Dolores (born Kathleen Mary Rose) was one of the most prominent Ziegfeld Follies to have ever walked the roof and glass stairs of the New Amsterdam Theatre in New York in the 1920s. Seen in Figure 1, is an image of Dolores photographed by Baron Adolph de Meyer in 1919 – she stands 9-feet-tall in the opulent ‘White Peacock’ costume. Figure 2 is an image captured by James Abbe at around the same time as the de Meyer image, in which a more detailed depiction of Dolores’ costume can be seen – with the peacock tail resting. Both Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the same costume, but in varying detail– Figure 2 shows an intimate moment between the viewer and the performer with Dolores presumably being off-stage, this lets the viewer scrutinise the costume with greater consideration in comparison to Figure 1. Figure 3 shows Dolores dressed as a palm reader or witch in a fashion editorial shot by Baron Adolph de Meyer in 1919 in his signature pictorial style.

All three images share a common theme of mysticism, fantasy, and orientalism – with Dolores being the subject of this fantasy. In this essay I will be analysing all three images thoroughly, as well as looking at them in the context of early 20th century orientalism to aid me in understanding how the ‘White Peacock’ and palm reader costumes were used as a tool to depict a fantasy – one specific to the inter-war period. I will be looking into the meanings behind the costumes, with more focus on the peacock costume – precisely what it meant and what its implications are.

‘Dolores – Personifying the Spirit of Vanity’ is an image photographed by Baron Adolph de Meyer in 1919 of Dolores performing in the ‘Midnight Frolic’ at the New Amsterdam Theatre in New York. The ‘Midnight Frolic’ was a more risqué and provocative show put on by Ziegfeld, with the costumes of the Follies being adjusted to fit this description (Hudovernik, 2006, p.27). Dolores is pictured by de Meyer, wearing an extremely intricately crafted costume of a white peacock – as she walks across the stage.

The identity of the maker of the costume is unclear, and adds the first layer of mystery to the photo, with some sources stating that it was made by Lucile (Mordden, 2008, p.143) and some saying that it was made by Maison Pascaud of Paris (Hudovernik, 2006, p.26) (Reilly, 2014, p.75), however, the evidence points more towards Lucile as she writes in her autobiography that she has ‘dressed many of Florenz Ziegfeld’s productions,’ (Gordon, 1932, p.215). I personally hypothesize that there might have been two versions of the costume made for Dolores – one of a white peacock and one of a blue peacock. Perhaps Lucile made the blue peacock costume, in line with Farnsworth’s (1956, p.100) description of Lucile’s designed garment – ‘the lights caught blue, green and pink paillettes and bulge beads that were embroidered to resemble the peacock’s feathers,’, while Maison Pascaud of Paris made the white peacock costume (Hudovernik, 2006, p.26; Reilly, 2014, p.75). Different sources refer to the costume in different manners, with sources which state that Maison Pascaud made it, referring the costume as ‘the White Peacock’, and sources which state Lucile made the costumer referring to it as ‘the Peacock’.

Another inconsistency surrounding Figure 1 is the photographer of the image. In Hudovernik’s (2006, p.27) book, which is a compilation of nearly all photographs that Alfred Cheney Johnston took of the Ziegfeld Follies, an image which is very similar to Figure 1 is credited as an Alfred Cheney Johnston image. However, the Vanity Fair December 2019 issue (Figure 4) features Figure 1, and it is credited to Baron Adolph de Meyer, with the image being a plate featuring his signature. Also, Reilly (2014, p.75) writes that ‘Dolores was not even the first Peacock, as Anna Held played the role in 1916,’. Figure 5 is an uncredited image of the Midnight Frolic performance, which I suspect to be an image of Anna Held in the original peacock costume, so perhaps the confusion and inconsistencies around the photo and the costume are caused by the fact that there were two Peacocks in the Midnight Frolic, or that the images of De Meyer and Cheney Johnston are almost identical at first glance, causing confusion with some sources citing the de Meyer image as a Cheney Johnston image and vice versa.

Figure 2 is an image of Dolores in the same peacock costume, captured by renowned American photographer James Abbe in tandem with the Baron de Meyer image. The image offers us a closer look at the costume off-stage, in which the details and embellishments of the costume are seen in a better image quality than in Figure 1, making it easier to delve into and analyse the nuances of the costume. The craft and labour put into this garment is visible in the incredibly meticulous details of it – seen in Figures 1 and 2. When the tail is held up by Dolores and the costume stands 9-feet-tall, the embroidery resembling peacock feathers on a sheer fabric can be seen, and are highlighted by the back lighting, which is consistent with De Meyer’s style of photography. The bodice of the dress is also heavily embroidered, shining under the stage lights, as can be seen in Figure 1. The ensemble also features a headpiece fitted tightly to Dolores’ head with feathers at the top of it emulating peacock crests. While other costumes featured in the Midnight Frolic were interesting and conceptual, the ‘White Peacock’ is arguably the most captivating and intricate of them all.

Perhaps the biggest questions concerning this costume involve the meaning behind dressing a (female) performer in the attire of a (male) peacock and the exploration of the historical symbolism associated with peacocks. There is no reached consensus on the topic of when peacocks were first brough into the West, but Jackson (2006, p. 86) argues that they appeared to be living, as long as 3,000 years ago, on the ‘east seaboard of the Mediterranean … entirely due to man’s intervention’ seeing as peacocks do ‘not migrate and [are] reluctant to fly great distances,’. After that, meanings of the peacock in the West varied greatly, depending on the time periods, regions, and contexts. However, overall, the peacock (in the West) usually had negative connotations throughout history, being associated with pride and vainness, while only their feathers were being glorified and used for aesthetic purposes (Jackson, 2006, p.43), which fits the title of Figure 1 – ‘Dolores – Personifying the Spirit of Vanity’, however, the vanity that is being referred to in the title possibly has positive connotations in relation to the beauty and glamour of Ziegfeld Follie shows. That said, dressing Dolores as a peacock might have been Ziegfeld’s way of reclaiming and embracing the concept of vanity and vainness as something that shouldn’t be viewed as negative by society, but instead should be celebrated.

Curiously, in relation to theatre, the peacock is regarded as an omen of misfortune, with most theatres making sure not to have peacock feathers inside the building, because according to superstition, the presence of peacock feathers has been implicated in the failure of theatrical productions (Jackson, 2006, p.58).

This information proves paradoxical as well as interesting, since Dolores’ costume would have normally been stored at the New Amsterdam Theatre though the duration of the ‘Midnight Frolic’ production, which might have potentially caused concern with superstitious performers. However, all evidence proves that the ‘Midnight Frolic’ was highly successful, running for a total of seven years; with entry and ticket prices being very expensive at the time, many celebrities and socialites being spotted in the audience, as well as the show being critically acclaimed with numerous New York Times reviews highly praising the show (Bhat, 2013).

Pertaining to orientalist themes mentioned in the title of the essay, Dolores is arguably a personification of the pre- and inter-war oriental (fashion) fantasy which is credited to have been formed by numerous fashion designers of the time, namely Paul Poiret, Madeleine Vionnet, Lucile, Mariano Fortuny and more. Kathleen Mary Rose was trained, taught, and anointed Dolores by Lucile, due to her appearance reminding her of a ‘blonde Spanish girl,’ (Farnsworth, 1956, p.99). Pre-inter-war orientalism in fashion mainly consisted of ‘highly mediated styles … such as the bodice-vest, or accessories, designs and fabrics like feathers, florals and silk that by the dint of time and use had all but lost their oriental associations,’ (Geczy, 2013, p.136), meaning Dolores’ name as well as peacock (and palm reader (Figure 3)) costume was not seen as something oriental or cutting-edge at the time, but something that was more or less normalised and widespread in regard to pre- and inter-war fashion, and was deeply ingrained into the aesthetics of Western fashion and society. Costumes with orientalist themes were highly popular in theatre and film in the inter-war years and were more directed towards elements and notions of eroticism and provocation (Geczy, 2013, p.151), as is the case with the ‘Midnight Frolic’ production. With Florenz Ziegfeld packaging ‘the showgirl as a commodity to be consumed through her presentation of dress’ (Reilly, 2014, p.72) he was, arguably, selling the crowd a (at the time, normalised and accepted) version of an oriental fantasy that was so very common among other theatrical productions as well as films. The natively South Asian peacock combined with the ‘exotic’ name Dolores and the amatory context of the ‘Midnight Frolic’ are all oriental elements which were appropriated, overly-eroticised and commodified by Ziegfeld for personal gain – however the question of whether this was intentional or not remains.

Another photo in which Dolores is dressed in an ‘exotic’ costume is ‘Pearls and Tulle Spin Bridal Witcheries’ (Figure 3) by Baron Adolph de Meyer featured in the April 15th, 1919, issue of Vogue (in Figure 6) – in which Dolores is dressed as a palm reader or witch. Her torso and head are draped in carefully positioned lace (provided by Mrs. Raymond Bell – who I can’t find any information about), she is wearing the Cartier ‘Valkyrie’ tiara (Samuel, 2021) which is referred to in the Vogue article as the ‘Mercury’ headdress (Vogue, 1919, p.44) – this is because the wings on the contemporary Valkyrie tiara are at least 50 older than the bandeau to which they were attached to in 1935 – when Lady Mary, daughter of very wealthy aristocrats, commissioned the tiara to be made by Cartier (Samuel, 2021). The Vogue article also says that the ‘jewels [are loaned] from Cartier’ (Vogue, 1919, p.44), upon seeing this, it is plausible to argue that the wings on the headdress that Dolores is wearing are the same wings that were used in the Valkyrie tiara. Both Valkyrie and Mercury are figures in mythology, and palm reading or performing magic is an esoteric activity – this introduces another element of the ‘fantasy’ being told through fashion seen in images of Dolores. This photo of Dolores introduces ideas of the occult and the spiritual into consideration in the context of the oriental fantasy of the inter-war period.

Several elements come into effect in the Baron de Meyer Vogue photo, they are – mythology, magic, and spirituality. The official name of the image suggests that the subject is performing some kind of magic. Dolores is accordingly depicted holding a crystal ball in her hands and wearing accessories that incorporate design elements inspired by the divine and the mystical. The Cartier headdress, referred to as ‘Mercury’ (Vogue, 1919, p.44) is associated with the ‘Roman god of merchants and travellers [and] with the Greed god Hermes,’ (March, 2014). While de Meyer’s design and styling choices are not articulated in the Vogue spread, they might pertain to fashioning Dolores’ Oriental and exotic persona formed by Lucile, since the latter’s ‘fashions would become part of [the] stars’ performances on and off the stage,’ (Reilly, 2014, p.71).

Continuing the exploration of exoticism, the elements of the De Meyer portrait of Dolores aren’t inherently oriental and can’t be directly traced back to the notion of the inter-war (Eastern) Orient – with the occult and the magical holistically rooting from all parts of the word (S., 2020), Mercury coming from Greek mythology and Valkyrie coming from Norse mythology (March, 2014). However, arguably, inter-war orientalism didn’t only focus on one part of the world, nor did it derive inspiration from only certain references, with Geczy (2014, p.153) explaining that in fashion, ‘orientalism would become transorientalism, a hypothetical pattern book of references and styles to be mixed, matched and reordered at a whim,’. Drawing from this, one can assume that anything that was seen as exotic or extraordinary at the time would have been considered (trans)oriental, even if the styles have had originated in the West – with Dolores personifying an exotic and/or esoteric bride in the photo. This was a mystical fantasy being sold to the readers of Vogue, with Dolores, already commodified by Ziegfeld in the eyes of the people (Reilly, 2014, p.72), through the medium of an artistic photograph which has been ‘orientalised’ in order to sell the wedding dresses and the jewellery that is featured in the Vogue article. Perhaps Dolores was meant to be seen as a Greek Goddess or a mystical palm reader rather than ‘oriental’, but all this leads to her already oriental persona being magnified, and as a result, sold for the public’s enjoyment.

To conclude, through my analysis of Figures 1,2, and 3 I have explored and analysed the meanings behind Dolores’ costumes and how they contributed to the commodification of orientalism – by means of framing something as desirable, oriental, mystical, exotic, and fantastical through the use of fashion. As I have explained, Dolores’ ‘Ziegfeld Follie’ persona throughout her career was always something that was seen as exotic and unusual, and her costumes were made accordingly. The costumes combined with Baron de Meyer’s pictorial style of photography which makes the images (Figures 1,2) seem oneiric, enchanting, and mythical, infuse an extra dimension into the inter-war oriental fantasy. Arguably, the convergence of Dolores’ name, her costumes, the photographs in which she appears, and the creative direction shaping her Follie persona collectively positions her as one of the most authentic embodiments of Orientalism in both the fields of theatre and fashion during the inter-war period. Consequently, this could explain hers and Florenz Ziegfeld’s huge success of the Midnight Frolic show and the Follies as a whole.



Bibliography:
Adolf de Meyer (2016) International Center of Photography. Available at: https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/constituents/adolf-de-meyer?all%2Fall%2Fall%2Fall%2F0 (Accessed: 04 December 2023).
Bhat, N. (2013) The Ziegfeld Midnight Frolic, Museum of the City of New York. Available at: https://www.mcny.org/story/ziegfeld-midnight-frolic (Accessed: 04 December 2023).
Billy Rose Theatre Division (2020) Dolores in Ziegfeld’s Midnight Frolic. (town and country, Dec. 20, 1919), The New York Public Library Digital Collections. Available at: https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/b850e8be-5f1f-ff08-e040-e00a18066902?featured=true (Accessed: 04 December 2023).
Brandau, R. and Jullian, P. (1976) de Meyer. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Earley, M.D. (1975) Starts of the Twenties: Observed by James Abbe. London: Thames and Hudson.
Evans, C. (2013) The Mechanical Smile: Modernism and the First Fashion Shows in France and America, 1900-1929. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Farnsworth, M. (1956) The Ziegfeld Follies. London, UK: Peter Davies.
Geczy, A. (2013) Fashion and Orientalism: Dress, textiles and culture from the 17th to the 21st Century. London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
Gordon, D.L. (1932) Discretions and Indiscretions. New York, NY: Frederick A. Stokes Co.
Hudovernik, R. (2006) Jazz Age Beauties. The Lost Collection of Ziegfeld Photographer Alfred Cheney Johnston. Milford, CT: Universe Publishing House.
Jackson, C.E. (2006) Peacock. London, UK: Reaktion Books Ltd.
lapetitemelancolie (2015) James Abbe - Dolores (Kathleen Rose), 1919, La Petite Mélancolie. Available at: https://lapetitemelancolie.net/tag/famous-peacock-costume-design-by-pascaud-of-paris/ (Accessed: 04 December 2023).
March, J.R. (2014) Dictionary of Classic Mythology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Mordden, E. (2008) Ziegfeld: The Man Who Invented Show Business. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Pepper, T. (1995) Limelight: Photographs by James Abbe. London: National Portrait Gallery.
Reilly, A.K. (2014) ‘From Lucile’s showroom to Ziegfeld’s Stage: Fashion, celebrity culture and theatrical spectacle’, Staged Experiences, pp. 69–78. doi:10.1163/9781848883284_008.
S., E. (2020) The Art of the Occult: A Visual Sourcebook for the Modern Mystic. London: White Lion Publishing.
Said, E.W. (2019) Orientalism. London: Penguin.
Samuel, E. (2021) Tiara of the Month: The valkyrie tiara, on display at the V&A dundee from May, Tatler. Available at: https://www.tatler.com/article/tiara-of-the-month-the-valkyrie-tiara (Accessed: 05 December 2023).
Szarkowski, J., Hartshorn, W. and Ehrenkranz, A. (1994) A Singular Elegance: The Photographs of Baron Adolph de Meyer. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books.
Vanity Fair (1919) ‘Dolores - Personifying the Spirit Of Vanity’, Vanity Fair, December, p. 62.
Vogue (1919) ‘Pearls and Tulle Spin Bridal Witcheries’, Vogue, pp. 44–45.