Far more damming critiques ended up saved for the year’s best supporting actress, Jennifer Connelly, who opted for a dishwater-colored tulle gown and not-pretty-matching scarf (a shade described by Smith as “pale dung-coloured,” and by Scripps Howard information company as “phlegm-colored”). Elsewhere, Cameron Diaz divided views in a floral print gown, ’80s Oscar-nominee Sally Kirkland sported an sick-suggested bejeweled bindi and Faith Hill took a painfully literal method by teasing her functionality of “Someplace About the Rainbow” with a strappy rainbow-colored Versace gown.
Variously described as “pale dung-coloured” and “phlegm-colored,” Jennifer Connelly’s gown was a single of the night’s several flops. Credit rating: Steve Granitz/WireImage/Getty Visuals
The night will, nonetheless, often be remembered for a person of the most maligned outfits in Oscars history: Gwyneth Paltrow’s notorious “goth” dress (pictured best). The formless Alexander McQueen creation highlighted a scrunched-up taffeta skirt and sheer bodice that still left little to the imagination. The actress’ hefty eye makeup and milkmaid braid served secure the outfit’s place on “worst-dressed” lists for decades to appear.
There was, arguably, worse to come. At the Vainness Truthful afterparty, “Satisfy Joe Black” star Claire Forlani wore what can only be described as a sequined breastplate held up by perilously slender string ties Selma Blair arrived in a hardly-there fringe gown that looked extra like a shabby tablecloth and Heather Mills opted for a bizarre midriff-bearing two-piece. Actress and writer Suzanne Somers’ dress may easily have doubled up as low cost curtains, and Television set host Daisy Fuentes showed up in denims and a shirt, as if she had overlooked it was one of Hollywood’s most special parties.
The afterparty observed even extra common Y2K design, like Claire Forlani’s open up-backed crop leading. Credit score: Gregg DeGuire/WireImage/Getty Visuals
Most uninteresting ‘of all time’
This was no excuse for Menkes, however. Contacting attendees’ attempts “the most uninteresting Oscar outfits of all time,” the critic singled out Naomi Watts’ unadventurous corseted costume from a “sea of black,” crafting that “even Gucci, commonly a lifeless cert for pretty garments” had designed the star appear “sedate.”
Naomi Watts was a single of many stars opting for lower-threat black gowns. Credit: KMazur/WireImage/Getty Photographs
“There grew to become a realization that those people attire have been likely to define you. And I feel it experienced additional to do with the increase of style as a pop-lifestyle power — and a true-time force — and knowing that persons were sat at dwelling judging these outfits.
“There was no E! and no pre-demonstrate until then, and I assume that options were being possibly safer due to the fact of not understanding how to navigate that.”
As for the riskier appears to be, Critchell theorized that quite a few celebrities were “actively playing towards form” by providing a thing sudden or distinct from former outings. Nicole Kidman’s frilly pink Chanel gown contrasted with the classy chartreuse Dior gown she famously wore to 1997’s ceremony, while Jennifer Lopez’s traditional gown and bouffant hairstyle was juxtaposed from the raunchier seems to be she’d come to be recognized for.
Sally Kirkland sporting activities a bejewled bindi as portion of her gold-and-silver appear. Credit score: David Lefranc/Gamma-Rapho/Getty Illustrations or photos
Even Paltrow’s outfit can be seen as an try to avoid staying pigeonholed, Critchell explained. “She experienced been the princess a few decades just before (in 1999) in that pink Ralph Lauren costume, and I think she was taking part in from that,” she added.
“Famous people didn’t have a likelihood to clearly show their other sides in the way they do now. You previously know them, you what their style is, you know their view on all the things. But it wasn’t unusual in 2002, or any of all those other (pre-social media) yrs, for anyone to enjoy in opposition to what they did right before, because they failed to want to be stereotyped.”
Rays of hope
One of the night’s couple winners: Halle Berry in Elie Saab. Credit history: Steve Granitz/WireImage/Getty Pictures
There was genuinely only one winner, nevertheless — on equally the purple carpet and the awards stage. On her way to turning into the first Black woman to claim the Academy Award for ideal actress, Halle Berry surprised in gown that reworked the fortunes of its designer, Elie Saab. Like Paltrow’s outfit, it consisted of sheer top rated and taffeta skirt, even though Berry oozed glamour in crimson and champagne, with strategically put floral detailing completing the glance.
“I consider Halle Berry’s outfit has stood the examination of time,” Critchell reported. “It is really not a dress an individual would wear right now, but she was the belle of the ball. She was predicted to win and, as style writers, we ended up all ready for her transform. It fulfilled the second it was memorable, and it was appropriate for a ideal actress.”
Nonetheless, though the outfit is now deemed among the the Oscars’ ideal-ever appears, it wasn’t a hit with absolutely everyone on the night. The Guardian’s Cartner-Morley wrote that Berry’s outfit, total with its “gaudy embroidered net bodice,” had offered “loads to cringe about.”
Related video clip: A short background of the pink carpet
Her contrarian acquire serves as a reminder that excellent purple carpet design is in the eye of the beholder — and therefore the dilemma of no matter whether 2002 was the Oscars’ worst 12 months relies upon, as at any time, on who you request. In fact, presented the existing fascination in all points Y2K — a revival that has heralded the return of small-increase jeans, crop tops and butterfly clips — the electricity of hindsight (and the views of Gen-Z trend-watchers) could be kinder to 2002’s outing than a single may expect.
“I will not think it was the worst-dressed,” Critchell said. “I do not know if there would ever be a moment you could determine as that. But it was a distinctive time.”