Does Your Favorite Period Drama Pass the Bill & Ted Test?
April 21, 2020 5:23 PM Subscribe
I spent six years writing a book on Regency fashion, called Dress in the Age of Jane Austen. I have spent a lot of time looking at genuine Regency dress. But I also spent a lot of time in the last year or so doing a lot of tedious production work for the book. I watched a lot of films on the way. I love Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure. I was watching it in the background as I was copy editing my index or some tedious, tedious thing and just enjoying it. Then, we got to the bit where they kidnap Beethoven. My eye is so attuned to Regency dress, and anyone who follows my Twitter will know that I get quite opinionated about Regency costume on-screen. I was looking at the background extras, and I suddenly paused it and went, “Hang on a second.” I rewound it a bit and went through it in slow motion and went, “You know what? This is really, really good.” It’s a 1980s teen comedy. You don’t expect a high standard of costuming. After that, I thought, well, that’s it. That’s my benchmark. If the main characters’ costumes in a Regency production aren’t better done than the background extras’ in a 1980s teen comedy, I think you’ve failed in the costume design.Fashion historian Hilary Davidson explains her unusual standard for judging Regency costumes.
Relieved to see Master and Commander pass, since the books are meticulously accurate and the movie did a pretty good job all things considered.
posted by jquinby at 5:34 PM on April 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by jquinby at 5:34 PM on April 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
My fave is the middle ages, Renaissance and Tudor periods for costumes. For more on period fashion critiques, check out Frockflicks.com. It's much more snarky but very entertaining stuff.
posted by sundrop at 5:35 PM on April 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by sundrop at 5:35 PM on April 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
One thing that strikes me from this and other examinations of dress in period films/TV, which I watch a lot of: I...just do not notice the clothes all that much. Because let me tell you, when someone shows that the main characters in multiple productions I saw multiple times were all wearing the same costume? I never noticed that. (There's a ton of costume recycling that goes on, and lots of people who like to point it out.)
posted by BlahLaLa at 5:44 PM on April 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by BlahLaLa at 5:44 PM on April 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
I've always thought of Bill and Ted as existing in the same cinematic universe as Blazing Saddles, where the rolling brawl in the Western town main street crashes onto the set of a beautifully-produced Busby Berkeley musical, and then into the movie studio cafeteria. Completely stupid, but also extremely careful about details
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 5:52 PM on April 21, 2020 [18 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 5:52 PM on April 21, 2020 [18 favorites]
One thing I've gleaned from historical garment YouTube is that in movies it's often the hairdressing that is the worst offender. Directors love long flowing locks of uncovered hair no matter what decade their movie is supposed to be set in.
posted by muddgirl at 6:15 PM on April 21, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 6:15 PM on April 21, 2020 [14 favorites]
LOL and of course the first thing she talks about in the interview is hair... Teach me to read just the introduction and the Twitter feed and not the interview...
posted by muddgirl at 6:20 PM on April 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 6:20 PM on April 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
Hair and makeup almost always give away the era the movie was made in, even if the costuming is close to impeccable.
You can call it the Dances With Wolves test -- is the hair and makeup less obviously of its time than the hair and makeup in Dances With Wolves is obviously of the 80s?
posted by nonasuch at 6:22 PM on April 21, 2020 [11 favorites]
You can call it the Dances With Wolves test -- is the hair and makeup less obviously of its time than the hair and makeup in Dances With Wolves is obviously of the 80s?
posted by nonasuch at 6:22 PM on April 21, 2020 [11 favorites]
Breathlessly scrolled through her Twitter feed to find out that YES my fave adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (1995 version with Colin Firth aka best version, fight me) is a PASS. "like this one would fail"--we are sympatico, Hilary Davidson.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 6:36 PM on April 21, 2020 [26 favorites]
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 6:36 PM on April 21, 2020 [26 favorites]
'Haunted Summer' (1988) would be an interesting film to put to the Regency costume evaluation test, seeing that Alex Winter (Bill) plays Doctor Polidari. 'Bill & Ted..' (1989) and Ken Russell's 'Gothic' (1986) were all made around the the same era.
(If you feel like watching a thoughtful film about English Romantic poetry, then 'Haunted Summer' is a thing to watch. One scene has Byron & Shelley lazing about in a rowboat trading verses, and the subtle realization from "I am the best poet" to "uh, this guy is really quite good" is a rare moment.)
posted by ovvl at 6:39 PM on April 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
(If you feel like watching a thoughtful film about English Romantic poetry, then 'Haunted Summer' is a thing to watch. One scene has Byron & Shelley lazing about in a rowboat trading verses, and the subtle realization from "I am the best poet" to "uh, this guy is really quite good" is a rare moment.)
posted by ovvl at 6:39 PM on April 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
Lexica, you posted about my brilliant friend (and former colleague), Hillary! thank you! So proud❤️
posted by mollymillions at 7:30 PM on April 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by mollymillions at 7:30 PM on April 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
So, why was the Excellent Adventure so unexpectedly adequate?
posted by clew at 7:31 PM on April 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by clew at 7:31 PM on April 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
I dunno if it was easy for Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure to be accurate, but more that there's not any countervailing influence to push inaccuracy. The filmmaker's not doing Jane Austen and trying to make you find Mr. Darcy dreamy or Miss Bennet spunky; you don't need to identify with these characters from the past. Quite the opposite: the Excellent Adventure convinces us that the period to identify with is the one contemporary to the movie, that the ideal clothes and music and places and people are Wyld Stallyns at San Dimas High School in the 1980s. So characters in the past can safely be weirdos with funny outfits. (Notably, the Princesses back in the Middle Ages aren't very "accurate," because we're not supposed to think Bill and Ted are nuts for being attracted.)
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 8:04 PM on April 21, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 8:04 PM on April 21, 2020 [16 favorites]
In her (ahem) most excellent book Seeing Through Clothes, the art historian Anne Hollander pointed out that the background characters in historical films usually have much more historically accurate costumes, hair and makeup that the leads, because they don't have to be attractive by contemporary standards. Once you have noticed this it's hard to unsee. It's especially obvious in anything set in the Tudor period, where accurate costuming would be impossibly stiff and uncomfortable-looking by today's standards and consequently all the male leads run around with their doublets undone.
posted by Fuchsoid at 8:21 PM on April 21, 2020 [25 favorites]
posted by Fuchsoid at 8:21 PM on April 21, 2020 [25 favorites]
one hot guy goes downgartered and ungyve’d ...
I like the lack-of-counterforce argument but still, clothes that are different from the skin out don’t happen by mistake. my eyelets are hand sewn but my enclosed seams aren’t WE KNOW WHO WE ARE. I’ve been googling a bit looking for a second costume assistant who works on historical films (no?) or the English Country Dance group with movie credits (chaffed). Huh.
posted by clew at 8:32 PM on April 21, 2020 [1 favorite]
I like the lack-of-counterforce argument but still, clothes that are different from the skin out don’t happen by mistake. my eyelets are hand sewn but my enclosed seams aren’t WE KNOW WHO WE ARE. I’ve been googling a bit looking for a second costume assistant who works on historical films (no?) or the English Country Dance group with movie credits (chaffed). Huh.
posted by clew at 8:32 PM on April 21, 2020 [1 favorite]
Wiki's entire timeline on fashion is amazing.
posted by Beholder at 8:36 PM on April 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Beholder at 8:36 PM on April 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm not a big fashion person myself (cue Meryl Streep decimating me on the topic of my frumpy cerulean sweater). But I want to know anything related to theater/film.
For example, the other night I watched a webinar about select famed movie costumes ca. 1920s to 70s, and how they've influenced fashion.
Authenticity in period films is another whole thing. I am even more an observer in such fights and snark. (I would instead be railing about how poorly an actor is faking playing a musical instrument in the same "19th-century drawing room" scene.)
At any rate, I went to frock flicks mentioned above, and checked her take on the recent "Little Women." The answer's in her post title, "Much Bangs."
But oh, she presents as an example of North American girls' hairstyles ca. 1860s images of tiny Canadian humans, toddlers.
No, you just have to scroll and view it.
tl;dr this post has given me multiple internet holes to fall into.
posted by NorthernLite at 9:04 PM on April 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
For example, the other night I watched a webinar about select famed movie costumes ca. 1920s to 70s, and how they've influenced fashion.
Authenticity in period films is another whole thing. I am even more an observer in such fights and snark. (I would instead be railing about how poorly an actor is faking playing a musical instrument in the same "19th-century drawing room" scene.)
At any rate, I went to frock flicks mentioned above, and checked her take on the recent "Little Women." The answer's in her post title, "Much Bangs."
But oh, she presents as an example of North American girls' hairstyles ca. 1860s images of tiny Canadian humans, toddlers.
No, you just have to scroll and view it.
tl;dr this post has given me multiple internet holes to fall into.
posted by NorthernLite at 9:04 PM on April 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
my fave adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (1995 version with Colin Firth aka best version, fight me)
I can't imagine why anyone would fight you - it's clearly the best adaptation. As a friend once pointed out, large parts of the dialogue are verbatim from the book - and only two minor inconsequential scenes in the book aren't in the series.
It was this adaptation that made me realise that novels really aren't movie-length: they are between 6 and 12 hours, depending on the novel. This adaptation of a relatively short book is 6 hours, and it is perfect: not too short, not too long. I find so many film adaptations to be disappointing: they are trying to fit a novel into a length that really is more like a long short story / short novella.
posted by jb at 9:25 PM on April 21, 2020 [20 favorites]
I can't imagine why anyone would fight you - it's clearly the best adaptation. As a friend once pointed out, large parts of the dialogue are verbatim from the book - and only two minor inconsequential scenes in the book aren't in the series.
It was this adaptation that made me realise that novels really aren't movie-length: they are between 6 and 12 hours, depending on the novel. This adaptation of a relatively short book is 6 hours, and it is perfect: not too short, not too long. I find so many film adaptations to be disappointing: they are trying to fit a novel into a length that really is more like a long short story / short novella.
posted by jb at 9:25 PM on April 21, 2020 [20 favorites]
In text, after reading Georgette Heyer's immaculately researched Regency romances, I can not read any romance set in the same period where the wellborn female characters wear breeches without censure, or spend a night away from home without facing ruination of their reputation, and there are so few romances that feature servant girls, but when they do (Barbara Taylor Bradford, I'm looking at you), they areso unrealistic.
Which is to say, I appreciate an expert who understands the wardrobes of the time.
posted by b33j at 10:50 PM on April 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
Which is to say, I appreciate an expert who understands the wardrobes of the time.
posted by b33j at 10:50 PM on April 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
OH. Thank god someone sad it. I HATED the Gerwig adaptation of Little Women. Just HATED IT. It didn’t need to BE “Little Women.” Just call it something else “inspired” by Alcott. Because I’m not sure anyone involved had even read the novel. Only saw other movie versions of the novel. And they certainly never read any history of that period.
Anyway. Carry on.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 11:40 PM on April 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
Anyway. Carry on.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 11:40 PM on April 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
It was this adaptation that made me realise that novels really aren't movie-length: they are between 6 and 12 hours, depending on the novel. This adaptation of a relatively short book is 6 hours, and it is perfect: not too short, not too long.
jb, you and I are also simpatico!
I remember telling a neighbour and fellow P&P 1995 fan about another costume drama I had seen and enjoyed. I recommended it to her but with the caveat that at only four hours, unfortunately it did seem to just gallop along....
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:35 AM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
jb, you and I are also simpatico!
I remember telling a neighbour and fellow P&P 1995 fan about another costume drama I had seen and enjoyed. I recommended it to her but with the caveat that at only four hours, unfortunately it did seem to just gallop along....
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:35 AM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
In her (ahem) most excellent book Seeing Through Clothes, the art historian Anne Hollander pointed out that the background characters in historical films usually have much more historically accurate costumes, hair and makeup that the leads, because they don't have to be attractive by contemporary standards. Once you have noticed this it's hard to unsee.
Oh, I really dug that book, but, man, is it dense with information and Hollander doles out her sweeping knowledge with a such casual disregard for grounding that it was a surprisingly challenging read. (In the best way for the most part, but a little more support for the reader around some of the info would have gone a long way. Still highly recommended though.)
posted by gusottertrout at 1:12 AM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Oh, I really dug that book, but, man, is it dense with information and Hollander doles out her sweeping knowledge with a such casual disregard for grounding that it was a surprisingly challenging read. (In the best way for the most part, but a little more support for the reader around some of the info would have gone a long way. Still highly recommended though.)
posted by gusottertrout at 1:12 AM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
One of the things that makes more accurate period clothing "work" for Bed and Ted in a way that it doesn't for shows and movies set in an earlier era is that in Bill and Ted the clothing choices are meant to accentuate difference between eras and the lead characters rather than make the viewer feel comfortable in their wants for how they feel people should look to be attractive. It's more difficult for many modern viewers to adapt themselves to older styles and still be drawn into the characters' interests when the entirety of the show/movie is in an earlier era.
Sometimes to make a show or movie work in the now, there is some value in distorting the "then" if it has greater purpose and isn't just pretending to show life as it was. The costume design in Angels and Insects is a favorite of mine in that way.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:28 AM on April 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
Sometimes to make a show or movie work in the now, there is some value in distorting the "then" if it has greater purpose and isn't just pretending to show life as it was. The costume design in Angels and Insects is a favorite of mine in that way.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:28 AM on April 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
i have not yet read this but if there is a section that calls out things for egregiously gross inaccuracy i hope they mention reign
posted by poffin boffin at 4:41 AM on April 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 4:41 AM on April 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
I find stuff like this interesting, but also aggravating. Like, one of the examples tweets is basically "this movie is set in 1803 but it uses piping that didn't become fashionable until 10 years later". Which is fine as an interesting factoid but really annoying when combined with an attitude that they should have known/done better. Or worse an "aren't they stupid, ha ha" attitude, which Frockflicks falls into sometimes.
Because, well, no, they probably aren't stupid. They probably do know what is absolutely correct for a time period. And if they were doing historical reenacting, they would get it exactly right. But they aren't. They are making a movie that has to speak to contemporary tastes and doesn't have any particular reason to do more than evoke a given era for context.
The hairstyle stuff especially. Regency hair looks completely ridiculous to modern viewers. I find in a lot of period pieces, the buttoned up hair of that era is only used on the hyper repressed villains because it is too fussy and at the same time too severe to read as remotely attractive today. And she understands that - she even talks about it - but there's still the air of "but this is bad and wrong and they should feel bad for being so wrong."
posted by jacquilynne at 5:05 AM on April 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
Because, well, no, they probably aren't stupid. They probably do know what is absolutely correct for a time period. And if they were doing historical reenacting, they would get it exactly right. But they aren't. They are making a movie that has to speak to contemporary tastes and doesn't have any particular reason to do more than evoke a given era for context.
The hairstyle stuff especially. Regency hair looks completely ridiculous to modern viewers. I find in a lot of period pieces, the buttoned up hair of that era is only used on the hyper repressed villains because it is too fussy and at the same time too severe to read as remotely attractive today. And she understands that - she even talks about it - but there's still the air of "but this is bad and wrong and they should feel bad for being so wrong."
posted by jacquilynne at 5:05 AM on April 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
I want accurate hairstyles though! I like ridiculous! I find the assumption that we always have to find the heroine conventionally attractive to be really boring, give me the weirdly dressed, tightly-bound hair people and let me see that they can still have charisma and romance.
I know *why* they do it but to me it's just the worst and least interesting reason.
posted by stillnocturnal at 5:35 AM on April 22, 2020 [24 favorites]
I know *why* they do it but to me it's just the worst and least interesting reason.
posted by stillnocturnal at 5:35 AM on April 22, 2020 [24 favorites]
my fave adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (1995 version with Colin Firth aka best version, fight me)
I can't imagine why anyone would fight you - it's clearly the best adaptation.
Very hard agree. I can’t watch the Kiera Knightly version for the seemingly minor fact that they dropped one of Bingley’s two sisters (the married one isn’t in it). Superficially it might not make a difference. But it DOES! This isn’t a specific thread about P&P so I won’t go into details why but I feel confident that fans will agree with me that it is Wrong to only have one Bingley sister.
I see she gave Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow a narrow pass, which sounds about right. I hope she does my favourite version though, which was this miniseries Even though they use period language I found the acting really modern and made me wonder if it was trying to channel Clueless, which was actually loosely based on Emma. Anyway I like this adaptation much more than the movie, which is another argument for the theory that 6+ hours are needed to do a novel full justice.
But possible exception: Sense and Sensibility! I think this one is really well done and it’s a movie. I hope Davidson tests their costumes too.
posted by like_neon at 5:38 AM on April 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
I can't imagine why anyone would fight you - it's clearly the best adaptation.
Very hard agree. I can’t watch the Kiera Knightly version for the seemingly minor fact that they dropped one of Bingley’s two sisters (the married one isn’t in it). Superficially it might not make a difference. But it DOES! This isn’t a specific thread about P&P so I won’t go into details why but I feel confident that fans will agree with me that it is Wrong to only have one Bingley sister.
I see she gave Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow a narrow pass, which sounds about right. I hope she does my favourite version though, which was this miniseries Even though they use period language I found the acting really modern and made me wonder if it was trying to channel Clueless, which was actually loosely based on Emma. Anyway I like this adaptation much more than the movie, which is another argument for the theory that 6+ hours are needed to do a novel full justice.
But possible exception: Sense and Sensibility! I think this one is really well done and it’s a movie. I hope Davidson tests their costumes too.
posted by like_neon at 5:38 AM on April 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
They are making a movie that has to speak to contemporary tastes and doesn't have any particular reason to do more than evoke a given era for context.
I think the question is a bit more complicated than that for needing to also ask exactly why it is people go to see these historical dramas if they aren't set to align to the era in which they are set. In many cases they evoke both a kind of imagined nostalgia or conservative perspective and a modern more "liberal" one simultaneously. The purpose seeming often to be allowing the audience to indulge in a fantasy of a non-existent past in an odd way as it is often fit to providing the viewer a sense of emotional time travel in a way that isn't all that different than imagining going back in time with modern technology in how one could both transcend the conditions of the time through one's modern attitudes but still enjoy the privilege that might come from obtaining certain class standing or the like.
There may be solid box office reasons for "updating" some of these elements of the story, but there can also be good reasons for trying to adhere to a more accurate standard, depending on why one is filming one of these stories today.
posted by gusottertrout at 5:41 AM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
I think the question is a bit more complicated than that for needing to also ask exactly why it is people go to see these historical dramas if they aren't set to align to the era in which they are set. In many cases they evoke both a kind of imagined nostalgia or conservative perspective and a modern more "liberal" one simultaneously. The purpose seeming often to be allowing the audience to indulge in a fantasy of a non-existent past in an odd way as it is often fit to providing the viewer a sense of emotional time travel in a way that isn't all that different than imagining going back in time with modern technology in how one could both transcend the conditions of the time through one's modern attitudes but still enjoy the privilege that might come from obtaining certain class standing or the like.
There may be solid box office reasons for "updating" some of these elements of the story, but there can also be good reasons for trying to adhere to a more accurate standard, depending on why one is filming one of these stories today.
posted by gusottertrout at 5:41 AM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
my fave adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (1995 version with Colin Firth aka best version, fight me)
I can't imagine why anyone would fight you - it's clearly the best adaptation. As a friend once pointed out, large parts of the dialogue are verbatim from the book - and only two minor inconsequential scenes in the book aren't in the series.
Though tbh the book might have been even more masterful with a Mr. Darcy Dives into The Lake scene.
posted by Mchelly at 6:50 AM on April 22, 2020 [10 favorites]
I can't imagine why anyone would fight you - it's clearly the best adaptation. As a friend once pointed out, large parts of the dialogue are verbatim from the book - and only two minor inconsequential scenes in the book aren't in the series.
Though tbh the book might have been even more masterful with a Mr. Darcy Dives into The Lake scene.
posted by Mchelly at 6:50 AM on April 22, 2020 [10 favorites]
Oh even though that scene wasn't in the book I would like to think that Miss Eliza Bennett def had such highly inappropriate thoughts running through her mind. It was very considerate of the producers to have brought to life what we were all thinking anyway (ie "I wonder what Mr. Darcy's nipples look like under a wet linen shirt..?")
posted by like_neon at 7:12 AM on April 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by like_neon at 7:12 AM on April 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
I appreciate historically-correct costuming, but man, I don't know. Once I've booked passage on the HMS Anachronism over the dentition issue* I feel I forfeit the right to look askance at polyester blends.
*see also: unblemished skin, suspiciously clean city thoroughfares, the interior lighting design in any period film save Barry Lyndon...
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:28 AM on April 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
*see also: unblemished skin, suspiciously clean city thoroughfares, the interior lighting design in any period film save Barry Lyndon...
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:28 AM on April 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
The thing with anachronistic (modern) hair and costuming is that in a few decades, it will look even more "off," as contemporary fashion changes. That's how you get things like Pa looking like this in Little House on the Prairie. That show could not look more 1970s if it tried.
posted by basalganglia at 7:30 AM on April 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by basalganglia at 7:30 AM on April 22, 2020 [16 favorites]
Related: the Getting Dressed series, in this case, Mary Shelley (1816).
posted by emjaybee at 8:19 AM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 8:19 AM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
how DID pa feather his hair during the long winter
posted by poffin boffin at 8:47 AM on April 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 8:47 AM on April 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
Possum skeleton
posted by Mchelly at 8:57 AM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Mchelly at 8:57 AM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
One thing about period movies and background extras is that the studio often doesn't have the costumes and clothing on hand. What they do have is someone who knows how to locate the re-enactment groups who have spent a lot of time and money to make their costumes accurate. And a lot of those groups are ecstatic about appearing in movies and doing their thing for free.
A personal example is the Hunger Games movie with the ball room dance scene. While the costumes were supplied to be appropriate for the movie, a number of the fore front dancers around Katpiss were from a local dance group. They did that for free. The only person who got paid was the guy who taught the dance to the actors and the extras in the background and worked to choreograph the scene with the film crew.
posted by Oh_Bobloblaw at 8:59 AM on April 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
A personal example is the Hunger Games movie with the ball room dance scene. While the costumes were supplied to be appropriate for the movie, a number of the fore front dancers around Katpiss were from a local dance group. They did that for free. The only person who got paid was the guy who taught the dance to the actors and the extras in the background and worked to choreograph the scene with the film crew.
posted by Oh_Bobloblaw at 8:59 AM on April 22, 2020 [8 favorites]
I'd love to see some follow up from costume designers .. I'm sure most know the errors they are perpetrating, would be interesting to hear the calculus they use.
posted by latkes at 9:46 AM on April 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by latkes at 9:46 AM on April 22, 2020 [4 favorites]
Money, what the director wants, big stars have some control over their hair, money, time - truly authentic old extravagant clothing contains so much labor that it might not be possible to swap money for time even if they had it. Hence the value of the costumes that get reused in theater and BBC productions.
I like it when designers lampshade the trade offs - using denim and laser-cut filigrees, but well- fitted, instead of brocades and lace and passementerie.
posted by clew at 10:07 AM on April 22, 2020
I like it when designers lampshade the trade offs - using denim and laser-cut filigrees, but well- fitted, instead of brocades and lace and passementerie.
posted by clew at 10:07 AM on April 22, 2020
I have a favorite essay I love to trot out for this topic (to the point where I've literally read it aloud to people like a bedtime story), “The Borgias” vs. “Borgia: Faith and Fear” (accuracy in historical fiction), from historian and author Ada Palmer that talks about the tricky balancing you have to do between historical accuracy and communicating history:
Even costuming accuracy can be a communications problem, since modern viewers have certain associations that are hard to unlearn. Want to costume a princess to feel sweet and feminine? The modern eye demands pink or light blue, though the historian knows pale colors coded poverty. Want to costume a woman to communicate the fact that she’s a sexy seductress? The audience needs the bodice and sleeves to expose the bits of her modern audiences associate with sexy, regardless of which bits would plausibly have been exposed at the time. I recently had to costume some Vikings, and was lent a pair of extremely nice period Viking pants which had bold white and orange stripes about two inches wide. I know enough to realize how perfect they were, and that both the expense of the dye and the purity of the white would mark them as the pants of an important man, but that if someone walked on stage in them the whole audience would think: “Why is that Viking wearing clown pants?” Which do you want, to communicate with the audience, or to be accurate? I choose A.posted by foxfirefey at 10:10 AM on April 22, 2020 [19 favorites]
I can’t watch the Kiera Knightly version for the seemingly minor fact that they dropped one of Bingley’s two sisters (the married one isn’t in it). Superficially it might not make a difference. But it DOES! This isn’t a specific thread about P&P so I won’t go into details why but I feel confident that fans will agree with me that it is Wrong to only have one Bingley sister.
The Keira Knightly P&P is much more enjoyable when you realize that it is P&P as written by Emily Brontë.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 10:22 AM on April 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
The Keira Knightly P&P is much more enjoyable when you realize that it is P&P as written by Emily Brontë.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 10:22 AM on April 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
I love that visual, but repeatedly meeting the audience where they are narrows our mental paddock.
posted by clew at 10:23 AM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by clew at 10:23 AM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
( I was thinking of the pants visual, but P&P by a Brontë is only fair, given Austen on gothick novels )
posted by clew at 10:24 AM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by clew at 10:24 AM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
hat they do have is someone who knows how to locate the re-enactment groups who have spent a lot of time and money to make their costumes accurate.
When The Mandalorian (arguably also a period piece) needed more stormtroopers they asked the members of the 501st Legion to step-up.
posted by nathan_teske at 10:50 AM on April 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
When The Mandalorian (arguably also a period piece) needed more stormtroopers they asked the members of the 501st Legion to step-up.
posted by nathan_teske at 10:50 AM on April 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
I am very curious about what Davidson thinks about Taboo. She didn't elaborate much on why the costuming flummoxed her, but I want her and her costumer followers to discuss it in-depth.
posted by Stoof at 11:09 AM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Stoof at 11:09 AM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
Foxfirefey, I love that essay, thank you. It was fascinating in many ways - details about the Borgias and the time period, details about Borgias accuracy in television and details about these two programs specifically.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:09 PM on April 22, 2020
posted by jacquilynne at 1:09 PM on April 22, 2020
Oooh, as a horsey person my total obsession is horses that fail this test for having beautifully trimmed muzzles and flowing manes and tails (rather than a soul-crushing tangle of burrs) and even horseshoes when "wild."
posted by TwoStride at 1:41 PM on April 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by TwoStride at 1:41 PM on April 22, 2020 [7 favorites]
Potatoes turn up when they oughtn’t, too. ( Use a turnip, fools! Or skirrit if you want something really peasanty looking!)
posted by clew at 2:16 PM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by clew at 2:16 PM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is super interesting but as I know nothing about historical clothes, I could happily enjoy a film set in 1810 featuring fashions from like 1700 to 1900 and I might not notice. But if a chessboard is set up sideways I’m walking out of the theater because WHO DOES THAT.
posted by freecellwizard at 3:29 PM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by freecellwizard at 3:29 PM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
The hairstyle stuff especially. Regency hair looks completely ridiculous to modern viewers. I find in a lot of period pieces, the buttoned up hair of that era is only used on the hyper repressed villains because it is too fussy and at the same time too severe to read as remotely attractive today.
Given the number of regency adaptations that have done a fairly reasonable job, I think it's as reasonable to show all the grown women with their hair up as it is to show them all having raised waistlines on their dresses. It's also possible to show dressing/bed scenes if you really want to show hair down (as in the 1995 P&P). You have to choose exactly which pieces/styles to use taking into account what those will communicate to the audience so it's never going to be perfectly authentic but it can be a lot close to the past than everyone walking around with hair flowing in the wind.
Similarly, the recent adaptation of Wolf Hall does a fantastic job on Tudor headdresses - both men and women. It obviously helps enormously that fairly famous portraits exist of the main characters so you might eg recognise Anne Boleyn's french hood but even though nowadays we don't wear similar headdresses or hairstyles the characters are still relate-able and attractive (where they are supposed to be).
posted by plonkee at 3:29 PM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
Given the number of regency adaptations that have done a fairly reasonable job, I think it's as reasonable to show all the grown women with their hair up as it is to show them all having raised waistlines on their dresses. It's also possible to show dressing/bed scenes if you really want to show hair down (as in the 1995 P&P). You have to choose exactly which pieces/styles to use taking into account what those will communicate to the audience so it's never going to be perfectly authentic but it can be a lot close to the past than everyone walking around with hair flowing in the wind.
Similarly, the recent adaptation of Wolf Hall does a fantastic job on Tudor headdresses - both men and women. It obviously helps enormously that fairly famous portraits exist of the main characters so you might eg recognise Anne Boleyn's french hood but even though nowadays we don't wear similar headdresses or hairstyles the characters are still relate-able and attractive (where they are supposed to be).
posted by plonkee at 3:29 PM on April 22, 2020 [3 favorites]
The thing with anachronistic (modern) hair and costuming is that in a few decades, it will look even more "off," as contemporary fashion changes. That's how you get things like Pa looking like this in Little House on the Prairie. That show could not look more 1970s if it tried.
Sure, it looks goofy, but to be a little contrary: what's wrong with a product of the 1970s looking 1970s? It's an adaptation, it's fundamentally about what people in the 1970s found meaningful about a story set a hundred years prior. It's not from the 1870s. If the haircuts remind of us that fact, okay. In other words, we shouldn't watch Happy Days as an accurate depiction of the 50s.
More broadly, re: Little Women adaptations. Is the platonic ideal of any adaptation a fully faithful recreation of the original? Why are we retelling stories if not to say something new, or put them in a new light? I can't say exactly what changes people are unhappy with, but to pull out a change I thought was fantastic -- I love how it examined what it meant for Louisa May Alcott to be pressured into marrying off her queer-coded heroine. This is a thing that was not in the original story, but which did happen, and which might cause us to understand the story differently now than we would n the past. I don't think that was a change made by people who failed to read the book/watch the previous movies. Part of updating a story is teasing out themes that maybe we have a new perspective on, in our times, including stories that couldn't be told freely in certain periods of our history.
I understand there's a certain pleasure to a period-accurate film, and that knowledgeable people will be taken out of a film by sloppiness - no one wants to see a Starbucks cup in their period drama. But I want to question the value-judgement ascribed to whether or not a period film is "accurate."
I think this is a fun twitter and it's really interesting to read about historical dress. Let's just remember that there are plenty of things a movie might try to accomplish that aren't compatible with accurate costuming.
posted by Emily's Fist at 3:39 PM on April 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
Sure, it looks goofy, but to be a little contrary: what's wrong with a product of the 1970s looking 1970s? It's an adaptation, it's fundamentally about what people in the 1970s found meaningful about a story set a hundred years prior. It's not from the 1870s. If the haircuts remind of us that fact, okay. In other words, we shouldn't watch Happy Days as an accurate depiction of the 50s.
More broadly, re: Little Women adaptations. Is the platonic ideal of any adaptation a fully faithful recreation of the original? Why are we retelling stories if not to say something new, or put them in a new light? I can't say exactly what changes people are unhappy with, but to pull out a change I thought was fantastic -- I love how it examined what it meant for Louisa May Alcott to be pressured into marrying off her queer-coded heroine. This is a thing that was not in the original story, but which did happen, and which might cause us to understand the story differently now than we would n the past. I don't think that was a change made by people who failed to read the book/watch the previous movies. Part of updating a story is teasing out themes that maybe we have a new perspective on, in our times, including stories that couldn't be told freely in certain periods of our history.
I understand there's a certain pleasure to a period-accurate film, and that knowledgeable people will be taken out of a film by sloppiness - no one wants to see a Starbucks cup in their period drama. But I want to question the value-judgement ascribed to whether or not a period film is "accurate."
I think this is a fun twitter and it's really interesting to read about historical dress. Let's just remember that there are plenty of things a movie might try to accomplish that aren't compatible with accurate costuming.
posted by Emily's Fist at 3:39 PM on April 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
I understand there's a certain pleasure to a period-accurate film, and that knowledgeable people will be taken out of a film by sloppiness - no one wants to see a Starbucks cup in their period drama.
I hear what you're saying, but I think what you're missing is how much simple errors can be seen as sloppiness by those who have knowledge of the period.
posted by Carillon at 11:22 PM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
I hear what you're saying, but I think what you're missing is how much simple errors can be seen as sloppiness by those who have knowledge of the period.
posted by Carillon at 11:22 PM on April 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is super interesting but as I know nothing about historical clothes
I think it's really interesting that during the late English time periods that dress was so specific. It wasn't that long afterwards that dress became relatively modern and hairstyles unique.
This picture from 1896:
train crash
Shorts, bangs, various hairstyles (that you can see under hats).
This one, early 1900s
Bangs, hatless women, various parts in the hair
Bike racers around 1900 - graphic t shirt.
in Buffalo NY
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:08 AM on April 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think it's really interesting that during the late English time periods that dress was so specific. It wasn't that long afterwards that dress became relatively modern and hairstyles unique.
This picture from 1896:
train crash
Shorts, bangs, various hairstyles (that you can see under hats).
This one, early 1900s
Bangs, hatless women, various parts in the hair
Bike racers around 1900 - graphic t shirt.
in Buffalo NY
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:08 AM on April 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
we shouldn't watch Happy Days as an accurate depiction of the 50s.
Actually that was one of my first "wait a minute" moments as a kid. At the beginning of the series, Joanie had a fairly period-accurate 50s little girl hairdo. By the end, she was wearing an extremely late-70s permed bob. It was very jarring to me, because part of the appeal of the show (maybe all of it) was the nostalgia factor. I dressed up as a 50s teen girl in a poodle skirt one Halloween in fact, and that was about the time I started paying attention to period costume, checking giant books about it out of the library.
It's not so much that anachronistic costume ruins a show for me, as that I resent when a show pretends it's being authentic/pulls on that nostalgia/glamor but half-asses it. Moulin Rouge was a movie that was NOT about period accuracy in multiple ways, and owned it, and that was fine. I don't expect a tiny community production of A Christmas Carol to be period-accurate, they don't have the budget. But if you want to pull me into a time and place, you should give a rip about clothes in the same way that you give a rip about not having people drive a Toyota to the ball.
posted by emjaybee at 9:49 AM on April 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
Actually that was one of my first "wait a minute" moments as a kid. At the beginning of the series, Joanie had a fairly period-accurate 50s little girl hairdo. By the end, she was wearing an extremely late-70s permed bob. It was very jarring to me, because part of the appeal of the show (maybe all of it) was the nostalgia factor. I dressed up as a 50s teen girl in a poodle skirt one Halloween in fact, and that was about the time I started paying attention to period costume, checking giant books about it out of the library.
It's not so much that anachronistic costume ruins a show for me, as that I resent when a show pretends it's being authentic/pulls on that nostalgia/glamor but half-asses it. Moulin Rouge was a movie that was NOT about period accuracy in multiple ways, and owned it, and that was fine. I don't expect a tiny community production of A Christmas Carol to be period-accurate, they don't have the budget. But if you want to pull me into a time and place, you should give a rip about clothes in the same way that you give a rip about not having people drive a Toyota to the ball.
posted by emjaybee at 9:49 AM on April 23, 2020 [8 favorites]
But there are big and little differences. There's not driving a Toyota to the ball and there's "oh, a family of that social class would certainly have used matched horses to pull their coach and those horses are different colours!"
posted by jacquilynne at 10:31 AM on April 23, 2020
posted by jacquilynne at 10:31 AM on April 23, 2020
I love how it examined what it meant for Louisa May Alcott to be pressured into marrying off her queer-coded heroine.
I'm not following how this is advanced by beachy wave hairstyles, though. We *know* not wanting to marry off the queer-coded heroine is compatible with keeping your hair up, because Alcott did both. What am I missing?
Arguing for the queer-refocussed retelling with more historical accuracy: When we only show people with threatened identities as the most modern character in the historical story, we help erase how those identities have always been around. We also erase some interesting possibilities from history, that traits we now lump together are only contingently associated. There are more ways to be! I always like that reminder.
Specifically, I think the Pre-Raphaelites are a terrible style choice for the Little Women heroines. They're both decent avatars of radical movements of the time, but not all radical movements are the same! They had different goals and styles and philosophies and morals! They both changed their cultures in ways that led to our present, but they didn't make the same changes! (The original article redoubles this error by collapsing both the Little Women and the Pre-Raphaelites into hippies, which is flattening more than three philosophies into one Filmore poster. Argh.)
posted by clew at 11:36 AM on April 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
I'm not following how this is advanced by beachy wave hairstyles, though. We *know* not wanting to marry off the queer-coded heroine is compatible with keeping your hair up, because Alcott did both. What am I missing?
Arguing for the queer-refocussed retelling with more historical accuracy: When we only show people with threatened identities as the most modern character in the historical story, we help erase how those identities have always been around. We also erase some interesting possibilities from history, that traits we now lump together are only contingently associated. There are more ways to be! I always like that reminder.
Specifically, I think the Pre-Raphaelites are a terrible style choice for the Little Women heroines. They're both decent avatars of radical movements of the time, but not all radical movements are the same! They had different goals and styles and philosophies and morals! They both changed their cultures in ways that led to our present, but they didn't make the same changes! (The original article redoubles this error by collapsing both the Little Women and the Pre-Raphaelites into hippies, which is flattening more than three philosophies into one Filmore poster. Argh.)
posted by clew at 11:36 AM on April 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
Louisa May Alcott's actual hairstyle looks really useful for growing out your bangs at home, though. Any old scarf or tights-leg should work for the headband. IME, you can change your look a lot by changing where the fluffy part tucked around the headband is.
posted by clew at 11:38 AM on April 23, 2020
posted by clew at 11:38 AM on April 23, 2020
The costumer from Bill and Ted responds:
Thank you so much Hilary! I am so honored that you consider the Napoleon scene in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure to be your benchmark for authenticity - pass or fail! I was very lucky to get to use authentic pieces from the Italian costume house Costume d’Arte near Rome! ...posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 5:19 PM on April 23, 2020 [18 favorites]
We filmed all the period Napoleon, Beethoven, Socrates and princess scenes in Italy therefore I was able to rent from the amazing costume houses there!
I may be trained in history, but I actually rarely notice costume issues. But I get so very annoyed when books describe vellum as being especially nice paper and not as dead calf skin. Both were is use c1500-1800, and they are completely different.
As for the whole issue of women wearing breeches or reputations: that's very class specific. I never did study the haut ton, I know nothing about them I didn't read in a Regency romance. But 16-18th farm servants could canoodle in hay stacks to their hearts' (and other bits') content, so long as the marriage happened before the baby was born - and it didn't even have to be nine months before.
posted by jb at 10:37 AM on April 25, 2020
As for the whole issue of women wearing breeches or reputations: that's very class specific. I never did study the haut ton, I know nothing about them I didn't read in a Regency romance. But 16-18th farm servants could canoodle in hay stacks to their hearts' (and other bits') content, so long as the marriage happened before the baby was born - and it didn't even have to be nine months before.
posted by jb at 10:37 AM on April 25, 2020
Iris Gambol: " the interior lighting design in any period film save Barry Lyndon..."
The Favourite was also shot with all natural lighting!
posted by Chrysostom at 10:35 PM on April 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
The Favourite was also shot with all natural lighting!
posted by Chrysostom at 10:35 PM on April 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older Look to the skies, the Lyrids are back! | Sheena is a Monk Rocker Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:31 PM on April 21, 2020 [24 favorites]