Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/manolo/public_html/wordpress/wp-content/themes/StandardTheme_20/admin/functions.php on line 229
The Three Million Dollar Shoes | Manolo's Shoe Blog

The Three Million Dollar Shoes

The Foot of the Bird in the Shoe of the Weitzman

Manolo says, finally the Manolo has the picture of the super fantastic, super exotic shoes made by the Stuart Weitzman and worn by the Kathleen “Bird” York at the Awards of the Academy.

The Manolo he was expecting something spangly and bling-blingy, but in the stead, these they are wonderfully understated and rich, in the best sense of the word, and mosts luxurious indeed.

36 Responses to “The Three Million Dollar Shoes”

  1. JuliaM March 6, 2006 at 1:00 am #

    The Manolo already had a picture of the shoes up! They are a few shoes over in the M&M-shoe photo. The Manolo is almost shoe-psychic. And he is good at the liveblogging!

  2. jenny March 6, 2006 at 1:05 am #

    Weren’t these gorgeous? And how beautiful were that dress & shoes with her coloring?! Some folks may vote “too much of the same color,” but I thought that it was breathtaking.

  3. Christie March 6, 2006 at 1:52 am #

    Love the shoes…couldn’t she have painted her toenails?

  4. Viatrix March 6, 2006 at 1:53 am #

    Well said, Manolo! Those are indeed superfantastic, even more for their expression of lively, womanly elegance as for their luxury. I’ve never been much for award shows, but I just read your live-blogging transcript and enjoyed the variety of the commentary, all of which I appreciated because it *didn’t* take the event too seriously. (Since Hollywood takes itself quite seriously enough for the rest of us not to need to bother.)

    Your “Jake Gyllenhaal…Keanu Reeves without the acting talent” is absolutely the funniest thing I’ve heard all day!

  5. renee March 6, 2006 at 2:18 am #

    wat? a whole blog on shoes? NICE keep it up

  6. Babs March 6, 2006 at 7:08 am #

    They are lovely, yes, but 3 MILLION? I don’t see it. Several thousand, definitely.

    Also, would have been really nice to see THESE on stage instead of all that stupid fog. :P

  7. furlagirl March 6, 2006 at 8:07 am #

    The problem with that picture is that it illustrates what I’d always suspected – that the feets of the women over the age of 20 are not something that should be widely exposed.

  8. furlagirl March 6, 2006 at 8:07 am #

    PS even with the missing pedicure

  9. shiloh March 6, 2006 at 8:53 am #

    the shoes are lovely but the feets not so.

  10. Erratic Prophet March 6, 2006 at 10:59 am #

    Love the shoes. Don’t love the feet.

  11. JayKay March 6, 2006 at 11:06 am #

    For a cool $3 million, ya think these shoes could have perked up her performace a little bit?

  12. Erica B. March 6, 2006 at 11:28 am #

    Someone in the village it took to get her ready should have gotten her a pedi and body makeup to cover all of those spider veins!

  13. oh navel March 6, 2006 at 11:48 am #

    Yes Erica B.! Those are some nasty looking feets. It is much better to dwell on the lovely shoe.

  14. The Charlotte Allen March 6, 2006 at 12:10 pm #

    It may be that red isn’t her color–that and the dirty toenails may explain why her foot looks like a strange pink growth recently removed by surgery from some other part of her body. Too bad–the shoes are divine.

  15. Wayne March 6, 2006 at 12:46 pm #

    Simply drop dead gorgeous…Painting the toenails would have have overkill; the shoes are supposed to be the star!!!

  16. The Scarlett March 6, 2006 at 1:48 pm #

    The shoes are gorgeous but her feet are sadly not worthy. Yes, one can get an understated pedicure and still allow the shoes to be featured. But the veins in her feet are horrible. Surely she could have found a product to cover up her far-too-evident circulatory system. I don’t have Veinous Envy!

  17. Wayne March 6, 2006 at 2:53 pm #

    Who is this Kathleen “Bird” York and what is her age? If Ms. York is over 40, she should be excused for her veins (after all, that IS natural, and I’ve quite had it with women who run to the plastic surgery for every little perceived minor flaw)…

  18. Ellen March 6, 2006 at 3:43 pm #

    I agree with those who love the shoes but bash the feet. Those feet are nasty, veiny and even a clear or very light polish would have improved the situation somewhat. Not to mention squooshed toes and bunions. Yuk.

  19. Amy March 6, 2006 at 4:15 pm #

    Beautiful, yes; however, Babs asks the appropriate question- three million dollars? Please explain.

  20. La BellaDonna March 6, 2006 at 5:08 pm #

    La BellaDonna, she observes that the three million dollars, they may buy the three million dollar shoes, but they do not buy the three million dollar feet.

  21. don't-a-tella V. March 6, 2006 at 6:33 pm #

    I was taught that a well shod foot begins with a well-stockinged foot. Who puts their bare foot in a $3M shoe?? Nastiness. This is a beautiful formal shoe, not a flip flop…Ew.

  22. daisy March 6, 2006 at 7:11 pm #

    I would have to respectfully disagree with Ms. V- To my mind, there is very little that is tackier than stockings with an open-toed shoe. Perhaps it is just the lighting that is making the veins look so unfortunate? (One must be generous, after all.)

  23. DMCollins March 6, 2006 at 8:33 pm #

    Yes, the lack of a pedicure certainly detracts. She also should have worn sheer-toe stockings. Sheesh.

  24. DMCollins March 6, 2006 at 8:35 pm #

    To my mind, there is very little that is tackier than stockings with an open-toed shoe.

    Perhaps “very little” is tackier, but this photo shows one thing that is.

  25. beth March 6, 2006 at 11:16 pm #

    Open toed shoes are a privilege, not a right. Kathleen might consider that next time.

    And I will say I take exception to an earier comment regarding the feet of women over 20. I am more than 2x that and I have lovely, well maintained, and well shod feet.

  26. megaera March 7, 2006 at 2:26 am #

    I believe that the three million part comes from the fact that the pretty jewelry thing in the shoe is actually a pair of earrings from Rita Hayworth’s estate. Those are actual rubies folks. He received permission from Hayworth’s daughter, the princess Yasim Aga Khan. hence, the price tag.

  27. gidget bananas March 7, 2006 at 3:32 am #

    “I was taught that a well shod foot begins with a well-stockinged foot.” The Gidget will be so happy when the hose-less trend, it disappears. Hose, and the closed toed shoes, hide the veiny feets and the bumpy shins. Good grooming is a better message to send than “look I am so rich I always have a car waiting so I can wear sandals in the middle of the winter.”

  28. The Charlotte Allen March 7, 2006 at 1:58 pm #

    Stockings do look a little web-footed with very strappy summery sandals, but they’d look fine with a modest peep-toe like this shoe. And for some reason, satin doesn’t go very well with bare feet, at least during winter. Like Gidget Bananas, I, too, am awfully tired of bare legs with formal evening gowns and hope that this fad will go away, just as I hope low-rider jeans will go away.

  29. jenny March 8, 2006 at 12:03 am #

    As one who loathes her own pale, translucent, blue-veined feet but can’t do much about them (I refuse to put foundation on my feet, for Pete’s sake), I fell I must come to this poor lass’s defense. She’s uber-pale, and translucent skin is a frequent accompanyment. And I’m not seeing dirt—her nails are just not painted. Give the poor girl a break for going with what the good Lord gave her and doing the best she can with it! I’m sure that there are days she wishes her feet looked like Eva Longoria’s, too…

  30. Anonymous March 8, 2006 at 12:51 am #

    I would have suggested “photoshopping” that foot to match the shoe to the owner of that shot – reality enhanced just a tad – what a prettier picture to see.

  31. The Charlotte Allen March 8, 2006 at 1:28 pm #

    Jenny, I’ve looked again at the photo, and you’re right: her toenails are probably not so much dirty as simply unvarnished–and thus a bit grotty-looking in the dressy and sophisticated satin of the shoe.

    The biggest problem is that the particular shade of red she’s wearing doesn’t flatter her skin, which looks doubly pale and pinkish for that reason. In that event, she probably could have used some extremely sheer stockings in a very pale shade that matched her skin. The shoes aren’t so bare that stockings would have looked out of place. I suspect, however, that there’s a kind of Hollywood hubris nowadays that bans the wearing of hose with evening dresses. You’ve got to keep up with Jennifer Anniston’s bare legs or you’re dead meat. It’s too bad.

  32. DMCollins March 8, 2006 at 11:11 pm #

    I still don’t get the anti-stockings bias, these days. I was watching “To Catch a Thief” the other night, and there’s a close-up shot of Grace Kelly’s feet hitting the brakes of her car. She’s wearing pink, open-toed slingbacks with sheer stockings, and her feet look fabulous.

    What’s good for Grace Kelly is good for me.

  33. jenny March 9, 2006 at 11:39 pm #

    I think we’ve all just developed an absolute hose-revultion as a rebound reaction to the atrocious “Suntan/Coffee” reinforced-toe nylon profanity of the 60’s-70-‘s-80’s.

  34. Em March 12, 2006 at 8:36 pm #

    Luxurious, eh? They look painful. I’d sooner go barefoot any day…

  35. blessed toes March 13, 2006 at 7:06 pm #

    This girl is gorgeous and this photo does not do her justice. The shoes look painful The feet look manicured. This is just a bad photo. Rita Hayworth would be proud.