#frockflicks

[comicalfellow]

And when will thís be turned into a movie? Fanny Burney’s ‘Evelina’

http://www.frockflicks.com/five-books-movies/

https://rbkclocalstudies.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/18th-century-escapades-evelina-and-fanny/

[minetteskvareninova]

The Decameron is Our Flag Means Death with pretty dresses, more sex and a lot more female characters. To which I say: God yes, everything Our Flag Means Death was missing are pretty dresses, more sex and a lot more female characters.

[recycledmoviecostumes]

This beautiful victorian gown has been spotted in both adaptations of Edith Wharton’s The Buccaneers. It was worn by Carla Gugino as Nan in the 1995 version, and then by Mia Threapleton as Honoria in the AppleTV+ version.

Costume Credit: FrockFlicks, Katie S.

Follow: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Pinterest | Instagram

[cressida-jayoungr]

One Dress a Day Challenge

Anything Goes December

The Taming of the Shrew / Costume for Elizabeth Taylor as Katharina Minola(?)

I'm tremendously curious about this gown. It appeared in an exhibit titled "Glamour: Famous Gowns of the Silver Screen" in Finland in 2020. FrockFlicks did a a fine writeup of the exhibit in which they dubbed this the "unicorn dress." But it doesn't appear in the actual film!

It looks like an alternate version of the wedding dress, possibly intended to make Katharina match more closely with Petruchio's outlandish multicolored costume--but that's just a guess. If it wasn't used, why was it constructed? And was it designed by Irene Sharaff, who did Elizabeth Taylor's other gowns for this film, or by Danilo Donati, who designed everyone else's costumes?

[pollywiltse]

I swear, every time I see André clips from Turn, his looks are this weird mix of deep cuts and wtf are you even doing.

Like JJ Feild doesn't look all that much like the real André, but first time I saw one of the Joshua Reynolds pictures of Thomas Mills which were misidentified as André for years, I thought it looked uncannily like JJ Feild (though now I'm not sure the resemblance is quite that strong), so they didn't completely pull that casting out of their ass. (There will be no forgiveness for the height though. Or the age.) And I'm convinced that the reason André's dumbfuck little braid is blond is because someone doing hair and makeup found out about the lock of hair that's supposed to be the one he gave to Peggy Shippen, which is, in fact, blond, (though I would assume it was because it had either faded very badly or it wasn't actually his before I would assume he had a dumbfuck little blond braid, but you do you).

(I also find it funny how modern people seem to make a bigger deal about André being "foreign" than his contemporaries did, but then Turn cast someone who I'm literally unable to consistently tell apart from Tom Hiddleston, who I always think of as one of the most English-looking people ever.)

Or like how men with long hair did have the front and top of their hair cut shorter than the back, I assume to make the curls on the sides of their heads look right. And when I was double-checking to make sure I was remembering that this was a thing I found the people over at FrockFlicks talking about (for a different show) "This shorter hair in front/on top IS missed by a lot of modern stylists". So when JJ Feild is running around with his waxed chest and cute little bob, that's evidently a level of historically correct that most people miss. (For the head hair, not the chest hair.) But then they don't seem to ever give him the horizontal curls that are the entire point of having short hair in the front and when it's loose he's got very modern-looking vertical curls. I mean, yes, it's adorable, but I don't think that hair that has been curled and pomaded and powdered to within an inch of its life and then combed out would look like that.

(Also I realize powdered hair looks dorky to modern people, but he's got powdered hair in literally all his miniatures - and actually the picture he painted of his brother at like age ten also has powdered hair - and I think it might have been part of the dress code for officers? And yet it looks like in Turn he either has a white wig or his natural, uncurled brown hair, which he wears even at balls? Although it looks like maybe no one has powdered hair at balls even though that would probably be like showing up to a black tie event wearing a tuxedo and flip-flops.)

Or (not costumes, but) I'm pretty sure they had "Roslin Castle" playing during his very brief walk to his execution, which is going very deep on historical accuracy for a very small detail, but he's in the wrong uniform. Actually I'm not sure if they ever get his uniforms right, because the facings depended on which regiment you were in, and he was in the 23rd and then the 7th (which were both dark blue) from 1771 to sometime in 1777 when he bought a captain's commission in the 26th (yellow), and then after he was back in New York he was playing musical regiments so that he could stay in America and his brother could got back home, so he was in the 44th (also yellow) for five minutes and then ended up in the 54th (which was green), which was his regiment at the time he was executed. Unless aids de camp wore different uniforms? But I can't find anything suggesting that for the British army, and I don't think my google search terms are that bad.

[marzipanandminutiae]

sorry if this is too discourse-adjacent but while i'm really glad that the historical costume space is now considering corset injuries a work safety issue rather than an "actresses whining "for attention" one, we've been way too quick to pat ourselves on the back for it, especially since that's been the popular take for years and an expression of the unexamined undercurrent of nlog-type misogyny we've inherited from older sites like frockflicks, which have shaped our language for better or worse

I think it's...a complicated situation.

(First of all, while I do acknowledge that it has its issues like pretty much everything in the world, I like Frock Flicks. And a lot of the more intense criticism thereof- again, not all the criticism; some is legit! -has smacked of "oh no you're going to hurt the poor big-name professional costume designer and/or actor's Precious Feelings! how can you be so MEAN?!" to me, to be honest. The costumer for L*ttle W*men 2019 will be just fine with her literal Oscar if people say her designs were hot garbage re: accuracy.)

This all started with movies perpetuating the idea of Corsets As Universal Torture Devices, which has the misogynistic undertone of implying that women were stupid or docile enough to just let ourselves be tortured constantly for approx. 500 years. Plus the popular NLOG trope that obviously the heroine didn't wear corsets like those other brainless ninnies around her! And people got frustrated with actresses going to interviews and parroting that mindset with stories of corset hell that did not match their own experiences.

We should not have jumped straight to "you're making this up" as a community, you're absolutely right. It's not a good look, when "they don't know any better because abusive directors tell them Corsets Are Just Like That" should have been an obvious explanation (because it's, you know, probably the truth in most cases).

I'm not quite sure I'd call it NLOG, simply because "I'm not like other girls; I know corsets aren't evil!" isn't really something I've seen trotted out in attempts to gain mainstream social capital over other women- the whole point of NLOG. Mostly because it doesn't gain you any, in 99% of situations. And I don't think the misplaced ire came out of nowhere, or out of a desire to seem superior.

We were frustrated to see something we felt passionately about misrepresented. We lashed out at the wrong people. That doesn't excuse it, and it's good that we're changing our tune now. We should maybe acknowledge that we were off-base, as a community, in our initial reaction to this phenomenon.

That's pretty much the entirety of my (somewhat disjointed) thoughts on the matter.

[windermeresimblr]

Often I dream about Velasquez-style hair, because that’s a normal thing to dream about, I think. (Probably not.)

Fortunately I do have a few analogues...I may have to (yikes) learn to convert hair to get the full going-for-iberian-baroque feel.

(credits for the images go to FrockFlicks.)

[ichbinmeineeigenepuppe]

http://www.frockflicks.com/snark-week-bonnets-derpiest/

[underwood1923]

Death in Hollywood (1992) no.5: Merle Oberon: ‘The Magical Presence with a Mysterious Past’ | Google Map: http://bit.ly/2XJk6kW

‘Merle Oberon: She walked in beauty …’: http://sensesofcinema.com/2009/feature-articles/merle-oberon-she-walked-in-beauty/ (Senses of Cinema)

‘Woman Crush Wednesday: Merle Oberon’: http://www.frockflicks.com/woman-crush-wednesday-merle-oberon/ (FrockFlicks)

The Peter Underwood Project 👻 http://www.peterunderwood.org

[akallabeth-joie]

Rejoice, O People, for the days of Snark Week are come!

[kriskukko]

a meeting in the woods, june 1816

[froggi-mushroom]

A (somewhat) Comprehensive List of Where and How I learn about Western Historical Costuming 

I have made it no secret that I am deeply interested in history and, particularly, historical costuming. And though I understand it is a very niche topic that not many people are interested in, I do want to provide a list of sources that I find helpful for learning and writing about western historical costuming. From websites and books to youtube videos and extant garments and portraiture, I aim for this to be a guide for everyone, regardless of their preferred method of learning 

Websites:

My main source for general overviews on historical costuming is fashionhistory, an excellent source for overall trends of a decade with a mixture of descriptions and visual references which I find incredibly useful 

For a much more comedic and entertaining but still informative source, I’d recommend frockflicks as they’re very entertaining, often cover movie and tv show costumes and are generally a good read whilst still being informative and educational, you can really tell they know what they’re talking about 

Youtube: 

Though not my preferred source when writing about historical costuming, the beginning of my interest in historical costuming was through being recommended certain youtube videos and youtubers. As such, I want to recommend a few youtube channels that are valuable for learning about historical costuming, particularly if you are beginning to, or for simple entertainment value

Karolina Żebrowska is my all-time favourite costume youtuber, her videos are an excellent mix of educational and comedic and it was her content which sparked my interest in historical costuming. I will always recommend her because her videos are just chef’s kiss, incredible 

Another very close second for me and someone else who also helped fuel my love for historical costuming is Bernadette Banner, she’s so eloquent and witty that her videos are so easy and enjoyable to watch for me, I highly recommend her 

Another of my favourite costume youtubers is priorattire who does videos about the process of dressing in historical costuming as well as some other goodies! I find her videos useful when writing about the process of dressing and undressing and as a visual aid 

Some other youtubers who I don’t regularly watch but are valuable nonetheless are Morgan Donner, Sewstine, Lady Rebecca Fashions, V. Birchwood, Samantha Bullat and many, many others I’m sure I’m forgetting

There are also a few channels that are more of a collective, usually in association with a museum or foundation such as English Heritage, CrowsEyeProductions and, of course, American Duchess

Books:

For writing specifically, I tend to reach for books more often than anything else, so here’s a few of my go-to books for writing about historical costuming 

The v&a’s 18th Century Fashion in Detail and 19th Century Fashion in Detail are excellent visual references for the more intricate details of fashion, with images from extant garments 

The Chronicle of Western Costuming by John Peacock is also an excellent visual reference with small descriptions which are quite useful and, if you’re specifically interested in English costuming, Nancy Bradfield’s Historical Costumes of England from the Eleventh to the Twentieth Century is also a good visual aid. On the topic of English costuming, Ian Mortimer’s ‘The Time Traveler’s Guide…’ series often contains descriptions on historical clothing which can be quite valuable and, if you’re like me and are into the very, very niche time period of 1660-1670 England, Liza Picard’s Restoration is so valuable for everyday life in London in the 1660s but also as a guide to clothing, with her detailed descriptions, it’s easily a go-to when writing about the restoration era 

Extant Garments:

I don’t have much here since I only really visit the same two sources, that being The V&A and The Met Museum though The Kyoto Costume Institute is also incredibly useful 

Those are all the sources I use regularly, as well as a range of ones that I don’t particularly but have used in the past, I hope this is valuable to at least someone and I fully encourage other people to share their own sources so that we can all learn something new about historical costuming

[minetteskvareninova]

Ranking (And Roasting) The “European” Dress Of Magnificent Century

(In hindsight, this came out sounding way too much like a FrockFlicks article. Oh well, you know what they say. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.)

Early-to-mid 16th century and early 17th century weren’t, in my opinion, the most stylish time periods in the European history, but damn, even they were done dirty by Magnificent Century. And I mean, Ottoman dresses are represented even more badly in the show, but still. Of course, I am not a dress historian and most of my education in this regard comes from frockfilicks.com and contemporary portraits, so if I get anything wrong feel free to correct me! I was just curious about what would the likes of Gracia Mendes actually wear.

(Pics from MuhtesemDresses on vkontakte.)

VIKTORIA

This is going to be the best dress in the show, isn’t it? *sigh* It’s not good, but I’ve seen worse. The biggest blunder is the headdress, which is vaguely Hungarian folk-ish, but really only vaguely (setting aside that Hungarian folk dress are most associated with 19th century peasant dress, but oh well). Really, if those dress didn’t end at fucking elbows, I would accept it, even if it is a white dress with a veil in the fucking renessaince period. Unless this Victoria is queen Victoria of Great Britain, empress of India etc., NO. And I know some Ottoman women wear white dresses with wedding veils on this show too, but I can still bitch about it. Another problem is that it looks very Italian, when fashion on the other side of the Alps was quite different. I like the necklace, it’s very renessaincey. 6/10 For comparison: Mary of Habsburg, wife of Louis II. Jagiellon (the one that died at Mohacs) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Portrait_paintings_of_Mary_of_Habsburg#/media/File:Marie_de_hongrie_1520.jpg

ISABELA FORTUNA

But that, of course, was just an entree in this buffet of misery. I know what you actually came here for, so let’s go! First up, we have... This. *weeps inconsolably*

This is obviously a truly pathetic attempt at a Tudor dress. This was a bad idea from the start (again, fashions in Spain and England were very different), but also, the execution is pitiful. The headdress is a gable hood. That’s all. Not a particulary good one, or a spectacularly failed attempt, just A gable hood. All of the examples I’ve seen in period artwork have much less jewels sticking out of them, but the shape is acceptable. What really elevates it into the actually bad territory is the fact that her hair is sticking out of it, which goes against everything a hood should stand for. The dress obviously imitates the shape of a Tudor dress, again, badly. The patterns are off, as are sleeves, and the cleavage is especially cringey. Tudor dresses have the characteristic shape that completely hides the shape of woman’s breasts, meanwhile Isabela’s tits are... Very visible. She also has this convenient little cross on her neck that just so happens to pull the eyes towards the cleavage. Again, I am pretty sure that goes against everything that cross stands for, at least by renessaince standards. This looks like one of the worse pieces you’d see on The Tudors. But, and I can’t believe I have to point this out, at least I know what they were going for... 3/10

Lord is testing me. What even is this?! It has a vague shape of a renessaince dress, but other than that?! What are those splits on her sleeves, or the stitch-like lacing? I just... I don’t know what to say, it’s all wrong! I especially “love” the mantilla - because she’s Spanish, geddit? In case you’re wondering, mantillas started to be worn all over Europe around the late 17th/early 18 century, but everywhere except Spain, they eventually went out of fashion. Either way, this would be one big Fuck You. 1/10

It gets worse, if you can believe it. Again, I have no idea what is THIS supposed to be. I guess the sleeves are vaguely based on the sleeves of some Elizabethan gown, but I am really being generous here. Another giant Fuck You. 0/10

Another pathetic attempt at a Tudor dress, and I have nothing to say to this that I haven’t said about the previous one. It’s pretty similar in shape and style, although I actually think it looks a bit better, from a dress enjoyer’s if not historian’s perspective.

Ooh, look, the costume designers are getting better at creating costumes for The Tudors! This one is actually really pretty. It still makes the historian in me cry. It has all of the same problems as the previous dress, just with different, albeit also shitty sleeves. If I’m being generous, I could call them Elizabethan - in isolation, completely ignoring the rest of the dress, especially the very un-Elizabethan cleavage. Special mentions goes to the vaguely Elizabethan headdress. 2/10

You know that feeling, when you fail so hard at making costumes for one historical period that you accidentally create an accurate costume for an entirely different historical period? Whoever is responsible for this does. If this show was set in around 1870′s-1880′s, I’d... Well, love is not the right word, but respect it, certainly. Likewise, the coat/bodice/whatever is acceptable for that part of the Victorian era. The pattern looks way too modern, but if you squint, this could appear in that new Gilded Age TV series. ???/10

Isabela also wears other dresses, but I am going to just assume they are Ottoman in origin and don’t count as European. Yes, even the pink one. ESPECIALLY the pink one.

So, if none of these came even close, what WOULD Isabela really wear? Well, let’s look at another princess Isabela - Isabela of Portugal, wife of Charles V. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Portrait_paintings_of_Isabella_of_Portugal#/media/File:Isabel_de_Portugal_y_Arag%C3%B3n.jpg

CARMINA THE HANDMAIDEN

Another attempted Tudor dress, and this one at least gets the general shape of sleeves right. Any improvement that could be said to exist on that front is mitigated by the... I think it’s the french hood? Either way, it’s even worse than the aforementioned gable hood. That one was at least kind of pretty in isolation. It’s fucking pathetic, just like the woman wearing it. 3/10

GABRIELA DE SFEO

Yeaaah, now we’re talking! Gabriela’s dresses in general are at least recognizable as an attempt at renessaince Italian gowns. How successful was it? Well, first off, the lilac colour is already a BIG faux pass. Lilac is a colour that can only be created by chemical dyes - in fact, it was the very first chemical dye in existence. But whatever, it’s not like this show ever cared about period-accurate costume manufacturing methods. Other than that, I don’t like the shape of silver embroidery on her sleeves, it looks to be made from the same fabric as Ottoman dresses in this show. The sleeves themselves look somewhat like the ones on period gowns, and I can kind of see the silhouette of a renessaince dress on this? Also, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a renessaince lady wear this kind of earrings? I am going to be lenient, because it doesn’t ruin the vibe like many other examples here, but still. Actual dress historian would probably make a nice barbecue out of this, but I don’t hate it. 6/10

This one is really brought down by the attempt at long Tudor sleeves. Between that, puffy sleeves and ribbons, it’s clear that the designer tried to add as many renessaince-ish elements as possible, but didn’t quite know where and how to add them. The result not only isn’t accurate, but doesn’t even entirely capture the renessaince feel. Pseudo-Ottoman fabric sadly persists. 5/10

This one is actually pretty decent! The parts are certainly there, sleeves are on point, as is the bodice and the embroidery is renessaincey enough for me. I don’t think it quite comes together in a period-appropriate way, but still, better than I learned to expect from this show! 8/10

This one has very nice sleeves and bodice. Pattern is also very renesaincey, although again I am sure it would give an actual dress historian an aneurysm. Shoutout to the cleavage, I’ve seen dresses cleavage like this, and even a bit bolder. But fuck this one necklace, specifically - it looks super modern and ruins the whole vibe of this gown. 7/10

This one takes the passable concept of the first one and meshes it with the great colour palette of the second. The result is a marginal improvement over both of them, but what really brings it down is the anachronistic jewelry. Ten bucks, which I don’t have, says I can find that necklace in an Avon catalogue. 5,5/10

The puffy sleeves lead me to believe that what they were going for with her wardrobe is something like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:La_Bella#/media/File:Tizian_034.jpg They didn’t quite pull this off, but you know, a step in the right direction. Gold star for trying, guys.

ISABELA JAGIELLON

I know none of you even remembers her being in this show, but c’mon, guys, she was our queen, I need to talk about her at least briefly. First off, I have objections to the crown being there instead of a snazzy hat. Hungarian hats of this period were so rad, and they normally have no on-screen representation - but after what they did with Louis II. Jagiellon, I shouldn’t have expected the show to throw us a bone. Her dress are an even sadder attempt at an Italian renessaince gown than any of Gabriela’s. Sorry, girl, you don’t even get the gold star. 4/10

Bodice on this is passable, and I like the pearls. The rest, as far as I can see, is a little sad from historical perspective. The sleeves are just WTF, and the headdress can’t decide whether it’s a french hood or one of those snazzy little turbans women in Italy wore in this period. It ends up sucking at being both. I quickly come to regret including her in this list. 4/10

CECILIA/NURBANU

I am including this, so you can appreciate Gabriela’s version of this dress (and consequently her other dresses with it). Cecilia’s version is just ever-so-slightly worse by ditching the stiff bodice in favour of one that looks like a modern top. Plus, again, anachronistic jewelry. Hard pass. 5/10

Cecilia/Nurbanu also wears those red dress Isabela Fortuna does, but they don’t look any different on her than they do on Isabela, so I wouldn’t have anything to say about them.

VALERIA/NAZENIN

Huh, apparently, Armin wore European dress in her first appearance. The more you know. Still, fuck this dress in particular for making me research servant’s dresses from 16th century Italy, it took forever and it only confirmed what I already knew - that this is a renfair looking piece of trash that has almost nothing to do with real renessaince dress. The hairnet is nice, tho. 2/10

Besides, I owed you a picture of what a mid-16th century maid would wear, and I found it. It’s kinda shitty and two decades too late, but it’s the closest I got: https://sk.pinterest.com/pin/524387950334987772/

I am pretty sure this one is just one of the pseudo-Ottoman dresses that those lazy bitches just reused. Did they think we won’t notice? Did they think we won’t care?! Well, they were probably right, but this is a super nitpicky post and after hours of research for that previous dress I don’t have much patience left. 0/10

GRACIA MENDES

Welcome back to the world of mid-16th century renessaince fashion! I should point out that there is a difference between Italian fashion in 1530′s and 1550′s which we don’t see here - costumer designers just mesh together styles from the entire first half of 16th century and call it a day. I am not happy about it, but it’s still better than dresses with no historical basis. This one, again, suffers from inaccurate patterns, but the worst part is the pseudo-Elizabethan floating ruff (gals over at FrockFlicks have a whole rant about “floating ruffs” somewhere on their website - basically, Elizabethan ruffs were always part of the chemise, they weren’t just put on neck like a necklace). It doesn’t even look like an Elizabethan ruff. It’s neither white, nor organized into neat little waves or rolls that you can see on period portraits. Not to mention, it’s too soon for ruffles to be in fashion, at least in Italy! Also, I tolerated Gabriela’s hairnets, but the one Gracia wears over here is too high on the head, creating some sort of absurd cap. So that’s a big nope for me. 4/10

This one is actually really nice! I mean, how much can you ruin black dress? It seems to me that the bodice doesn’t entirely fit, but we aren’t here to judge that. I don’t like the line of skirt, it looks as if she had either tiny panniers or just an ill-fitting fartinghale. Either way, I hate this detail, though it doesn’t ruin this dress for me completely. What ultimately brings it down is the thingie on her head. Good God, it is hideous! 6/10

I like the pattern of this dress, but that part is immediately cancelled out by the weird decorative lacing at the front of her bodice. I found gown with lacing at the front on some portraits from this period, but it doesn’t look remotely like this. The necklace is also weird. On the other hand, yay, they found a good use for that weird Elizabethan headdress that Isabela Fortuna wore! I don’t like the necklace, it looks weird. 6/10

Are those sequins on this dress? NO. Also, another weird little headdress ruining a decent use of a hairnet. Her bodice here has a much more natural shape that looks nicer, but unfortunately isn’t historically accurate. I like the sleeves, though, as well as the necklace. 5/10

Another bad bodice! Someone from the creative team really wants her to have her tits out. I hated it with Isabela Fortuna and I hate it on her too. Yes, the actress has a magnificent chest, but that’s not why she’s here! The pattern is passable enough if you squint, though again that might be because I don’t know shit about this and an expert would be driven into a fit of murderous rage. The headdress is acceptable, though the hair flowing freely are not. 5/10

So, what would be acceptable dress for a mid-16th century Italian lady? Well, look no further than our old friend Titian. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Titian#/media/File:Tizian_116.jpg

ANASTASIA/KÖSEM

I was ready to hate on this show for making me search for dresses of 17th century Greeks, but surprisingly it wasn’t that hard! Turns out, upper-class Greek women wore mostly western-style clothes, while those of lower classes were more Ottoman-style, like modern Greek national costume. I would say that Anastasia falls into the first category, since her father is a merchant, they live in a mansion and she speaks Italian, but either way, her iconic white dress are monumentally wrong, not a tiniest detail accurate. Spoiler: it doesn’t get better. 0/10

At first I though these could at least pass for a 1840′s dress, if you squint, but now that I look at it, no, they can’t. It’s pure renfair shit. 0/10

If Valeria/Nazenin would wear these, I wouldn’t bat an eye, but by this point the raised waistline and puffy sleeves are at least half a century out of fashion, if not more. Fuck off. 0/10

So, what would a Greek lady from a rich family wear? The same thing an Italian lady from a rich family would. Which is sad, because early 17th century fashion is hideous. Of course, this is a noble lady, so Anastasia’s dress would probably be less fancy, but the general shape still stands. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1604_portrait_paintings_of_women#/media/File:Frans_Il_Giovane_(cerchia)_-_Margherita_Gonzaga_d'Este.png

FARYA BETHLEN

Well, now it’s personal, bitches! Okay, I am pretty sure I’ve seen something like this somewhere, but from, like, early 18th century, and I can’t find it anywhere. The most concrete thing this reminds me of are the dress Marial from The Great wears. Of actual historical clothing, what this reminds me of is a poor 1890′s attempt at a diszmagyar. It has the characteristic lacing, but on what looks like stays, for some reason worn as part of the clothing, not underwear, and also very 1890′s sleeves. I am also completely baffled by the veil. Either way, it’s horrible and fuck you. 1/10

This one follows a similar theme as the first one, except no outside stays. Don’t have much to say about it, other than a firm fuck you. 1/10

Oh my God, how did it get worse?! My generous interpretation of the sleeves as 1890′s has vanished into thin air, and all that’s left is a firm bundle of Fuck You. Fuck the weird cut of her cleavage. Fuck the ribbons or whatever the fuck is hanging from her shoulders. And especially fuck the tricorn hat that is about a century too early. 0/10

I mean, taking Isabela Fortuna and making her even worse is kind of a theme with Farya’s character, so her wardrobe sucking ass didn’t surprise me. She has other dresses that could be interpreted as wardrobe from her homeland, but with the exception of these three I wasn’t sure about that.

What would a Hungarian noblewoman in the 1630′s wear? Well, I found some dresses, especially from later in the 17th century, that incorporate elements of Hungarian folk dress into period clothes, but for the most part, noblewomen in Hungary dressed a lot like their Austrian counterparts. Which is significantly better than their mothers thirty years prior. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1631_portrait_paintings_of_women#/media/File:Elizabeth_van_Bohemen.JPG

ESTER HATUN

Okay, so they decided they’ll have Ester wear “European-style” dresses... Except when they don’t. Either way, I wish they didn’t, because this section almost makes me cry. Again, the idea was bad and execution even worse. The thing is, the style they are going for is by this point at least half a century too late. I would complain about this being basically a caricature of early modern European culture, if the Ottoman dress in this show weren’t even worse. Either way, setting aside the anachronism, Ester’s dress here is still pretty bad. What’s with the lace at the front?! Having her wear a chemise hiding her cleavage was a pretty decent idea, except this is not even remotely how a renessaince chemise would look like. The pseudo-Elizabethan headdress is just a cherry on top. 2/10

This one is more recognizably Elizabethan, although the lace still completely ruins it. I have to say, the headdress fits better with this one. Unfortunately, it’s still anachronistic as fuck. 3/10

Back to the general renessaince style, I see? Well, this might be my least favourite piece in that vein. Sleeves are fine, the rest makes me cry. Again with the stupid lace on the bodice, and why does the skirt have such a weird shape?! Jewelry is actually fine, but it doesn’t compensate for the shitty headdress. 1/10

This one is very similar to the first one, but with smaller sleeves and anachronistic jewelry. Well, the jewelry I can rationalize as her wearing what in this show is an Ottoman style, but the chemise, however bad it was, is still dearly missed. 1/10

If the previous dress resembled the first one without the chemise, this one IS the first one without the chemise. And that would still be fuck you. 1/10

Continuing with the theme of bad attempts at renessaince dress in beige and khaki, here we see the worst iteration of this concept yet. I hate the sleeves with a burning fashion, they make it look like the dress doesn’t fit. 0/10

General badly executed renessaince shape + shitty lacing at the front + transparent sleeves = not happy Minette, I can tell you. 1/10

[cressida-jayoungr]

One Dress a Day Challenge

July: Green Redux (+ Blue Redux)

Diane / Marisa Pavan as Catherine de Medici

The color of this green gown is very likely symbolic, as Catherine wears it for a private meeting with her new husband's mistress, shortly after her marriage. The green stands both for jealousy and for the poison Catherine "jokes" about using.

Several of these pictures were nabbed from this website, which has a lot of great background information about the film's costumes in general and this one in particular. Walter Plunkett liked to work from portraits when dealing with historical figures, and he likely based this dress on a 16th-century painting believed to be Catherine de Medici (see below). There's also a very good writeup at FrockFlicks, where they go into some depth on the detail of this dress, particularly the decoration.

[mimicofmodes]

Okay, my overall thoughts on the Bridgerton costumes in this post. Main theme: I love the concept of the aesthetic, but I don’t think they pulled it off skillfully.

I understand where Ellen Mirojnick is coming from when she says that they wanted it to not be “like a Jane Austen adaptation” and to be “scandalous and modern”. The thing is, I think her idea of what a Jane Austen adaptation is is stuck in the 1980s and 1990s - heritage films with a “realistic” muted palette and lots of caps and lace. Certainly after Emma (2020) it’s hard to argue that Jane Austen means blah, but even going back to the divisive Pride & Prejudice (2005) there's substantial use of vivid color and deliberate inaccuracy. In her interview with Vogue, she said “This show is sexy, fun and far more accessible than your average restrained period drama and it’s important for the openness of the necklines to reflect that,” which again reflects this odd view of costume dramas that just doesn’t fit reality - people have been making deliberately sexy and accessible period shows for the past twenty to thirty years, and low necklines appear constantly. (Check out this FrockFlicks post on bad girls in Austen adaptations ...)

And here’s the crux of the matter to me - if you want to do lower necklines, for instance, there are much more flattering and much sexier ways of doing it right at hand in history. Take a look at this portrait of Charlotte Sparrow (dated 1815-1820 but I would put it at 1810):

The Bridgerton necklines are downright modest in comparison. They only seem ~shockingly low~ at all because the corsets look painfully restrictive in the bust - they have some inserted gussets, but it looks like they are basically tubes, for the most part. (According to Vogue they had Mr. Pearl make the corsets, which at first struck me as incredible, but then I realized that Mr. Pearl is famous for making tight-lacing underbust corsets, or mid-bust ones that don’t offer much support. Paying Mr. Pearl to make the corsets for something set in a period where the waist doesn’t matter at all and the engineering of the bust is very important is a waste of money - Redthreaded would have done better. Flattening the actresses’ boobs just isn’t as sexy as curves, I’m sorry.) 

(gif from @dearemma)

I ADORE the use of anachronistic fabrics to highlight the Featheringtons’ nouveau riche lack of taste - it’s very fun! I definitely get more than a bit of a hint of what Sandy Powell did in Cinderella. There are also a number of costumes with Edwardian-ish beading, or tulip sleeves, or highly draped and pleated bodices that are anachronisms that give a kind of heightened feeling to the show that takes it from Regency England to Regencyromancelandia, which is great, because that is actually where Regency romances are set - a world with a jillion dukes and earls, phrases like “diamond of the first water”, and the period of her debut being the most important time in a girl’s life socially.

But the thing is that using interesting materials or taking inspiration from different periods doesn’t cancel out making poorly-fitted clothes. Sandy Powell can do whatever she wants because she does it so darned well! (Alexandra Byrne too, IMO.) Between the extremely flattening corsets and the misplaced waistlines of the gowns, most of the women look like they’re shaped like tubes. I haven’t seen anything from Mirojnick to indicate that she wanted them to be tubular, so this seems like a case of nobody working on this having any idea how to fit a Regency gown. And it’s distracting and frankly unattractive. You can’t get full points on concept alone.

Something else that needs to be talked about is the sexism of focusing 95% of the effort of reading sexy and modern on the female actors and their wardrobes, as @marzipanandminutiae​ has discussed. The men in this show are, by and large, accurately dressed. The one concession to modernity there is Simon’s short hair and stubble, fanciful fabrics for his waistcoats, and neckwear worn next to the skin. Almost the entire focus of the modernization/stylization was put into the appearances of the female characters. Mirojnick can accept that men are sexy in very concealing coats and waistcoats with a hint of earthy sensuality, but every single female character who’s considered an adult must be dressed in a corset designed to smash her breasts up into hella cleavage and a neckline that shows off said cleavage in order to be Not Your Granny’s Regency Lady.

[recycledmoviecostumes]

Do you personally find there are any "bad" reuses of costumes? For example a gown not being given the right undergarments to sit properly or a costume being used in clearly the wrong era?

This is a great question! My answer is going to be a little depressing – I apologize in advance.

When I started this website I had a rudimentary knowledge of period clothing. I just knew that I found many costumes in period dramas “pretty.” And don’t get me wrong – there is nothing wrong with watching costume dramas just because the clothes are pretty.  It’s just that with time, my view of those costumes that I used to love so much unfortunately changed.

With all of the time and research that I’ve put into this website over the past ten years, I’ve come to learn a tremendous amount about the various clothing from different eras. I remember when I first found one of Janet Arnold’s pattern books in my college library, and I just sat on the floor mesmerized until the library closed.  It was the first time I really truly understood that clothing used to fit like a glove in a way that modern clothes could never ever hope to achieve.

I do not typically go into great detail with regards what is correct and what is not correct in my descriptions because that was not the original the aim of this website, and also because the always wonderful FrockFlicks does a far better, more thorough job than I ever could. If you aren’t following them and you enjoy costumes, you should check them out, because they are AMAZING.

Because I have learned so much over the years, I can tell you that yes – sometimes the costume reuses are very, very bad indeed, to the point where I almost always know if a costume is new versus reused. Not only that, it has heavily marred my enjoyment in period dramas. Now instead of just looking at pretty dresses, I have years of knowledge behind me that immediately show me wrinkled clothes, bad alterations, incorrect undergarments…it’s really a bummer.

Now, please don’t mistake me here. I am not calling the practice of reusing costumes bad. It’s great! It’s economical!  Without it, this site would not exist. I also completely understand the limited budgets that costumers face with regards to not being able to purchase the proper undergarments or limited time that doesn’t allow for proper alterations. I’m not trying to knock any costumers, because what they do is awesome, I could NEVER do it, and they always do a good job with what they have.

But yeah – being able to watch pretty much every costume drama and go “Eh, that was used originally in The Three Musketeers, and it doesn’t fit as well.” really kind of stinks. I also feel terrible when friends come to me and say “You should see XYZ movie, it has beautiful costumes and I know you’d love it!” and I’ve already seen the film in question and the costumes fit terribly, and my friend is just trying to be kind.

Here are some of the worst offenders when it comes to “Badly reused recycled costumes.”

This costume, first created for the mini-series Lillie fits like an absolute dream. When Princess Diana re-wore it later, she chose not to wear the proper undergarments. You can see the drastic difference in shape.

This yellow piece from Dangerous Liaisons is one of my favorite costumes ever. It was reused in Dark Shadows without any kind of undergarments, and I have no idea what is going on with the lace…

This next gown from North and South doesn’t fit exceptionally well in the first place, but it at least fits better than its reuse in Another Period.

Then there is this costume from Elizabeth that was reused in The Tudors. It doesn’t fit at all.

Lastly there is this costume from Doctor Who, reused in The Great Fire. This example appears to be poorly fitted and without the proper undergarments.