Isla Fisher in Dolce&Gabbana

Posted on May 02, 2013

We have to admit, we cringe every time we see her pushed-up boobs in the trailer for this movie. We realize this is going to be a wildly stylized interpretation of the book and the period, but anyone with bare-bones understanding of the beauty paradigm of the 1920s could tell you that big boobs and lots of cleavage is about as on-target as skinny pants.


Let’s judge.


Isla attends the world premiere of ‘The Great Gatsby’ in New York City in a Dolce & Gabbana dress and shoes accessorized with Fred Leighton jewelry and a Roger Vivier clutch.


UGLIEST skirt ever or FUGLIEST skirt ever? The world wants to know!

Jesus. We’re on record as hating sheer long skirts over short ones, but this has got to be one of the ugliest versions of the style we’ve ever seen. She looks like she pinned a tablecloth to the bottom of a her dress. And the shape, kittens! Starting right at her waist, she turns into a thick, straight trunk to the floor. Just what every gal wants out of a dress.

And the tragedy of it is, it looks like if she just ripped away the lace, there’d be a cute dress under there.


[Photo Credit: Getty]

Please review our Community Guidelines before posting a comment. Thank you!

  • This dress just looks so cheap.

  • blueberrypanckae

    absolutely beautiful…from the waist up.

    • Eliza Leoni

      True scrolldown fug. If it were exactly the same waist-up and ended in a mini, I’d have loved it and it would be a perfect counterpoint to her cleavagey movie character. But alas, no.

      • kirkyo

        The dress is so powerful, it created an entire new form of ugly.

    • lrober03

      Even the sleeves get ugly starting at the waist.,

  • fug-ug skirt. WAY overdesigned dress. The mermaid hair is giving me fits. Also, as a long time student of fashion history, I am steeling myself to be righteously annoyed by how much liberality they ladle on the styles.

    • BarniClaw

      I can’t wait to hear what you think after/if you see the movie!

      • I’m not an especial champion of the earlier theatrical release, but Theonie Aldridge got almost everything spot on right. Considering what Baz Luhrmann has done in the past, I suspect this is going to only have glancing references to the times.

        • MilaXX

          Isn’t this mess also in 3D? The minute I heard they added that gimmick, I pretty much lost all faith in this movie.

          • ToniMacAttack

            Noooooooooooo! UGH. I hate 3D!

          • MilaXX

            Just googled to confirm.

          • Yep it is. And Nope there is NO REASON why Gatsby needs to be presented in that way. I smell a very expensive train wreck on its way.

          • Glammie

            You know, if it were still the 70s, it could just be a stoner movie–on a triple bill, say, with Fantasia and Barbarella (okay, that was an actual double bill I once saw.)

          • I thought the same thing. I hadn’t planned on seeing it anyway (irrational dislike of Leo, mostly), and that kind of sealed it for me.

      • I think the problem is that “Gatsby” is essentially un-filmable. It’s such an interior novel. If you look, there’s actually not very much dialogue in it. Most of the text is description and the ruminations of the characters. I can see how directors are tempted….the setting, the parties, the clothing, the cars are all so cinematic. But there’s not a whole hell of a lot of action, and multiple conversations are awfully hard to make interesting. (Please do not reference “My Dinner With Andre” here; it’s in a category all by itself.) Luhrmann seems to me to be a guy more interested in spectacle than story, so I’m not expecting all that much from this except Catherine Martin’s usual terrific visual/design eye.

        • Beautifully said, Ellen!

        • notoffred

          At first I read “interior” as “inferior” and was about to get mad at you. However, upon actually reading, you’re very right. Lets hope its at least enjoyable. Jordan Baker is one of my favorite literary characters ever.

        • StellaZafella

          If it were like an Altman film (with a script by Fellowes) like Gosford Park we might get the spectacle along with the internal monologues…but even Fellowes is too much about dialogue for Gatsby.

        • Qitkat

          Asked in all seriousness, since I really want to see this film, even with all the pre-release negative press, should I read the book first? I have no idea how I escaped this novel throughout school, but I did.

          • random_poster

            Since we already have a perception of the movie via the negative press, I say see the movie first. The book is almost always better than the movie version. I tend to read the books first, and end up sitting through the movie and judging where I think it went wrong.

          • Qitkat

            Thanks, random_poster, see my reply below. I think Disqus screwed up the notification.

          • demidaemon

            This is why I can no longer watch many movies based upon books or historical events. I get very nitpicky and undermine any enjoyment I (and anyone watching it with me) might have had of the movie.

          • I suspect you’ll enjoy the film a good deal more, without reading it. But afterwards, you truly should check it out. Its an amazing novel, and still reads very well.

          • Qitkat

            Thanks, Kiltdntiltd, see below. Disqus messed up the notification I think.

          • ABSOLUTELY read the book first, Qitkat. It’s short and basically a quick read the first time. Then, read it again, slowly. Savor the exquisite language. Read some passages out loud. If you’d really like to get a sense of the musical and nuanced writing, listen to an audiobook version too. I see that Jake Gyllenhaal has released one as a tie-in with the movie; haven’t heard it. I remember listening to one years ago with Tim Robbins as reader, and thinking it was very good.

            Then, AFTER you’ve soaked this all in, see the Redford/Mia Farrow/Sam Waterston movie. It’s beautifully done, very atmospheric, but ultimately rather boring, and for all that Redford is my main movie squeeze I don’t think he was well cast. The other casting is spot on. Then, after all that, go see this new one. I’ll see it too. We can talk.

          • Yeah, I didn’t like the Redford, et al. movie version, either. I’ve never been a fan of Fitzgerald’s writing… I’ve always found his – and his contemporaries’ work to be really difficult to absorb (and as an almost English major, I’ve read them all).

          • Qitkat

            Thanks @NurseEllen:disqus , @kiltdntiltd:disqus and @random_poster:disqus , turns out the book is highly requested at the library so I would have to over-caffeinate myself at Barnes & Noble and sit there to read an unbought book. [snicker, have done that before] Although I’m considering listening to the audio version. I do agree that most movies don’t do the book justice. NurseEllen I get thrilled when someone responds with such detail to me. Sounds like you make a terrific book and film buddy. It would be fun to have a place to thoroughly discuss with all of you. Sometimes we could use a private facebook group to expand on things brought up on the blog.

          • I am a firm believer in always reading the book first (when movies are based on “literature”), but I hated the book the first time I read it in high school, and couldn’t even get through it when I tried to revisit it as an adult. No chance I’m seeing the movie.

          • Little_Olive

            If you saw what they did to “The Reader”, then by all means, read the book.

            At least the book will give you a personal experience, perception of the characters and a sense of the book’s “aura”, which is hard to translate into film. When I do it the other way round, then I cannot not picture the characters as the actors and I second-guess my deductions on the written word.

          • Qitkat

            I saw The Reader, but had not read the book, so can’t compare. I think I’ll add that to my book list though. Good points about “aura.”

          • Little_Olive

            That book is a beauty. Goes so far beyond the plot.

          • demidaemon

            That’s pretty amazing. Not only did I read it in high school, I also got stuck with it again in American Lit in college, along with Grapes of Wrath, which was probably the worst reading experience of my life. Having to read the book in one week (my classes were 18 days long) while haveng the first line of every paragraph highlighted in ye old yellow highlighter and just not liking the writing style at all was pretty dreadful.

        • Little_Olive

          I was watching The Last Emperor yesterday. Proof that beautiful, quiet cinematography is dialogue in itself, filling silences with all the meaning the actors aren’t expressly playing. Then again, Woody Allen loads scenes with never ending dialogue, but he mashes it with the visual information to perfection.

          Luhrman’s schizophrenic overload of “period things” (cars, dresses, room decor) makes the film all the poorer IMO. Everything is *right there*, readily chewed for you to swallow -lest you’d be confused by ambiguity- so you leave the as full as if you’d had a cheeseburger. I know some people love it. It’s not my kind of film.

          • Qitkat

            Have you ever seen Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring? It’s beautifully filmed, meditative, profound. I read where someone called it a cinematic Haiku. Almost beyond language to describe.

          • Little_Olive

            I LOVE that film, and was actually going to include it in my comment but then I thought it may be viewed as an artsy-film snob’s example. Such quiet power. If you like films like that, try a Russian movie called The Return – I literally (not figuratively) couldn’t speak for two hours after seeing it – or The Piano.
            Little is said, most is implied.

          • Winter_White

            Little Olive: Just went to Netflix and put The Return in my streaming queue – thanks for the recommendation.

          • Winter_White

            Hi again, Little Olive — I swam back against the current to find this post so that I could thank you for The Return! Cold and beautiful and powerful. So glad you mentioned it. Just finished poking around the internet to read reviews, etc., and was shaken to learn that the actor who played the older boy died right after they finished filming: on a dare from friends, he jumped from that very tower we see at the beginning of the movie and drowned. Learning this just 10 minutes after I’d finished watching the film was such an emotional jolt.

          • Little_Olive

            I am so glad you enjoyed it! It is, as you say, cold and powerful, with its blue-ish filter and silent faces. I always name it among the best films I’ve seen.
            I knew about the kid too. Very sad (and a bit disturbing, no?).
            I am so very moved by you taking the time to get back to me on the film. Thank you! It’s absolutely what I would have done.

          • Winter_White

            Qitkat, I love that film!! Also, 3-Iron, from the same director — hope you’ve seen it.

          • Qitkat

            Not yet, I’ll add it to the list. Thanks.

        • GorgeousThings

          I completely agree. And I fear that the cuts will be so fast and furious that it will just suck all the beauty from the story. The book wasn’t just about the pretty clothes and settings. Also, I’ve been less than impressed with Luhrmann’s work in recent years (i LOVED “Strictly Ballroom” but I hated “Baz Luhrmann’s La Boheme”). It seems to be more about his ego and getting featured in Vogue than about good storytelling. Here’s hoping this film bucks that trend.

        • Anathema_Device

          Great point. Thank you. I need to add that I am coveting one of the bracelets Tiffany is selling in conjunction with the movie. If anyone has a spare $190k laying around, send it my way.

    • FUGLIEST overdesigned nightmare. ugh.

    • Little_Olive

      Thank you. Will all the information and fashion historians at your disposal, you’d think Hollywood would get it right, which they seldom do.

      One particular thing that annoys me in period pieces (normally of eras even before Great Gatsby) is that they do makeup almost as it is done today; being content just by doing a pale skin base because, hello, everybody knows you weren’t supposed to be tan.

      • There are vanishingly few films that really go the entire way with regard to the dress and appearance of the actors. Partly its due to budget in most cases, and partly in an, (I think wrongheaded) belief that the audience won’t relate to the actors if they look as they really ought to. Some of the small details I always look for are, bodice shape, shoes, and type of closures used.

        • Little_Olive

          I think you are right -people seem to take distance at women with thick white powder on their faces and eyes without mascara.
          I look for the same things!

          • demidaemon

            I think this is why Mad Men’s styling is so well-praised. They do their best to actually be true to the period.

      • kathryn_dc

        I didn’t notice the cleavage, but the winged eyeliner made me go “wuh…”

    • Anathema_Device

      I know. I was excited to hear about the movie and casting when it was first announced. Then I steeled myself when I heard that Baz Lurhman (sp?) was directing.

    • Have you seen ‘The Eye Has to Travel” documentary? Interesting bit where Diana Vreeland is curating a met exhibition and her perspective was roughly that historical accuracy is less important than getting the mood and feel of the decadence of the period right for the modern audience. I think Baz Luhrmann would have the same attitude only magnified. I’m okay with that.

      • From a design perspective I totally get that position. It’s only my love of history that makes me get twitchy now and again.

    • Louise Bryan

      Definite scroll-down fug. Having always longed to have mermaid hair such as this (but being blessed with an abundance of straight as a board, won’t hold a curl no matter how much product is used, and can’t perm because of the volume), I will not say I don’t like her hair. As a matter of fact, until the skirt popped up (*teeth grinding*), I was thinking how beautiful she looked.

  • Sobaika

    I’m trying very hard to mentally ignore what is happening below her waist – the top portion of the dress is gorgeous.

    • Exactly. Scroll-down fug if there ever was one.

  • I don’t know about ugliest *ever* because there have been a lot of contenders, but this is pretty damn bad. Shame, because I do adore a pretty floral.

  • You can smell the regret in that second picture. Poor baby.

  • aeb1986

    FUGLY. Wow, its like the exact opposite of the Carey Mulligan shot, great from face to waist, TERRIBLE after that.

  • I like the idea of this dress a lot, but it doesn’t look brilliantly executed around the waist.

  • Janet B

    Even the sleeves are unflattering.

  • mmc2315

    It’s the trend that will not go away.

  • carnush

    Sorry but I like it. She’s making it work.

  • Gretchen

    In the novel, Myrtle is curvy, overweight, zaftig….use whatever term you want….but, yeah, her boobs are actually “on target”

    • It’s not the shape of her body that’s the issue. It’s the low cut dresses and the push-up bras that we saw in the trailer.

      • But think of Myrtle as a Joan. Despite the era you’ll never see Joan in hippie wear or mod wear. When everyone around her is wearing loose and billowy caftans or miniskirts, Joan will always be Joan. Myrtle was a sexpot. She was super curvy and very sensuous. And she was poor. So she didn’t have the money or the body type to pull off the new styles (so why try?) and that didn’t matter because you said it yourself in your MadStyle post from last week, to quote you directly:

        “Much is made (including by us) of the fact that Joan’s va-va-voom persona and look are out of style at this point, but it should be noted that voluptuous, beautiful women are largely still considered desirable in any setting, even as very skinny ones populate the magazine covers.”

        • I really don’t think the eras and the characters are all that comparable to each other outside of the fact that they’re both curvy.

          Besides, low cut dresses and pushup bras were unheard of at the time. It’s not like the girls in 1910 were all showing off their cleavage. She’s not sticking to older styles like Joan is, she’s incongruously wearing more modern styles.

          • Some low cut dresses were fashionable in the 1910s for evening wear, though. If Myrtle was wearing something older, I could see it being low cut and in keeping with the character. I’m doubting that’s the case for the film, but there’s a slim chance it could be in keeping with her character.

          • Look at the dress she’s wearing in the movie poster. No one in 1910 was dressing like that. Neither was anyone in 1922.

          • lamamu

            But the point of Myrtle (in the book) is that she is the complete opposite of Daisy. By extension, for the movie version, cleavage, etc. is a smart way to make that contrast immediately clear to the viewer.

          • Sure, it’s a stylized choice, as we said. Just one that makes us cringe from a historical accuracy perspective. Boardwalk Empire has no problem showing what a floozy in 1922 actually looked like.

          • mountainFashionista

            I’m wondering if my comment (containing evidence of sexy cleavage from the 1910-’20s) was moderated because it contained links to photos?

          • Yes. For six whole minutes.

          • SewingSiren

            What ever you do, don’t google more images of her. The poster is the least egregious. In the ones I saw she’s looking like Stella Dallas ,and I mean the Bette Midler version.

          • Of course I had to go and do it. Once I saw her in the knee socks I realized Miuccia was just doing whatever the hell she wanted, interpreting the period pretty wildly. We don’t mind that in theory, but we look at how she’s costumed and think it’s a really odd way to re-interpret the 20s; by dressing her in some weird alternate take on Weimar ’30s Germany.


            It’s like a couture version of Cabaret; way more Sally Bowles than Myrtle Wilson.

          • SewingSiren

            With a little bit of Hairspray hair hopper and Carnaby Street thrown in for good measure. Plus Joan,,and Marilyn Monroe in the Seven Year Itch. Plus who knows what else..

          • mountainFashionista

            Early sex symbols were absolutely baring cleavage in seductive ways in the 1910-1920s. Not in the pushed-up-and-together way that’s popular now, but still totally on display:

            A still from Theda Bara’s “Cleopatra” from 1917:
            (Bara was one of the first big-deal movie stars.)

            Poster for Mae West’s 1926 Broadway play “Sex,” which ran for over a year:

            Josephine Baker in 1928:

            And a funny “bawdy” photo from 1911: From 1911:

          • Here’s an article about the inaccurate female
            silhouettes in the film.

          • Eclectic Mayhem

            You’re bang on the money TLo. I’ve just looked through as many photos of Clara Bow as I could find – they seem to have used her style as a jumping off point for Myrtle; the red hair, that scarf – and there is nothing cut like that.

            It’s probably a good idea to use Clara Bow as a shorthand way into the character though – if anyone could be described as a fizzing ball of energy she could.

          • Well there goes my theory.

          • Below is our introduction to the Myrtle character. Make of it what you will. I wonder who styled the characters for the remake. Maybe the only way they know how to interpret sensuous is tits out.

            “Then I heard footsteps on a stairs, and in a moment the thickish figure of a woman blocked out the light from the office door. She was in the middle thirties, and faintly stout, but she carried her surplus flesh sensuously as some women can. Her face, above a spotted dress of dark blue crepe-de-chine, contained no facet or gleam of beauty, but there was an immediately perceptible vitality about her as if the nerves of her body were continually smouldering. She smiled slowly and, walking through her husband as if he were a ghost, shook hands with Tom, looking him flush in the eye. Then she wet her lips, and without turning around spoke to her husband in a soft, coarse voice.”

          • That’s just our point. “Sensuous” in 1922 wasn’t defined by a Marilyn Monroe-style silhouette. That’s not how people thought of the word back then. Remember: the world in 1922 has only recently gotten over the initial shock of women exposing their ankles and then later their knees in public. Notice that Fitzgerald never mentions in these passages the shape of her body, except to say it’s thick, and never mentions anything about her showing any skin. Her sensuality comes in how she acts and carries herself, which is why Isla Fisher done up like she’s co-starring in “Some Like it Hot” on the movie poster just makes us cringe.

            Thanks for finding those passages.

          • Agatha Guilluame

            First, you’re welcome.

            Secondly, after reading everyone’s replies and clicking on Mountain’s links it’s now glaringly obvious to me how discordant a note Isla Fischer’s styling is on the poster and presumably in the movie. Wow. How did I not see it right away? And now I can’t unsee it. It’s like the old woman, young girl optical illusion All morning uncle TLo has been saying, “Don’t you see it? Its so obvious?” And now I finally do. So thank you.

    • Janet B

      My grandmother spent years underplaying her curves.

    • Eclectic Mayhem

      Maybe they should have cast someone who was actually zaftig – Ms Fischer is gorgeous but she’s a tiny wee slip of a thing – rather than trying to make her curvy in the only way they could!

    • StellaZafella

      My Great Aunt used to tell of trying to walk uphill while being ‘fashionable’ in 1920’s San Francisco and breathe at the same time with an ACE Bandage wrapped tightly around her upper torso to keep her ample bosom from ruining the line of her dress or dangling string of pearls.
      She used to end by saying “Praise the lord for the 1930’s when everybody stopped wearing under clothes for a decade like the movie stars!…well, at least that’s what I did.”

    • Here’s an article by a clothing historian about the inaccurate female silhouettes in the film.

      We bet she didn’t have to go through her comments section assuring people over and over again that she wasn’t criticizing their bodies.

  • Nikko Viquiera

    Please don’t disown me, but I kinda like this one. I think she looks pretty.

  • Eclectic Mayhem

    Push up boobs in the 20s? Reminds me of the Diane Sayer character in Thoroughly Modern Millie.

    I like the top of the frock here but it looks like she got caught on a couple of antimacassars before leaving the house.

    • ballerinawithagun

      I just posted a reference to Thoroughly Modern Millie also! I’d forgotten about the line that you used.

      Anitmacassars, vocabulary word of the day!

  • AndresB

    Obviously, designers are enthusiastic these days in their relentless efforts to come up with the perfect definition of ‘scroll down fugly’.
    That’s a perfectly pretty dress slaughtered from the midriff downwards indeed, though the weary expressions of stars at this premiere makes me wonder if they felt that it wouldn’t matter what they wear anyway as they expect the movie to be slaughtered as well.

  • I disagree.

    The top is horrible, too.

  • Anniebet

    Hey, I like the top… but am totally bewildered by the strange fabric purporting to be a skirt on her bottom half. I honestly cannot figure out what’s going on – is the lace skirt over or under the top? Those pale limbs underneath are just plain wrong too. She’s a beautiful woman, in need of a new stylist.

  • Tatiana Luján

    I love her, so it makes me sad that the dress does that to her waist and that something is wrong with her makeup, because she looks stiff and not as pretty as she normally looks.

  • This D&G line is pretty awful, for the most part. I wish it would go away.

  • I don’t know if it’s a lack of coffee or taste, but I like it. I think she looks romantic and generally lovely.

  • SewingSiren

    The way the dress transitions from floral printed chiffon to embroidered lace is astonishingly beautiful. Tis a pity they ran out of money when it came to the lining.

  • Champeen

    Total “scroll-down fug” for me.

  • newleaf1

    It’s rather a shame, because I think the top is really cute. It just looks like the designer didn’t know when to quit.

  • jw_ny

    I’m just gonna go with ugly…I know I’ve seen uglier skirts. This long black lace tablecloth over the short skirt is really bad tho…and the trend needs to cease. I do like the top, and kind of like how the amount of flowers diminish downward. Coulda been nice…

    Hate the mermaid hair and the makeup is just a bit too severe.

    I’m on the fence about wanting to see this movie…seems too bright, modern, animated, too many over the top special effects….not authentic to the era. The trailer just doesn’t have the visual feel for what I imagine the times were like.

  • MilaXX

    Just what I was thinking if it was just a short dress this would be cute. That lace table cloth on her bottom half is pure fug.

  • “How To Ruin a Good Bodice”, by Dolce & Gabbana. Chapter One: THIS SKIRT.

  • ballerinawithagun

    You are so correct on both counts. Her dress would have been great if they had just continued in the direction that the fabric seemed to be going…transitioning into a black border ending at the knee, at that point, possibly a row of black lace trim.

    On the other point…Baz should have watched the movie Thoroughly Modern Millie. Mary Tyler Moore’s long string of pearls hang straight down because she was flat chested. Julie Andrews lamented that her string of beads either went to the middle or to the outside of her breasts until she found the correct for the times, flattening undergarments. If you study fashion history, the Flapper look was a rebellion against the curvy Gibson Girl style that had preceded it. These women wanted to look modern and you can’t do the Charleston correctly with breasts bouncing all over.

    I found Moulin Rouge amusing but overall disliked it. It was like a carnival ride that went on for way too long!

  • Re: The boobs…Myrtle is supposed to be gauche

  • decormaven

    Nothing like wearing Fred Leighton jewelry to a Tiffany & Co.-sponsored event!

  • Damn shame what they did to that dress…

  • huh. i dont love “sheer skirt over mini” either, but i think it works here.
    hair and make-up are nice. i like the whole look.
    only complaint: the transition from top to skirt looks a little half-assed.

  • nycfan

    If she is playing Myrtle, I think that character was not supposed to have a flapper look, she was more voluptuous (and completely out of time/style and out of her class in her affair with Tom). Fisher is too beautiful for the part, but what can you do. What bothers me is casting such a young woman as Daisy, she and Gatsby are supposed to be childhood pals but the cast a woman about 10 years younger and who has a very childish appearance to boot. Oh, well. FUGLY dress.

  • It was stunning until I saw what was below the waist.
    Now, the makeup and the hair is beautiful.

  • Laura

    I think the sheer lace works for her! She looks fantastic.

  • GorgeousThings

    It looks like she pinned lace curtains to a floral tablecloth.

    Definitely the fugliest thing I’ve seen in ages.

  • Not for nothing, but… I imagine there were big boobed ladies in the 20’s, just like there are in every era. Calling actual human bodies fashionable or not is pretty wack.

    • But the dress is pretty awful, yes.

    • SewingSiren

      There were indeed large busted women in the 1920’s , but the Idealized figure at the time was tubular and boyish. Brassieres were only just becoming a popular undergarment at the time and no one would have heard of or worn an underwire push up bra. They did wear a garment called a bust flattener which was like an camisole girdle to flatten your bust.

    • Not for nothing, but you absolutely misread what we wrote. Scroll through the comments and read our other responses.

      Also: different types of bodies do indeed go in and out of fashion and always have. It’s not wack; it’s history.

    • Here’s an article by a clothing historian about the inaccurate female
      silhouettes in the film.

      We bet she didn’t have to go through her comments section assuring people
      over and over again that she wasn’t criticizing their bodies. We bet no one told her she was “wack” for making a point based on her historical knowledge.

  • Imasewsure

    Yes love the top, hate the skirt but I’m not convinced it’s the ugliest ever… think it’s just ONE of the ugliest ever

  • Susan Yoon

    Scrolldown fug. At least her hair and makeup look good?

  • I’m mad at her for picking this, especially because I thought she’d been rocking it out of the park recently. She looks like a deranged Italian grandmother who forgot her slip before going to midday Mass.

  • Your examples include one pornographer’s picture and pictures of three of the most scandalous women of the period. And none of them except for the porn shot actually depict cleavage. And none of them are dressed the way the character is dressed for the movie. And most of them are in a stage costume of some sort. And none of them are in skin-tight dresses.

    • judybrowni

      And even the ’20s cleavage exposed is not pushed up: both West and Baker’s cleavage is hanging low.

    • mountainFashionista

      Wow, I wasn’t trying to fight with anyone — just to point out that there were images of voluptuous women available for mainstream public consumption during this period.

      The flat-chested ideal was dominant (certainly for young, fashionable women), but Bara was the most popular female movie star of the 19teens, when movies were blowing up as pop entertainment. West’s “Sex” ran on Broadway, rather than a burlesque house. Baker, less mainstream (because she was black, nude, and living in France), was celebrated by artists and fashion/media outlets in the US and Europe (including Vogue). Scandal was just as much fun then as it is now, and these women were big stars, unconventional as they were.

      Also, my comment related to moderation was out of genuine curiosity — I wasn’t sure if embedded links were allowed on Disqus.

      • I’m not fighting with you. I’m just making my point, which is that what you’re doing is akin to someone a hundred years from now posting pictures of Nicki Minaj, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga.

        • SewingSiren

          And don’t forget a random model from a ten year old issue of Hustler magazine.

  • TheAmericaness

    Remind me not to sit in front of the two of you at the movie – IF you go and see it that is. I don’t know if I could handle the non-stop puking sounds and snarky commentary no matter how accurate. I personally hope that the movie is an improvement over the book (oh I went there!) because I hated it – and I know the period and have discussed it endlessly in classes and discussion groups. It still makes me want to slit my wrists. 😀

    I don’t get D&G. Nine times out of 10 their look is glue gun fab at best with an occasional wow piece. It’s the same damn look! I hope Mugatu walks out over at their workroom and starts screaming about crazy pills and piano key neck ties because it applies.

    • SewingSiren

      I hated the book too. Deadly boring.

      • TheAmericaness

        Glad I’m not alone. One always feels like such a Philistine when detesting a classic. My parents said it was a sign of maturity, that you didn’t have to take to what society said was great. My professor gave me a C- on my essay and wrote “BS” across the top of it. 😀 It kinda was, but I stand by my dislike of the book.

        • demidaemon

          Compared to some other classics of American Literature–see my commentary of The Grapes of Wrath above (which I still hate) and Walden, which I find dreadfully boring insomnia cure–I actually enjoy Gatsby. But everyone has different likes and dislikes for reading material, no? 😉

          P.S. I was an English major in college.

    • StelledelMare

      As much as I love the time period, I too thought the book was really boring. But I’m going to see the movie anyway because I like Baz Lurhman and I’m interested to see how it goes.

  • tereliz


  • stubbornthoughts

    That skirt is suffocating what would be a really cute dress.

  • I’m probably alone here, but I love the dress, love the skirt, and think its the best she’s looked in AGES!

  • jackie cohen

    I hate everything about this, including the lipstick.

  • Shockingly enough, I don’t hate the sheerness of the skirt. What I DO hate is what it’s doing to her midsection.

  • Jonquil

    She’s playing Myrtle, isn’t she? Myrtle is described in the book as a bit older, rather poor, and curvy. So, I wouldn’t be massively opposed to some boob action if the rest of her wardrobe is a bit shoddy and out of date.
    Buuut how likely is that?

  • Airkisses

    I swore she was Amy Adams at first glance.

  • You’re welcome, doll.

  • NoGovernmentName

    Myrtle was not supposed to be stylish, was she? She was tawdry and obvious, just in your face dripping sexuality. Very much contrary to the waifish flapper paradigm.

  • zingit

    Scrolldown fug

  • demidaemon

    I think what bothers me more here is how much of a Frankendress this is. Does the floral embellishment really go with the sheer, widow weed lace overskirt? Not on your life.

  • Jecca2244

    Her and Mulligan attended very different events.

    Who plays the character of Jordan in this adaptation? She brought about one of favorite literary quotes ever.

    “I noticed that she wore
    her evening dress, all her dresses, like sports clothes–there
    was a jauntiness about her movements as if she had first learned to
    walk upon golf courses on clean, crisp mornings.”

  • My first thought was “She stole one of great-grandma tablecloths, dyed it black and used it as a skirt”. FUGLIEST skirt ever!

  • Ang

    I just watched her on Kelly and Michael this morning. She commented that she gained 15 lbs to be more “buxom” and “voluptous” because that’s how her character was described in the book.

  • While large chests were not in vogue fashion-wise in the 1920s, that does not mean they ever went out of vogue for straight men, and it’s likely the costume designer drew inspiration from the voluptuous Clara Bow in both figure and hair. Dorothy Parker said of Bow, “It? Hell! She had Those.” Most of Bow’s wardrobe eschewed the flapper dropped waist and had regular or empire waists to better show off her curves. Although Bow would not have had access to a push-up bra like Fisher. She wore no bra or a camisole or slip, making her chest hang more naturally and lower than Fisher’s.

    • Please scroll through the conversation and read where I addressed all these points.

      This is not how Clara Bow dressed in the 1920s. No woman dressed the way she’s dressed for this movie.

      • I scrolled down and read. I can see in your follow up comments you’re more focused on the costuming than the body type. I was more focused on the body type, which I thought you were just as focused on as well as the costuming by using the phrase “big boobs” when you meant pushed up and exposed boobs.

        Many women with large breasts or more voluptuous figures in the period wore corsets or chest bandages to streamline themselves. It’s ironic that the anti-corset look actually forced some women to stay in corsets! It’s refreshing that Clara Bow did not wear them, and yes, she did not wear push up bras either. She let her chest hang naturally. Her chest was not presented as Fisher’s is in the film’s promotional media.

        I am in complete agreement with you that Isher’s not dressed like Clara Bow did in the twenties. Bow is obviously an influence, but the costuming is an extremely liberal reinterpretation, really more of a reimagining, while trying to have that Maxim-type of appeal.

        I had a friend who put together vintage fashion shows, and she’d always have to tell new models not to wear the deep V of her flapper gowns in the front. If a flapper gown was deep cut that was to expose a back not cleavage. Legs, arms, and backs were the flesh that flappers delighted in flashing.

        It seems like we are more in agreement than each of us thought we were!

  • Everywhere I go I seem to be in the minority who is absolutely dying to see the movie 🙁 I love the book but I’m not attached to it and I’m excited to see the artistic liberties Baz is going to take with his movie. The casting I thought was spot on, the costumes look amazing, the soundtrack is SO GOOD and from a biased point of view since I love Baz Luhrmann films, it looks like Baz adaption of the Great Gatsby which I’m makes me super excited. Not all movies have to be replicas of the book and I like when he puts his own spin on things. At the very least visually it’s going to make me explode with joy. I’m hoping story-wise, it’ll be good.

    And about Isla Fisher in the movie from my understanding of the book, Myrtle wasn’t even supposed to be as beautiful as Isla is but Tom is with Myrtle because she’s the opposite of what Daisy is like. Considering they cast Isla instead of someone less attractive, I understand why she’s big boobed and lots of cleavage to make her differ completely to Daisy.

    But yea, her sheer lace dress thing is fug.

  • kathrineb

    I like the makeup for her and the bodice could have been saved.

  • Isn’t she pregnant? Might explain why her waist…well, isn’t.