Skip to main content

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 and Charles Perrault compiled respectively, there are princesses, but more oft than not, the main characters are not princesses. And even when they are, their defining traits differ quite a lot from what we think of today.

Actually, the princess concept is constantly being redefined, even the Disney princess concept hasn't stayed the same in the last 70 years or so. And that evolving concept has been constantly reinforced and defined by how they look as much as by what they stand for. To develop the topic, we are going to focus on Cinderella as a character and her changing representation within the Disney Princess franchise.

Why Cinderella, you'll ask? Well, while Snow White was the one that started it all back in 1937, it was Cinderella who saved the company from bankruptcy in what was, more than probably, the company's worst times. She was the one that cemented the idea of Disney as the "dream factory", and has remained as a central figure up until today. Note that she's almost always placed in the middle of the official Disney Princess lineups.

Also, the fact that she was the first of the princesses to get the live-action reboot treatment has to count for something. And I'm not counting Maleficent, because Aurora isn't the protagonist and she's barely in the movie and didn't feature at all in the merchandising. So it virtually didn't affect her princess image at all.

But I'm derailing the conversation here, let's get back to Cinderella and how she constantly defines the princess "aesthetic".


Cinderella's story, as Disney portrayed it, has very little in common with any of the prior written incarnations. For instance, it's much more children safe and it removes much of the darker stuff. But still, it knew this was no happy story. Cinderella suffers a lot throughout the movie, and you see it.

Because of this, throughout most of the movie, she's animated wearing a very somber and dark outfit. It's a very grounded design, and it discards all the joyful color that we've come to associate with Disney.

The simple outfit consists of a shirt, vest, skirt and a ragged apron all in a very muted color palette: browns and grayish whites. There is no joy in it, no happiness really. It certainly helps to transmit her humbleness, but, even more than that, a sense of resignation that is deeply felt.

That's why it strikes such a contrast when she comes down those stairs dressed in a vibrant pink dress expectant to go to the ball.

The vibrancy of it transmits a renewed sense of hope and faith that helps make the later abuse even more poignant. At the same time, its simplicity underlines the character's personality, completely devoid of vanity or envy.

And then there's the central piece: the ball gown. 

This single image is the cornerstone and the birth, at the same time, of the "princess" concept and aesthetic. The big dress, the sparkle, the magic. This single image, built Disney's Princess Empire. But how does it work within the movie's narrative? Perfectly well, otherwise it wouldn't have been as impactful.

The dress, all in pearl white is the perfect representation of the ethereal magic that has created it. This is not reality, this is magic, thus the sparkle and the perfection. That same perfection that the pink dress could have never had, no matter how much love was put into it. This is the visual representation of Cinderella's inner beauty. That dress is her: it's her kindness, love, humility, patience... all rolled in one perfect gown. And because all her other costumes have been so simple and humble and even ugly, the change really feels like magic.

And in the end, that's why it works, because it works on a narrative and symbolic level. That's why it hit home with audiences. All her pain, and suffering has led her to one moment of reward: the moment where all her effort is rewarded by turning her into everything she deserved to be all along.

It's in that idea where we find both the main drive behind the "princess" concept. It's the idea that every single one of us can be a princess. Every single one us will be rewarded with the dress and the beauty (and the prince) because of our kindness and patience and loving nature. We ALL ARE CINDERELLA.


Right there is where we encounter the problematic part of the whole "princess" thing. It's not so much on the idea of it, but on how its merchandized.

The idea, as it was first presented in Cinderella, is more than positive. It's the idea that if you dream big and persevere and put effort into it while being kind, nice and overall a good person, you'll get your due.

But, through the years, as the idea caught on, it started to focus more on  the aesthetics (the big dress, the sparkle, the beauty...) than on the ethics. Still, for many years, this only happened in the stores, not in the movies itself. Meaning that while the toys always came with the big dress and the glitter, the movies still followed the original Cinderella structure and idea. The big dress is not what defines Belle, or Ariel. Hell, Pocahontas doesn't even have one.



Such was the impact of the character, that it was only logical to remake it once the live-action remake trend truly set in a few years back. And we've actually talked in depth about this new incarnation before (read here), but here we'll focus on a different aspect, not as much in the movie as an separate object, but as a movie framed within the Disney Princess Franchise.

Let's have a look at the main outfits, starting, of course, with the regular servant outfit. Which, once again, she wears throughout most of the movie.

This is a baby blue dress with a pink apron. It's a very beautiful outfit that highlights her natural beauty, but hardly anything else. It doesn't matter that is gets dirty at some point, or that is more simple than the dresses worn by her stepsisters. This is not a humble dress. It's made of good fabric and it compliments her figure very well. It's not truly raggedy nor ugly.

Then there's the handmade ball dress, which maintains the original pink color from the Disney Classic.

When compared to her "serving" dress, this doesn't look like much of a change: it's old, the color is a bit muted and it looks worn out. So that feeling of renewed hope is not visually created with the same intensity as it was in the 1950 movie. Because, by comparison, there isn't that much of a change. The serving gown is too pretty and the ball dress too old and worn.

That lack of differentiation causes us, the audience, to downplay the effect of the abuse she receives when her dress is torn, and therefore, maintains an emotional distance between ourselves and the character. Which, in turn, downplays the  joy we feel when the godmother rewards her, because it feels undeserved. She wasn't that bad off to begin with and we never felt her joy with the pink dress.

And then's the ball gown.

The main difference you'll notice is the change in color. They've discarded the pearl white for an electric blue. Also, there is a ton more glitter and spark. Now it's not only on her dress, but also on her hair and her skin and absolutely everywhere to  the point where it gets a tad ridiculous.

This causes the dress to loose the ethereal sense of the original. The vibrance of the color gives it a sense of artificiality and makes it look less sincere. 

The core reason for the change in perception is that we've stopped reading the dress as a magical reward and instead we've started perceiving it as a part of the merchandising. The dress looks, and therefore is, a particularly well crafted costume to be sold at a Disney Store, and little more.

And I know what you'll tell us; but these are really pretty! And that's true. The designs for the new Cinderella are exquisitely done, and quite astounding. And that's where their faults lie.

The new designs are all trying to be Disney Princess dress material, instead of serving the narrative and the concept. The aesthetics of the Disney princess have overtaken the ethics. The "princess gown" used to be a reward for the kind essence of the character, not the essence itself. By making her look pretty all the time, by foregoing the rags and ugly treatment, we are devaluing the reward itself. In the end, she's just a Disney Princess in look/appearance: she has a pretty set of dresses with sparkly and big skirts, but little more.

Disney princesses used to be characters with a strong message behind (be kind, dream big, have patience, persevere) and a somewhat questionable aesthetic (beautiful, big, sparkly dresses and very feminine visual ideas), but they felt honest because of that strong message. But when aesthetics reign over the message, as is the case in this incarnation, everything become vacuous and insubstantial.


But that change in understanding and representing Cinderella, and all the Disney princesses, doesn't happen overnight. How did we go from point A to point B? Most people understand that when you remake a character, it needs to be "updated". But why? We get that our understanding of the character has changed. We don't understand Cinderella now the same way now that we did back in 1950.  But that shift, doesn't happen overnight.

Most people don't pay attention, but since the creation of the Disney Princess line, there has been a new design for all the princesses of the lineup every year, including but not exclusively for Cinderella.

And every one of them shifts slightly from its predecessor. Those slight and progressive shifts may seem random at first glance. But they are not. They are the result of carefully crafted market studies that base themselves around one question: what sells? What makes them sell more toys? More costumes? More DVD's?

So, throughout the years, they've progressively tweaked and modified the look itself of the characters in order to adapt to the answer to those questions. And, it's actually really easy to identify the trends in design that have been favoured over time.

As you can see, one of the first changes done was changing the color of the dress: from white to blue (which is the reason why most people get confused about the actual color of the dress). Then the dress got bigger and lavisher and more decorated. Then came the glitter, and then they changed the hairstyle and then came the slimming down of the features. It's a pretty straightforward pattern, actually. They were slowly "beautifying" her to fit more modern standards of femininity: she was thinned down and styled more according to today's fashion, with the hair less strict and the dress brighter.

The changes are directed at making her look more youthful, more relaxed and more "sexy". And her character might set the trend, but the rest of the Disney princesses follow.

So, what we find, is that throughout the years, the Disney aesthetic has been modified (in theory to sell more) to the point where it seems that all that matter is the looks. These constant changes in appearance create the impression that what matters and what defines a "princess" is not what she does, but how she looks, especially when they focus so heavily on modifying characters with non conventional looks, such as Merida or Pocahontas.

And in the end, that's what bothers people about the "princess" trend. It started as one thing only to end as this huge machine that sells conventional body types and strict understanding of gender normative rules.

And that's what bothers me about the new Cinderella. It seemed to revolve exclusively around the big fluffy dress, and it seemed that the most important factor was to make her look youthful and pretty at all times. The thing is, when I first saw the movie, it surprised me. But then I started thinking about everything I knew of the Disney Princess Franchise, and it became clear to me: the sad truth is that, when you see the evolution it has taken, the approach and look of the new Cinderella becomes the obvious progression.


I used to be upset when people claimed that the "princess" stereotype was problematic. I grew up with the Disney Renaissance and I loved every single one of the Disney princesses, so they were my model as a child. But a few years back, I started noticing a worrisome trend. Many of the children I babysat, knew (and adored) the princesses only through their merchandize, and hadn't even seen the movies, and all they wanted was the glittery dress and the pretty looks and that's it. That's when it clicked. It truly had become problematic.

Since the creation of the Disney Princess Franchise, they had started to focus more and more on making the look of these characters as marketable as possible, disregarding whatever values they might have stood for. And through years of adding glitter layer over glitter layer, the princess aesthetic had completely buried the ethics that had made it worth it to begin with, completely rendering the characters devoid of sense beyond the "it needs to sell" concept.

And so, the concept of what makes a princess, has progressively shifted to the point where it is much more defined by how they look than by what they do. And that's because the younger generation (in its majority) hasn't even seen the movies in which this princesses were presented. They only know them from their collection of lunch boxes and Halloween costumes.

The main difference, for me, is that these characters; Cinderella, Belle, Jasmine... they weren't conceived as "princesses", instead, they were conceived first as characters and then marketed as princesses. This new Cinderella is quite the opposite, it was conceived as a marketable princess and then fitted to a movie. And that's what we mean when we say that the aesthetics have completely overtaken the ethics, making it be shallow and patronizing and devoid of true meaning. And problematic, very problematic.

Why problematic? Because when girls idolize princesses, these days, they are idolizing a superficial concept: the prettiness, the super cute dress, the magic animal friends... etc. They are glorifying youth and beauty and other similarly vacuous things.

Keep in mind that the ideas that we get exposed to as children define so much of our mentality through life. They deserved to be examined over and over again so we can point out the problems with them, and, maybe, even fix them.

But, weren't the original princesses (Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora) also problematic? Sure, but in another sense. These were problematic because they adhered to a rather retrograde sense of the female role in society, but at least they promoted some good values. So, we are not saying that the 1950's Cinderella was perfect as far as female role models are, I'm just saying that it's way better than the new version. 

Keep in mind that the 2015 version has a still more passive character than the 1950's movie. Think about that. Here she's completely passive, focuses way more on looks and glitter and it's marketed as progressive. You know, Feminism is hard enough without the extra help.

So, next time you want to convince a child that she too can be a princess, give her a dvd with any of the Princess Movies instead of a costume or a lunch box. 


This article was written as part of the Character in Costume Blogfest prompt, click here to read more from the Blogfest.


If you enjoyed this article, subscribe! or follow us on Facebook or Tumblr or Twitter and help us grow!


  1. Wow. Fantastic article!!!! You've put into words what so many of us feel :)

    1. Thank you! So glad you enjoy it!

    2. Still liked the big blue ball gown on Cinderella, sad to see the character - heroine sorely treated. Must have a dreadful relative or step mother/stepbrother to understand the torment a father's daughter(s) face. atk

  2. That has annoyed me as well, that the Disney girls have gone from being thinking, feeling, opinionated and acting individuals in the films (though naturally influenced by the time and culture in which they were made) to basically being super models for little girls, with no identity but the ridiculously frilly and glittery dresses that their film personas would gag at.

    1. Absolutely, and it's something that had been bugging me for quite some time, because it's so unnecessary and superficial... and you couldn't have said it best; it totally contradicts the original spirit of their characters

  3. You have given me much food for thought; this was fascinating! I had an extremely muted emotional response to the 2015 Cinderella and wondered what was missing, but your exploration of what the costumes signify emotionally in both 1950 and 2015 was illuminating.

    Looking at the images of how the princesses were changed through the decades, it was astonishing to see how much they were streamlined...and all that glitter and sparkle. And sad to learn how so many kids have not even seen these movies at all.

    So glad you could join in with this fresh and thought-provoking article!

    1. Thanks! I'm truly glad I found out about the initiative, it's a great way to share thoughts and opinions, and I had a great time from beginning to end.

  4. I completely agree! I didn't like the 2015 Cinderella; she felt so happy with her life, despite the trials and her difficult stepmother that it didn't feel like she really needed the magic or the fairy godmother's intervention (or truly cared whether she got the prince or not). And the evolution of how they present the princesses is very interesting. I much prefer the original depictions, as seen in the older movies. :-)

    1. Absolutely, the originals are so much better, mainly because they show a distinct personality for the character. Something that is very lacking in the redesigns.

  5. What a fascinating post! I had never thought about the Princess phenomenon in this way but your analysis is completely convincing. Interestingly when I read the beginning, I was saying to myself "but I thought her dress was blue", never having realised till now that the reason I thought that was because of a ceramic figurine I had as a child rather than from the movie itself. And since my childhood was back in the Dark Ages, that confirms how long they've been updating the costumes for. Much food for thought here - thank you!

    1. So, true. I was always confused as a child about the color of that dress because of that. Glad you enjoyed the article!

  6. Excellent post. I am huge fan of Disney animated films but rest of the Disney is something I often avoid. When I was a child Disney merchandising was not that much of a thing in my country so the criticism of Disney when I initially came across it did not make much sense but I later realized how it was the result of the merchandising largely. Not that all merchandising is bad and that there is sometimes too much criticism of Disney in comparison to other animated studios and toy companies. But it is an issue.

    This post left me desiring more costume analysis on Disney animated films since you were so insightful here. Maybe you could do similar posts regarding the rest of Disney live-action films when they come out like Beauty and the Beast next year. I kind of rather however if you would just analyze the animated films on their own the way you usually do. Even if Frozen is the only one that has enough clothes for a post of its own probably...

    1. Thanks! I actually found myself in a very similar position as you. I never payed much attention to the merchandise as a child and a young adult. It wasn't until I started babysitting as a part time job (one need to make a living sometimes) that I came into full contact with it through the children I took care of. It was then when I realized how much of an issue it was. So yes, I understand where you are coming from.

      As for more Diseny Animated analysis. Sure! I have a few planned (including the new Beauty and the Beast when it inevitably comes out), even if they are rather short articles. It's an interesting topic for me.

      Unfortunately, right now, I'm very much behind my list of to-do articles (I'm working two jobs, plus some sporadic baby sitting, which allows me really little time to write) which means that, even though they'll eventually come, I can't assure when.

      Sorry for the long ass answer!!! I'm so glad you liked it!

  7. After seeing the 2015 Cinderella, my mom and I had a fit over the ballgown. Why were there butterflies, and what was the deal with the rainbow-like colors underneath the blue? It was just one of the many things that Disney changed that bugged us.

    I'm glad you mentioned the changing of the dresses over time. It drives me insane to see these ridiculous, glitter-covered gowns that don't match our beloved princesses at all. This may be just me, but I also dislike that they always make Aurora's dress pink. To me, her dress should be blue because that's how it is for 90% of the time in the film. I don't know if the merchandising picked pink because it's more "feminine" or because they transitioned Cinderella's dress into blue and they thought they couldn't have two blonde, blue-wearing princesses...? It's a weird quibble to have, I know, but there you have it.

    Great post!

    1. Absolutely!! I had the same first reaction to the new dress gown! It's too much, and makes too little sense.

      As for the changes done over time... I have my own theories. My guess about why they changed Cinderella's dress to blue is that makes it way more easy to make cheap costumes that look even a tad descent with the blue than with with. White is a color that either you spend good money on it, or will look like a rag.

      And as for Aurora... I also prefer the Blue Dress. But when it comes to Disney Merchandise, it's all about selling. And, in theory, girls prefer pink. So there you have it. It's sad, but true. And it's not a weird quibble, well, not to me. I get it! And I hate it to...

      Thanks for the kind comment! Glad you enjoyed the article!

  8. This was an awesome read, thank you!

  9. Wow, great post, god I hate all the latest designs for the princesses...they look like the mean girls in high school! It's especially ridiculous with Mulan and Merida, two girls who didn't feel comfortable in super feminine dress to be so over-sparkled and over-dressed!

  10. I thought the 2015 Cinderella was ethically and emotionally impactful. I agree that the scene in which the step sisters tear Ella's dress seemed less important than in the animated version, but the movie still captured the tragedy of Ella's story and made me feel for her. I did think her rags dress was pretty in the live action one, but I also always thoughts cinderella's animated rag dress was pretty too. It fit her well and the neutral colors were flattering with her eyes and tidy blond hair. I also believe that the theme about being a good person and getting what's due you was effectively portrayed in both movies. In the 2015 version, Ella's mother tells her to have courage and be kind and the phrase is used many times through out the film. Ella didn't seem passive to me either. In fact I loved that she hid the slipper from her step mother, not to avoid her own punishment, but to protect her earnest prince from the wicked woman's manipulative influence. Not to mention, the step mother's motive for disliking Ella in the first place was better portrayed in the new version. Obviously the animated movie is a classic and always should be. But I certainly don't doubt that princess ethics are still thriving in the modern aesthetic environment.

    1. Honestly, we never watch a movie wanting to dislike it. Quite the contrary. And it upsets us when a movie disappoints us. Such was the case with this one. So I'm really glad you can enjoy it. We hope we could too. It's a matter of opinions in the end :)
      Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts!

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. This was a wonderful article! I hadn't actually paid that much attention to the lack of (feminist or otherwise) wow in the movie because I personally liked the sweet nature and, yes, I fell for the ball gown. I did miss her lack of snark, because original Cinderella is pretty quick witted and sassy.
    But I loved how you mentioned the good qualities of princesses in the original Disney movies. I feel like that's something people constantly forget and take the feminine roles [valued at the time] at face value and write the whole thing off as problematic. The princesses I grew up with helped shape me, and I'm glad the issues were addressed without throwing the heart of the characters under the bus.

    1. Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I do believe that you can't just write off all of Disney's properties as "bad". There are a lot of positive aspects in them and they should be appreciated, otherwise it's really hard to see the real problematic stuff.

  13. Great article! Reminded me of all the merchandise bought for my daughter over the years but it was always AFTER we had seen the movie, provided she liked the movie and characters. Only then was some merchandise allowed because I understood her desire to extend the movie experience. She loved the characters because of how they were portrayed and their personalities. You're totally right: now the cart is before the horse and there's very little story behind the costumes and lunchboxes and thus, less emotional resonance and meaning.

  14. wow, such a beautiful wedding dress & Very interesting blog. Take a look at my weblog: Designer Suits Vaughan

  15. Thank you for putting in words what i thought the first time I saw that horrible version of Cinderella. I hate her now!!!! And I loved Cinderella for so many years.. i think we should protest about this perhaps they changed their minds. I hate her I hate her so much .. they killed her :'(

  16. I must say, I absolutely LOVE this web site. I'm so glad I found it! It's like one of the perfect places for people talking about exactly what I love to tak about, and with such research and intelligence. But I must say I also loved the 2015 Disney Cinderella film. Is it as good as the animated Disney Cinderella? No. But I don't think it's because they only cared about making her pretty. I think it's because her life wasn't quite as sad (someone here said she seemed too happy, which I agree with), and that sometimes the film was too sweet, or boring, or not dramatic or emotional enough. Like the dress-ripping scene wasn't as sad and traumatic, or the slipper fit scene not as happy. But I still found when Cinderella can't go to the ball sad, her relationship with the prince romantic, and her happy ending very, well, happy. And I think the film still really kept to what the Disney animated story is about - if you are good, despite the bad, you will be rewarded. It's about a very kind, good, wonderful girl getting what she deserves because of how good she is.

    It was shrewd to say that Cinderella's servant dress wasn't as downtrodden-looking as perhaps it should have been, and the pink dress not as bright and happy-looking as it should have been. Although the reason that the costumer made Ella's servant dress the way it was was because instead of giving her rags to show Ella accepting the role of a servant, Ella gets to wear her favorite dress and the director of the movie wanted Ella to be happy "before she meets the prince" to make her not dependent on a man for happiness. I suppose that just wasn't the way to go, though. The dress was supposed to become dull and faded as Cinderella's servitude and sad life went on, but I guess that didn't come across.

    As for the blue ball gown, the butterflies were there because of many reasons, I believe. One, because they represent transformation and freedom, two, because they represent Cinderella's connection to nature (this one is proven as the costume designer said so), and three, they represent Ella's father's gift of the pretty butterfly toy, and care and love for her.

    Also, I 'd like to say I don't think youth and beauty are vacuous. I see them as great things we all want, that just come after love and glory, I guess. I mean, this whole site is about beautiful clothes, and this site is far from vacuous!

    Thank you for the wonderful articles! Oh, and if you can, try to proofread your articles more. I find a lot of mistakes here and there. I know you can't get them perfect all the time, but this site has so much greatness I just hate to see little mistakes mar any of it! But really, fantastic job you guys are doing here! I enjoy this place so, so, so much!

  17. There is nothing in this world that can beat the original. This was and is still one of the best movies of Disney. Just like this I am sure Andy Yeatman Netflix shows are going to make a name because a lot of children now days prefer watching such entertaining and educating shows.

  18. Marvelous and fascinating article. Incredible things you've generally imparted to us. Much obliged.Keep trying for the best.for information regarding designer dresses on rent please visit to the link.
    Your Wedding Gown - Buy or Rent?


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…

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…