Skip to main content

Tut: a quick review

Tut is a Canadian-American TV miniseries that aired this past July on U.S cable network Spike. It is a three-part miniseries that focuses on the life and intrigues of Pharaoh Tutankhamun. Produced by the same company behind Pillars of the Earth, the production strives to be a big TV blockbuster.


The show stars Ben Kingsley, Avan Jogia, Alexander Siddig and Sibylla Deen, and it was brought to my attention due to the enormous controversy it caused (which I found out about during my research for the Cleopatra article).

On the one hand, it was praised for its ethnically diverse casting, but, at the same time, it was heavily accused of whitewashing Egyptian history. This really spiked my curiosity and drove me to google the show. Some of what I saw was really interesting, other stuff... not so much.

But, because I haven't seen it yet and won't have time to see it in a while (yes, it's a very long three-part show) I wanted to do a quick review focusing on first impressions (both good and bad).

QUICK HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Tutankhamun was an Egyptian Pharoh of the 18th dynasty, who ruled c. 1332–1323 BC, during the period of Egyptian history known as the New Kingdom or New Empire Period. He was the son of Akhenaten and one of his minor wives. After his ascension to the throne at the age of nine or ten, he married his half-sister, Ankhesenamun (daughter of Nefertiti). He reigned for 10 years and died under mysterious circumstances.

THE COSTUME DESIGN

The first pictures I saw of the show were actually really impressive. The costume design was created by the Italian designer Carlo Poggioli, and most of his work for the show is actually quite good.

Some of his previous work includes the costume design for Cold Mountain (2003, co-designed by Ann Roth), Van Helsing (2004, co-designed by Gabriella Pescucci), The Brothers Grimm (2005, also co-designed by Gabriella Pescucci), Romeo and Juliet (2013) and Divergent (2014).

A self-proclaimed Egypt lover, the main drive behind his designs for Tut was historical accuracy and heavy detail and quality. And for most of it, he succeeds.

THE GOOD

Ancient Egypt has often been misrepresented in Hollywood, and therefore is quite rare to see faithful representations of the period. What's even harder, is to find movies that even try to be faithful. But this is not something you can blame Tut for.

For the most part, the costumes for the show are really impressive. The shapes and types of dress are all very accurate, as is the use of materials (mostly linen).


There is quite the attention to detail at work here. The colors and patterns used are really spot on.


It's very easy to see that these costumes were made exclusively for this (instead of reused). Not only that, they were handmade; each and every one of them. From the regal tunics to the armors.


I particularly like the designs for the High priest, which are a hundred percent historical and look amazing on the Sudanese actor Alexander Siddig. I love the inclusion of the cap, which was something high priest wore that is usually left behind on movies set around that period.


Also, this costume for Ankhesenamun is amazing and perfect for the period; from the crown to the cut of the dress, to the linen.


Doing some research on these costumes I found out that all the tunics and dresses (both male and female) were done using pleated linen; which is very much accurate to the period. But, pleated linen is not something you can go and buy. You have to buy normal linen and manually create the tiny pleats that give this very particular texture that is so characteristic of this historical period. This, in itself, speaks of the commitment that everyone in the costume department had with making this as real as possible.


Looking at the picture above is really easy to point out how using the right material and the right cut helps skyrocket the accuracy levels. I particularly like how you can see the shape of her legs through the linen (which is something very characteristic of Ancient Egyptian fashion).

But, if you look past the beauty of the costume, you might also spot the not so good elements of these designs.

THE BAD

I have to concede that, for once, my main problem with the look is not the costume designer's fault. The fault is completely laid at the doorstep of the hair designer/stylist and the make-up artists. Are we to believe this is actual Ancient Egypt?


Yes, the costumes are spot on, but is that natural hair I see? Yes, according to what I've found out, there is plenty of natural hair worn in soft waves and perfectly styled in the show.


Here's the thing; Egyptians did not use natural hair for their hairstyles. Both men and women shaved their heads and used highly decorated wigs. This was done to avoid lice and other insects to nest in their heads and avoid the illnesses they carried around. Also, it was a great way to keep cool during the worst of the summer heat.

This is what Ankhesenamun and Tutankhamun would actually look like.

Representation of the Royal Couple engraved on the famous
Throne Chair found at Tutankhamun's tomb.

Definitely no thin, wavy hair there. What she sports on the show can't pass for anything but 2015's Fashionista style. And, what's worst, ruins the wonderful costumes, making the whole look seem phony.


For instance, in this pic below, she is wearing a wonderfully accurate dress with a perfectly accurate crown, but the hair... it just cuts through it's accuracy levels like a machete.


There's even a proto-hippy look included in the show, which happens to be hilarious and not in the good way.


That headband with the hanging feathers is absolutely ridiculous.

And this huge styling mistake is not only reduced to the women on the show. Tut, himself, falls into the whole "natural hair" trend as well, and spends most of the show with a half pony tail worthy of any hipster you know.


Then there's the other horrendous styling choice: the makeup.

This is a wonderfully accurate crown, by the way. But the
makeup is nothing but 2015 trendy

As I explained in my Cleopatra article, Egyptians were not shy on makeup. Both men and women painted their eyes heavily. It's a very iconic look, and it's generally the only thing they get right in most movies set in Ancient Egypt. That's why I find so baffling that Ankhesenamun is constantly shown wearing so little makeup and always in a very modern fashion.

And for some even stranger reason, the only character that consistently gets an accurate hair and makeup treatment is the character played by Ben Kinglsey.


It is as if only old, ugly men get the "accurate" treatment. Because, otherwise, how are we supposed to know the young characters are "hot" and "sexy".

THE CONTROVERSIAL

This historical "inaccuracy" has been the real cause behind the whitewashing controversy of the show. While it is very much possible that they chose to go with the more modern hairstyle and makeup to appeal to a younger and wider audience (since they are clearly pandering to a very contemporary sense of beauty), it is also true that those hairstyles are undeniably Caucasian.

Hollywood has a rather long and shameful tradition of whitewashing Egyptian history: by casting white actors (from Elizabeth Taylor to the more recent Gerard Butler and Christian Bale) and "bleaching" Egyptian history through systematic portrayal of Egyptian as white or light skinned and their enemies as black skinned.

Here, despite the unusual choice of various ethnically diverse actors (Avan Jogia, who plays Tut, is a Canadian actor born of an Indian father. Sibylla Deen, who plays Ankhesenamun, is an Australian actress of Pakistani descent. Ben Kingsley is of Indian descent, and Alexander Siddig is from Sudan), still shies away from the "blackest" aspects of the Egyptian culture.

This is made very blatant by the generalization of straight, light hair in the look of the characters (a trait that is the staple of "white beauty"). Even if Egyptian would not have used wigs, they would have had what is considered "black hair" (curly and thick and very dark), which is the complete opposite of what they show here.

If pandering to a contemporary sense of fashion and beauty in period pieces is one of the worst things a designer can do, pandering to a racial standard (because unfortunately many people still consider "Caucasian" as the default) for beauty is definitely the worst.

And what's even worst, I'm sure that the blame for this is not on the designer. I'm almost 100% positive that this decision was pushed by the producers, in a sad attempt to cash in the young, American audience.

A RECAP

For what I've seen (which basically amount to youtube clips and a ton of photos), the costumes are truly amazing. But the hair and makeup sort of undermine that amazingness; it's lazy, cheap pandering and it's just not good enough.


I'm sure that I will end up checking up the entire show, but for now, I really don't have the time, and my initial reaction to those hairstyles was way too strong to keep in check until I got the chance to see the show. Sometimes one needs to let their rants loose.

Comments

  1. thank you for this analysis! i also love historical costumes!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Elizabeth Taylor was not white washing since Cleopatra was Macedonian Greek not actual Eqyptian like people here. I thought you knew this based on the Cleopatra article?

    But this was great article. Shame with the hair and make-up here since the costumes are so beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're absolutely right, I know (I know about Cleopatra, I mean). What we meant was that, even if it's not as horribly obvious white washing, it still is. She doesn't look Macedonian either and it's promoting a crystal clear anglo-saxon standard of beauty. That's what we meant. But I understand the confusion (mainly because she's name dropped next to two casting choices who are actually supposed to play characters of Egyptian ethnicity), and I apologize. Sometimes, when I write, I fail to clarify stuff because I have it so integrated in my brain.... and then nobody gets it because it's not explained. Hooray for me :S

      My apologies again, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article!

      Delete

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, 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…

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 …

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…

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…

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 movie.
The first and…