Dear Oscars: Bring Back the 'Best Costume Design' Fashion Show

Remembering the 1996 Academy Awards.

Within the grand art of storytelling, fashion and film are symbiotic creatures. The two mediums are woven together, on screen and off, to enrich one another’s capabilities. Costume design, as we know, is an invaluable tool that furthers character and plot development, while film contributes to the aesthetic culture that fashion stewards.

It is why in 1948 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science introduced the Best Costume Design segment into its annual Academy Awards, and why it remains among the most prestigious statuettes of the evening. Its earliest winners — the legendary Edith Head, of course, but also Orry Kelly, Walter Plunkett, and Irene Sharaff — soon catapulted into household names of the Old Hollywood era.

Today, the Oscars has evolved into such a dog-and-pony show that the red carpet is now a verifiable industry in and of itself. Last year’s ceremony cost a reported $56.9 million; the 50,000-square-foot red carpet alone itself cost $24,700 and took 600 hours to install. An A-list actor’s Oscars look can cost $10 million.

The costume budget for extravagant blockbusters is no where near that of a red carpet, but it’s still immense. For “The Devil Wears Prada,” Patricia Field reportedly racked up more than $1 million in costume expenses (excluding designer loans). The “Crazy Rich Asians” costumes were so expensive, they required security.

I’m not saying the Academy should devote the same resources and airtime to costume design as to the red carpet (which is itself a commendable art form!). What I am saying is that, for as critical costumes are for the vast landscape of cinema, the Best Costume Design segment of the ceremony should be a little…snazzier. After all, costume design (and costume designer Jacqueline Durran) brought us the green “Atonement” dress, which shall live on in this life and the next. And for that, we owe the category something more than the standard montage.

May I suggest: the 1996 Oscars?

It was a moment of Peak Supermodel. The “Big Five” of Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Lindy Evangelista, Christy Turlington, and Claudia Schiffer had recently rebranded to the “Big Six,” with the addition of Kate Moss. The supes of the decade were more glamorous (and sometimes, more handsomely paid) than movie stars. Some had been married to actors or were trying out acting themselves. And in 1996, everyone wanted a piece of the mayhem — even, as it turned out, the Academy.

For that year’s ceremony, photographer and creative director Matthew Rolston staged a fabulous, flashy fashion show that sent the likes of Tyra Banks down an elevated runway wearing the nominated costumes from films like “Sense and Sensibility” and “Braveheart.” There was bass and spotlights and naturally, Pierce Broshnan, who was flanked by none other than Claudia and Naomi. The whole thing was as if Disney Parks had inexplicably invested in a sterilized, family-friendly Berghain experience.

Watching it back now, I’m amazed at the sheer production value; this was when someone like Claudia was making around $10 million a year! It also clocked in at more than five minutes — an eternity for expeditious award shows. But it was also so, so, so, sooooo much fun to see the costumes themselves outside the confines of celluloid film and on models who the world just couldn’t get enough of.

I do, however, find it difficult to believe that the costume designers themselves felt the same way — to see their art plucked from its necessary context and plunged into a bizarre bath of strobe lights. You’ll notice when you watch the segment today that the designers themselves aren’t even named, which disappoints me.

Missteps aside: I wanted to know if the Oscars could (or should) recreate this experience, so I asked my friend Fawnia Soo Hoo, who has been a fashion and entertainment journalist for over a decade and specializes in film and television costume design. (She and our other former colleague Cheryl Wischhover have a wonderful Substack called “Whatever Nevermind,” which analyzes current pop culture, fashion, and beauty through a Gen X lens.) Here’s what she said:

“My take on it is that it was more about the supermodels, as opposed to the costumes. But the costumes were a good way to do it — to capitalize on the supermodel phenomenon of that time. 1996 was the seminal year of the supermodel, and it was also the year after Pierce Brosnan's first “James Bond.” I don’t know what you could do today, with costumes, that would have that type of impact — unless you had the actors from those movies come out wearing the costumes. I also feel like people don't care about fashion shows now as much as they did back then.”

Perhaps next award season I’ll come to the table with 5-10 viable alternatives to the sleepy montage format. But for now, I’m pleading that the Academy breathe some sexy life into the Best Costume Design segment. So if Paul Mescal and Pedro Pescal want to come out in their “Gladiator II” loinclothes, I, for one, would be fine with it.