I’m probably not the right audience for The Leopard (2025), aka Il Gattopardo, the miniseries based on the beloved Italian novel. I was rather bored by the 1963 film adaption, in spite of the stunning costumes, and while costume designer Carlo Poggioli was mentored by the legendary Piero Tosi and seems to have had Netflix money for this production, this TV version doesn’t look as fabulous.
And as a story, I honestly don’t know what to think about The Leopard, especially in this day and age. The main characters are one-percenters trying to stick to their ridiculously privileged lifestyle in the face of a populist uprising that promises liberty and equality for all. The Prince, “the leopard,” is an icon of The Old Ways, immovable, unyielding, unbending to anything new. His nephew, Tancredi, is a trust-fund rebel, surfing on the Prince’s bankroll while playing at soldier. The actual historical figure of Girbaldi, revolutionary unifier of Italy, is in the background, his ideals are fuzzy and nebulous. None of the series’ characters are interesting enough or compelling enough to give a shit about.
Then there’s the romance. Concetta loves her cousin Tancredi for no apparent reason, except that he’s the only non-brother male she’s known, I guess? Although they’re first-cousins so, uh, weird. Concetta’s a fairly boring, simple convent-raised girl, so when Angelica comes along, there’s no competition. And WTF with Angelica? Why did the mayor of some dinky town set up his daughter to be a wiley seductress? Like he’s been planning this scheme for 20 years, why?
Anyway, I got three eps in and just didn’t give a fuck about any of these people, so I fast-forwarded for the costumes! My Italian friends can call me a heathen (seriously, there’s been two Il Gattopardo carnevale balls that I’ve declined already, lol). But this story doesn’t do it for me, and Netflix stretching it out for 6 hours doesn’t help.
The costumes are nice enough for the 1860s, which is a period that kinda bores me (it’s close enough to the Death of Fashion). Also the hair is sloppy, really needs more hairpins. The locations are beautiful, but that’s not enough to recommend it. Costume designer Carlo Poggioli talked about the pressure of living up to the previous film in an interview with Variety:
“I was pretty scared. I knew there was hardly anything left of the costumes Visconti used more than 60 years ago, aside from the iconic ones. And you can’t just make everything from scratch. Plus, this time around, it was something like five times as many scenes!”
His team created over 6,000 costumes, including 350 evening gowns and 500 military outfits, employing 25 seamstresses in Rome, as well as sourcing items from costume houses like Tirelli and others in London and Madrid.
The two main female characters are contrasted — Concetta is the sweet, simple rich girl, whose style is rather prim. In Variety, Carlo Poggioli said she wears “much more subdued colors … more congenial to a woman whom we first see in a convent.”
I couldn’t get a clear full-length screencap, but here’s the designer’s lovely sketch of this gown:
Angelica makes an entrance wearing RED, so you know she’s trouble.
Then she gets flirty with Tancredi wearing this pink dress…
That’s a total callback to the ’60s movie! Compare:
Boom, she and Tancredi get married!
I can’t tell if the wedding ceremony gown has a bodice swapped out for the wedding luncheon gown; there’s no obvious gaposis, and the bodice and skirt look sewn together. Maybe they were sewn and unsewn or it’s two whole separate gowns?
I kind of think that’s this series’ version of Angelica’s white ballgown in the ’60s movie (because she’ll get a different gown for that final ball).
For the iconic final ball, Carlo Poggioli didn’t recreate the stunning white gown from the movie — he made Angelica’s gown in “a shade of fuchsia, almost red, that completely distinguishes her from all the other characters, especially the other women,” he told Variety.
Have you seen The Leopard, either the new TV miniseries or the 1963 movie?
Find this frock flick at:
Thanks for the snark. I am with you 100% on the 1963 movie. I kept thinking, “Why is this considered such a great classic of Italian literature? Boring.”
But the film can never convey what the book does.
Agreed. But I don’t agree with that “The Prince, ‘the leopard,’ is…immovable, unyielding, unbending to anything new.” The theme of both the novel and the 1963 movie is the Prince’s awareness that his time–and that of his ancient class–is done; he yields to the change that Tancredi and Angelica’s marriage symbolizes. One of my favorite movies, although I had to age to really appreciate it.
I loved this series and so did my spouse. The reviewer was so out of it! Wow!
Wow – you really didn’t like this did you! I loved the original film and intend to watch the series which I don’t think will live up to the original, not having such great actors. I shall watch it for the costumes though, and the settings. A small point – I assume Concetta loves Tancredi because he’s so handsome (as played by the beautiful Alain Delon in the original) and cousin marriage was common in those days.
Close cousin marriage has been forbidden since the early European Middle Ages, it would have been scandalous in the 19th Century.
Cousin marriages were rather common in the 19th century, on both sides of the Atlantic, especially in the upper and upper middle classes. On the Eastern side of the Atlantic, it was the most common in England but you saw it practiced in most countries (except the few that banned first cousin marriages – Austria, Hungary, and Spain; there it was rare and required a dispensation, which did occasionally happen but not enough to consider it an unexceptional practice). It was pretty common from the 13th century through the start of the 19th century, when it started becoming a bit less common, but was still practiced. Lots of major figures married close kin; it was particularly common with royalty. Have a look at how many late 19th and 20th century royals have Queen Victoria as an ancestor multiple times (and she herself married her first cousin). When you’re dealing with the Catholic Church, dispensations were needed to marry closer than 4th cousins (with the exception of a couple medieval centuries when it went to 7th cousins, but reverted to 4th because the greater kinship distance was not feasible), but they were pretty readily given out to the upper and upper middle classes.
The movie from 1963 is legendary. Great actors, great pictures and excellent costumes. I loved how the fighting in the streets was filmed and I loved how the cast was chosen – even with Guiliano Gemma in a small role. I never thought that anybody would need a remake or that anybody would try – too large footsteps. How can you try to be compared with Burt Lancaster in his excellent performance? The movie is long and if it is sometimes slowly than that is in my point of view by the inclination of Visconti. I would love to see the movie in a cinema.
We don’t have Netflix and I don’t need a series. But maybe I will see it.
I was wondering why Angelica looked so familiar, despite me not watching a lot of Italian films or TV shows. Turns out the actress – Deva Cassel – is the daughter of actors Monia Bellucci and Vincent Cassel (who I did not know had been in a relationship) and she certainly got all of her mom’s looks.
A-HA! I had no idea who her parents are. When I saw the photo of her in her wedding gown, I thought, “She looks like a younger Monica Bellucci.” :)
It’s probably too early in her career to tell whether she’s a natural actress or a beauty being given on-the-job training, but she most definately nails the “Really, peasant?” hauteur one associates with the daughter of a Nineteenth century burgess who married into the aristocracy and therefore has to be more elitist than thou to avoid being laughed to scorn.
Perhaps especially because she’s so beautiful they cast her with a daughter of THE Monica Bellucci and CLAUDIA Freakin’ CARDINALE.
I could not deal with the dinner scene where Angelica is introduced. She asks Tancredi the nephew how he lost his eye, and he flirtingly explains how he lost his eye all while you can see his intact eye moving behind the strip of fabric he’s covered it with. Later we see that he did not lose his eye, just has a scar underneath it.
And she LICKS his eye. SO WEIRD.
Kinky!
Nah. Hot af. Love an unhinged countess
Re Angelica’s father: as I recall from the book and the Visconti film, he has social aspirations, so when his little daughter shows promise of beauty he sends her to a posh convent so she’ll grow up with all the social graces to make an advantageous marriage, and spends serious money on stunning outfit to show off her looks. He doesn’t actually train her up as a seductress, that’s her own personality.
Couldn’t get into it, despite the beautiful visuals.
I liked this series very much. After many years, I finally watched a costume production in which the characters behave largely in accordance with the times and norms of the environment in which they live. I appreciated the fact that the creators of the series did not suck up to the modern audience by making the characters behave politically correct. The costumes, scenery, landscapes and palaces of Sicily and Piedmont were a feast for the eyes. And there was no actress or actor who played badly. The only thing I could complain about was some of the hairstyles, or lack thereof, of Conchetta and Angelica.
I have become more appreciative of the 1963 movie after my first viewing. I had stupidly expected more action. Because of this, I understand what this new adaptation is coming from. It’s more extensive than the movie, being a miniseries. But I believe Visconti’s film has more panache to it. But that Fushia gown? Yikes!
Superficial ake – the actor playing the Prince was super attractive. That’s all.
Il Gattopardo is THE novel about the Risorgimento– Italian unification. Sort of an Italian Les Miserables. Don’t remember much about the novel or 1960s version plotwise, just that the costumes (and actors) were gorgeous. I’m so excited to see this version because I loved “Concetta” in the teen drama Baby a few years back. Also, I’m getting my Italian citizenship tomorrow (!!!) so all this history has new meaning for me.
I wanted to add, what Gattopardo really has going for it, costume-wise, is you get the gorgeous (for me) Gone With the Wind era fashion without the disgusting slavery aspects.
Why do people keep associating mid 19th century fashion for women solely with American slavery or “Gone with the Wind”? That has never made sense to me.
Congrats on your new passport!
It bears pointing out that, for the mayor of a ‘dinky little town’ with a fabulously lovely daughter, ‘marrying up’ (That is, persuading somebody from a much richer and more prestigious family to marry your beautiful, beautiful child – hopefully bestowing their patronage upon the rest of their in laws as well) was one of the few ways to advance their family without being stamped down by the Establishment.
Remember that in those days marriage was often a business arrangement and marriage into the family of a Prince meant Big Business.
*Garibaldi.
Otherwise can’t agree enough!
First it needs to note both movies take liberties from the novel, it’s not all fault of 2025 version; Visconti’s one it’s still unsurpassed, but for the 2025 one some good choices were done. First of all the extended role played by Concetta, even if she’s prettier in this film than she’s supposed to be in the novel. Another choice I checked as good one is about the nature of Angelica, more treacherous than it was in the 1963 version, also contributed to this outcome the rigidity and poor empathy of Deva Cassel.
I watched this series, having regretfully never seen the earlier one, with Burt Lancaster in 1963.
I thought this Netflix version in 2025 was fabulous! The gorgeous furnishings of the homes, the magnificence of the settings in the Italian countryside, Sicily then, and on further inland, the perfection and splendor of the costumes were all more excellent than I can say. Every little detail was perfect, the fabrics like from a dream!
No anachronisms were visible to me. It was beautifully executed in every respect. I loved it! What more could you want in a film? How much closer could you get to “being there”? Never, unless of course, you were.
I have read the novel many times and saw the Visconti film a few years back. The Visconti film is much more faithful to the plot and mood of the novel than the Netflix version. (The novel is really an examination of decay and death – the author, Lampedusa, died of cancer before the book was published.) The Netflix series should actually have been titled “Concetta,” since she seems to be the main character. Yes, she was dull and pouty. Her dad doesn’t seem all that intelligent or deep (in the book, to the contrary, he is quite intelligent – he is an avid amateur astronomer and wins an an award for calculating the orbit of a star) and because he loses his depth and melancholy he becomes a cliche, like Trystan says. The firing squad scene was gratuitous violence, Tancredi has none of the charm and wit he exhibits in the novel or movie, Angelica is made to be slutty… Well, folks, read the wonderful book instead (it’s short, almost a novella) and then watch the Visconti version, but just fast forward through the boring bits.