspired by the shapes of this Russian headdress. The only difference is the material itself. For Amidala's design, they chose a metal feel to it. This accentuates the outlandish feel it wants to create.

This piece wraps up the look of this amazing design. The only problem with it is that, if anything, it doesn't look alien enough. It's a very elegant and very beautiful design, but it's too grounded in reality to feel otherworldly. Its influences are too specific and focussed in Russian tradition. Unlike the dresses in "The phantom menace", that mixed a number of different influences, this one focusses only on one and ends up looking like a modern version of the Russian traditional gown instead.

To see full scale:

To read 
A look into Star Wars: Padme's Dresses. Part V click here.


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, our 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?

This might n…

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 us to join the yelling contest, I guess.
If we're 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 Grimm Brothers…

Historic Accuracy in Costume Design: The 16th century

I've never been a purist with historical accuracy as long as the changes made have a 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 1870's fashion with 1950's fashion in order to enhance the sense of theatricality and falsehood in Imperial Russia). But when these change…

Marie Antoinette: Working with an historical basis

A couple of months ago, we talked extensively about the narrative aspect of the designs for the 2006's movie; 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 that our 21st century standards. Because of this, most costume designers end up being constricted by their allotted budgets and have to make compromises with the accuracy. This was not the case with this movie.
Sofia Coppola's Marie Anotinette 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 of actual …

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 1970's), 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. An…