
But you should totally watch it! Life is pretty scary right now. We here at Frock Flicks HQ live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and so we were the first to get the “shelter in place” order last week. Now the entire STATE is sheltering in place, and it’s been super stressful and emotionally exhausting. To that end, I’m bumping up a post that I was thinking of saving for Snark Week, because levity is one of the few things keeping me sane right now. Some readers were commenting on Facebook that a bonus Snark Week would be glorious right now, to take our minds off of the coronavirus/COVID-19 crisis. Snark Week is HUGELY exhausting for us (so much content to create!) and there’s no way we could do it right now, but I thought one funny post might help cheer us all up. So here is my gift to you!
Now, I want to be 1000% clear: I LOVED Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi (2019)! It was highly entertaining both on a shlocky entertainment level and ALSO on a real dramatic level, and the Indian costumes were stunningly beautiful. But the costumes of the British characters left a lot to be desired — no doubt due to budgetary limitations — and I couldn’t help but cackle as little bits and pieces of WTF popped up. So I’d like to share them with you!

I went into watching Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi — on my flight over to Italy — thinking I was firing up The Warrior Queen of Jhansi, the 2019 film about Lakshmibai, the historic Queen of Jhansi who personally led her army against the British East India Company in the Indian Rebellion of 1857. That film stars Devika Bhise as Rani Lakshmibai aka Manikarnika, with Jodhi May as Queen Victoria, Derek Jacobi as Lord Palmerston, and Rupert Everett as Sir Hugh Rose (and is currently as of this writing unavailable to stream anywhere, but I’ll be watching and reviewing it as soon as it is). It turns out this is a classic case of dueling studios/production teams making movies on the same topic in the same year. Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi is a Bollywood take on the same story, with Kangana Ranaut as Manikarnika/Lakshmibai and Ankita Lokhande as Jhalkari Bai.
Now, Manikarnika is two and a half hours long, so I don’t say lightly that I was ENTERTAINED. Enough that I had started watching it on my flight over, was interrupted by landing, and then picked it back up on the flight home! The acting is great — Kangana Ranaut gives amazing “We shall endure/We shall triumph” death stares; the few musical numbers are well choreographed and entertaining; and the Indian costumes are really gorgeous, although it’s hard to know just how historically accurate they are.

The costumes were designed by Neeta Lulla, who is the “go to” costume designer for Bollywood, especially historical films including Jodhaa Akbar (2008) and Devdas (2002).
According to the Hindustan Times, Lulla spent over eight months conducting research for Manikarnika:
“It all begins with reading and dissecting the script. I like to know the backstories of every character, where they are coming from, why they behave the way they do. I have multiple discussions with the filmmaker in general about the feel of the film, what the film is trying to convey, what each character stands for. The second stage is of research, reference, deciding on the palette, making sketches and mood boards. Once the look has been developed it’s about getting the samples, doing look tests, making lookbooks and finally the suppliers, tailors and assistants come in for measurements. The last stage is building a comfort level with the star cast” (Manikarnika costume designer Neeta Lulla talks dressing Kangana Ranaut, khadi and more).
First, let’s look at the good: the Indian costumes! And then the funny: the (allegedly) British costumes.
Manikarnika‘s Indian Costumes
Lulla notes that there were few historical sources to work from: “We had some pictorial references of the Rani of Jhansi wearing angarkhas [aka jamas, men’s coats] with a child tied at the back, but apart from that, there was no evidence” (Neeta Lulla on recreating Rani Lakshmibai’s wardrobe for Manikarnika); and that “The problem was most of the material, I found were textual and not pictorial. Reading books and how historians discussed Manikarnika and her attire, I came up with the looks” (Khadi And The Warrior Queen). On the other hand, she told a different publication that “There are plenty of visual references and historical documents that give us an idea of the queen – what she looked like and how she dressed. There are paintings, illustrations, and fabric samples that give you a fair idea of the royal attire of that era” (Neeta Lulla on the theme driving the costumes for ‘Manikarnika’: ‘Strong and elegant’). Lulla made a particular point of using Khadi, a cotton fiber, hand-loomed fabric made in eastern India, noting that “handspun and woven cotton fabric was endorsed by royalty in the 19th century” (Khadi And The Warrior Queen).
Now, I recently got into a bit of a tiff on Facebook with a reader who was irritated that my post on Exodus and Troy didn’t include extensive scholarly research. I had a whole post in mind about how “Frock Flicks is not an academic publication,” but I’ve realized it’s silly to write a whole rant aimed at one person. The thing is, the three of us have our own expertises, and sure, if there’s a film/series set in an era/place that I don’t know well, but another of us does, I’ll leave it to them to review. We also sometimes bring in guest experts. But no academic can possibly know every sub-area of their field, and finding guest experts is a big pain in the butt, so yeah, sometimes we review stuff that’s outside our specific expertise. And honestly, we need content five days a week! So I’m not going to watch a film like Manikarnika (or Exodus or Troy) and NOT review it simply because I don’t know much at all about 19th-century Indian dress (or ancient Egypt or Greece), given that neither does either of our other regular writers. This is a blog, not an academic publication. Personally I’d rather read a review where someone admits their limitations rather than pretend they know more than they do. And nobody is getting paid or getting tenure from this here blog.
So with that in mind, here’s a rough look at mid-19th-century Maratha (Manikarnika/Lakshmibai’s caste) dress, with a massive note that this is totally outside my area:





Now compare those sources to the women’s wear shown in the film:






For the jewelry, Lulla said, “Decoding the bridal jewellery that took two days to put into structure of design and visit frequently to interact with the team of designers, we did a lot of research together, we went back to their archives and had deep discussions about the look and setting especially for the wedding sequence for Kangana” (Neeta Lulla gives a sneak peek into the making of Manikarnika costumes and jewellery — check out the link for some nice images of the jewelry designs!). That being said, Lulla is open about having mixed historical and modern references; she says the jewelry was “an amalgamation of Maharashtrian and modern Indian jewelry” (Neeta Lulla on designing Kangana Ranaut’s wardrobe for Manikarnika: Took me over two months of research).



I’m not going to get super into the menswear, except to make one point. The men of this period wore the jama/angarkha coat, which had a cross-over torso and full skirts, as well as turbans:




At least in the images I can find, the real Manikarnika/Laksmibai isn’t pictured in men’s dress, but in what appears to me to be an adaptation of women’s dress:


In the film, however, she’s shown wearing the angarkha/jama when she’s practicing swordfighting or actually fighting:
And, for the final big battle scene against the British, she gets an angarkha with extra badass/sexy leather armor, including ridiculous unnecessary straps that would do little to protect her, but she’s gotta look good, right?

Manikarnika‘s British Costumes
And now we come to fun, as I look at the costumes worn by the British in the film, which were overwhelmingly TERRIBLE. Again, I want to say clearly that I REALLY ENJOYED this movie and thought the Indian costumes were well done. What I am about to do is unfair, because most of these are extras who are barely on screen for a hot second and totally in the background, except for the British soldiers, and I’m guessing they must have had ZERO budget for any of these. But it was so hilarious as the movie unfolded and I realized just how bad the British costumes were, and I just need to share it with you. So I’m offering no sources, just comedy.




















I hope these images gave you a chuckle!
How can my poor brain rationalize the contradiction that is Manikarnika‘s costumes? Discuss!
You see the reason that us Indians don’t have many textual or pictorial sources is because the British either stole them or they have been destroyed.So it’s only recently that Indians have started taking an active interest in historical fashion. You should try out Mughal-e-Azam. It’s a Bollywood classic and the costumes are absolutely gorgeous. That entire movie is just a visual feast and provides some really interesting interpretations of Mughal era fashions.I really enjoyed the review and would love to see more non-western content.
I watched Mughal e Azam,but noped out with the theatrical acting,actually inaccurate story and inaccurate sets.But seriously,how gorgeous Madhubala looked as Anarkali.
My Nani made me watch that film as a child so I really like it. I doubt it will hold to my memory though.Btw what are your thoughts on Lagaan? I think the costuming is certainly more accurate and it also captures the social trends of the era better.
Lagaan was certainly very good,and I loved what it showed of the relations between Indians and British.I loved it did not overdo the oppressed natives and wicked colonizers trope.The involvement of the White lady was beautifully handled.Ashutosh Gowarikar was at the top of his game in 2000s,don’t know what went wrong in 2010s.Btw I don’t think the costumes in Lagaan fared any better.The story was the star there.
Um,you watched MEA,so I guess you watched Pakeekah too?That movie suffers a bit in the second half,but watching Meena Kumari croon her swan song in what is perhaps the most beautifully picturized ode to the bygone era carries the same enthusiasm as watching the titanic wreck,and the positives balance the unevenness for me.Those songs,costumes,cinematography,set design,poetic elegance,and Meena,uff,why did she have to leave so soon.Chalte Chalte leaves me breathless every time.I thought the train was the hero there,not Raaj Kumar.
Rachel Shelley was decent in Lagaan–but oh, those dresses she wears in O Re Chori! :D
I have a stupid quip but, Lakshmibai’s eyelashes…. I just wanted them to be either on or off. They distracted me lol
Oh goodness!I really didn’t expect FF to review this.I saw the movie on tv and well,I was underwhelmed.Ranaut is one of the,if not THE best marketable actresses in Bollywood.Her acting is really admirable,sometimes creepily glorious,but her diction is so horrible that I like,no,love-love-LOVE to watch her on mute.
By the way,the costumes are certainly too blinged up than they would have been.The somber looks of the latter half actually suit the historically aesthetic more and even the hairstyles are more accurate there.But the sort of embroidery on Manikarnika’s sarees is something seen on Rajasthani lehengas.Marathi sarees actually were more about flat fabrics with broad tinsel woven plain borders.We can excuse that royals might have worn imported luxuries,but I doubt that would have been the case with the identity conscious Marathas.One nice detail was King Gangadhar Rao wearing angrakhas tailored in European style to show his subservience.Jamas are actually Mughal garments.They look similar to angrakhas but differ in way of fastening.The hair in the first half was wrong,wrong,wrong.It should have been up,braided in the back and held together by a golden comb.That image of dancing maratha girls is exactly that-tawaif or baiji,not royals hence nothing to do with the movie.And that jewellery is accurate but too modern in its details,sleeknes and all.I have seen museum pieces and they might have been worn out,but nothing can convince me that a disc used to be a filigree.
The movie is set in a very interesting era but failed to explore the conditions of the time.The grievances of Indians were portrayed as what have been shown on countless media portrayals(I would not have been bothered if they decided to borrow footage from another production)and caricaturized Britishers.The songs were actually not required here.But I lost my patience with “dankila”.
The movie that comes closest to capturing that era is Satyajit Ray’s “Shatranj ke Khilari”.Impeccable costumes,gorgeous production values,gripping story(it is actually a comedy!sort of)and insight into what eventually led to the 1857 War of Independence.It actually tackles so many sections of the society and does not caricaturise British at all.They are more like corrupt aristocrats that came to India,took to its lifestyle and seized it to our misfortune and their fortune.It captures the pageantry of the bygone age of awadh that modern Bollywood cannot imagine to conceptualise through its cheap,ostentatiously mounted but meaningless musical(that stays on ears and never seeps to the soul)numbers.Even Muzaffar Ali’s Umrao Jaan(1981) did quite good with this era.I liked how it focussed less on Ameeran’s romantic failures and more of her poetic endeavours and financial troubles following the decline of royal patronage.Now,this movie had some real music.But the camera quality in outdoor scenes is sooooooooo crappy,it distracts from Rekha’s mesmerising performance.
Thanks for your insight.
Thanks for the much-needed giggle, Kendra! I literally did a facepalm when I saw some of those British costumes.
I guffawed at the Mad Hatter. Nothing can top that. Well, maybe Honey Boo Boo.
Enjoyed reading this and will look forward to finding it on a streaming service.
I know little about East Indian jewelry, which makes me want to take a closer look at the pieces in the movie. Are the gems mostly cabochons, are they non calibrated sizes what does the back of the jewelry look like, etc.
I’ve read some books on Indian jewelry and seen some in museums. Diamonds were faceted but the other gems like sapphires, rubies & emeralds were cabochons. The backs would be enameled with designs or engraved. The backs had to be as impressive as the fronts; you could wear them either way (this applies to necklaces & pendants).
I don’t know anything about the accuracy of the saris but I absolutely love the green one.
I’d love to see a Devdas review. Those costumes were gorgeous!
It seems to me, that the movie just is not thought for the European market. Many pictures show that this was not a low budget production. But I have the Impression, that they just didn’t care about how stupid the British would look.
I saw some similar stuff before. If the movies are co-produced (UK + India for example) then they are looking OK. I think that they just had their own taste.
I actually love the symmetrical balance of a movie where the British people’s costumes are sort of “Meh, who cares what they wear they’re just colonialists” it makes up in some degree for all the movies where an indigenous people’s clothing is treated with the same WTFery!
I think this is tit for tat for years Indian culture depicted as so called “Exotic” and Weird in western movies without any logical context or research like in the Indiana Jones and James Bond movies and now we have repaid the Goras (whites) with their same currency.