17 thoughts on “Tutankhamun (2016) Turns Archaeology Into a Love Story

  1. Ooh, between my undying love of Sam Neill and this being one of my favorite clothing eras (I suppose technically more than one era but I’m pretty happy anything not huge sleeves from late 1890s up to the part of the 20s that is shapeless because that’s just not super flattering on most grown and/or not super thin women), I may have to give this a watch. (And possibly do penance for that parenthetical lol.)

    Is suspenders + belt the back lacing on a front opening dress equivalent for men?

  2. I’m going to have to watch it again as all I can remember is that I enjoyed it and felt the nonexistent romance with Lady Evelyn was a bit contrived.

  3. I might have to check this out. I’m an admirer of Catherine Steadman, she’s done some great, and not so great (The Tudors), period works.

  4. The costumer had some real hits here, didn’t she? But when she missed, she missed stupidly imo. That rather Arts and Crafts beaded shirtwaist was very cool (that’s my period!) and spot on! Ok the hair: what was with that 1860 center part with ringlets (your Why?). Why do these stylists keep getting the hair so very wrong just all the time.?? Both ruin a film for me…

  5. All I can think with that sailor suit neckline and the sleeveless blue is “even with a hat she’s going to be roasted tomato-red.” I wore a hat in Greece but up on the Acropolis, which is bare rock like this, in bright sunlight, with a scoop-neck t-shirt I wound up toasted from the reflected light. Egypt would be exponentially worse.

    1. Yes, bare arms are a serious mistake. There’s a reason why the natives wear loose all covering robes.

    2. I was in Tunisia, and in the desert you cover up, no jokes. The people who didn´t wear long sleeves and pants got burned seriously in less than 30 min (and most of us were from Mediterranean countries, I mean, we got tanned in the sun, but still). We ended covering our faces too, because the sand was like a mirror with the sunlight.

  6. PS: Haven’t seen the film yet, but with the enormity of the Tut find and worldwide attention that was still thrilling people 30 years later when I was born and led me to nearly become an archaeologist, you’d think that the drama of the search and discovery itself as well as the personalities of Carter and Carnarvon would have been enough for a gripping film without the silly romances. Apologies for the run on sentence. I became an English major instead.

  7. Over all, I was pretty OK with it, but I could have used less romance and more about the adminitrivia struggle with the Egyptian government. What nobody explains is how the mummy eventually ended up in the British Museum.

    1. Tutankhamun’s mummy? It was left in his tomb for decades, inside the original outermost coffin. He was even x-rayed in there.
      Screenwriters and movie producers can’t comprehend the idea that a man and a woman can socialize or work together without a romance blossoming, especially if they are both young and reasonably attractive. And if Lord C. had not had a daughter, they would have invented one. I agree that this is a silly and unnecessary plot device.
      Finally, about those bare arms. Yes, it’s dumb (and culturally insensitive) to dress like that in Egypt. But people do–I’ve seen plenty of doltish, sunburned tourists in Egypt. I’ve even seen them staring at properly dressed members of a field project (long pants, long-sleeved shirts, hats). I heard one young archaeologist mutter out of the side of her mouth at a particularly egregious example, “For God’s sake put some clothes on!” On the other hand, would Lady Evelyn have worn a dress like that in 1922-23? That question popped into my mind as soon as I saw the photo.

  8. I could do without the imaginary love interests. What about all the conflict with the Egyptian authorities? That was pretty dramatic!

  9. Is the belt with the suspenders perhaps a gun belt? His pants clearly belt loops, with no belt!

  10. Those late teens dresses in the wrong era can be the right garments in my closet right now . . . many things to want, but, yeah, spaniel ringlets are NOT NOT NOT a 20s thing.

    1. I found this on Prime last week…enjoyed it. Though thus movie was not as bad as most, I am so tired of loose hair on women…just feel like bitching about this lol. Starting to like Max Irons more…though his dad still rules for me.

  11. Suspenders to hold the pants up; belt to hold tools and gun (ht/ archeoptics). Putting tools in pockets leave BIG holes.

  12. 1900-1920 is my favorite period for women’s dresses. The rolled-up sleeves and braces (not suspenders, or Brits will give you funny looks, as suspenders are frequently garters, but not always*) are also such an attractive look on men.

    *No, I don’t understand these distinctions, but I know they exist, having embarrassed myself sometimes when I said “suspenders” and “pants” in the wrong context: http://hespokestyle.com/mens-style-advice/braces-suspenders-difference/

Comments are closed.