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 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. 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.


ABOUT THE MOVIE

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 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.

ABOUT THE STORY

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.

ABOUT THE COSTUME DESIGN

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 this 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 Egyptian 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 typical pointed breasts of the late 50's. 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:


Which brings us to the second enormous beef I have with the designs: there is 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 1930's, 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" gown 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 on 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 beefs with these designs is the absolute 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 make up. 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 on makeup. But they generally used heavy basic colors. Why? because glitter was not a thing back then.

Actually, the over abundance 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 60's 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 Virgina 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.


CONCLUSION

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.

We hope you enjoy the night and hope we don't get too upset about who wins in tonights' Oscars Gala.

Comments

  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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    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.

      Delete
    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).

      Delete
    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!

      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…

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 TheGreatGatsby); 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, a vivid use of flashy colors and sparkly and stories about true an…

Creating the Seven Kingdoms. Part I: The North

As we promised a few weeks backs, we are going to cover more tv shows from now on, mainly because there is just too much awesomeness in our TV's these days to ignore it. And for the last 5 years, the crowning jewel of TV costume design has been, without a doubt, HBO's Game of Thrones. So it was only logical to start there.
The downside is that there is so much to talk about that it becomes really difficult to decide where to start exactly. G.R.R. Martin's sprawling epic covers many characters and many places, and therefore there's really a lot to pick up from. In the end, we decided that we would take a page out of the author's tactics and split it in several different series of articles to be published gradually. And so, this is going to be the first of many. And we probably should warn you, there will be spoilers ahead. CREATING THE SEVEN KINGDOMSGame of Thrones, from an adaptation standpoint, faced many of the same problems that Peter Jackson had to face when b…

The Huntsman: Winter's War. Untangling the mess. Part II

As we heavily remarked in our last article (click here to read), the Costume Design for the monstrosity that was The Huntsman: Winter's War wasn't really as good as everyone was claiming it to be. And because we are sort of unrelenting in our grudges and hates, we are going to continue hammering down this idea, this time focussing on the true stars of this movie: the two Evil Sister Queens.
So, without further ado, let's get into the madness. IV. FREYA, THE ICE QUEEN That tonal dissonance that we pointed out in the huntsmen characters becomes a cacophony the moment we consider the two Queens in this movie: Ravenna (because how could they do this movie without bringing back the only successful character in the last movie?) and her sister, Freya, who basically becomes Elsa from Frozen.
Before starting, I feel like I need to clarify that my main quarrel about both their designs has nothing to do with if they are pretty or not, which most of them are. But prettiness is not wh…

Oscars Retrospective 2017: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is the first of the planned spin-off/prequel series of the Harry Potter Saga and the screenwriting debut of J.K.Rowling, the mind behind the Harry Potter Books.
This new installment is an ambitious attempt, both in scale and in narrative, as it tries to tell both a brand new story with brand new characters and also be linked to the original saga through the character of Grindelwald.
The problem is that this juggling act forces the movie to fit in together two stories that have little to do with each other. On the one hand, there's Grindenwald and the Obscurial's story and on the other, the bizarre adventures of Newt Scamander as he tries to fetch back his creatures. Separately, these two stories, could have made for two entertaining movies, but the problem is that, together, they just don't mix  very well. On top of that, the radical changes in tone throughout the movie only manage to drag the final product further down.

But, despite…