Are Period Drama Costumes Historically Accurate? Costume Review, Pt 2

Hi, it’s your meme mom and today I’m bringing you a curated selection of fresh, spicy memes. No, I’m not. Actually we’re going to review some more movie costumes. The last time I have done it was in October, I think. Was it October? I don’t care and neither should you, and I didn’t feel like doing that, because I’ve already done it, to be honest. Because I found me reviewing, like, a hundred films, I just had to edit it. But what happened was–I don’t know, like, I think some of you, like, non-native English speakers can relate to this, but sometimes you just wake up and the English is just not there. That was kind of what happened when I was filming the last time. So it was okay for, like, one video, but if I wanted to do a series of videos like that, where I literally have to cut, like, every second because I’m going, like, Wha-uh, whu? that would be annoying. So I just abandoned the other– like, the footage that I already had and I’m just going to do the same thing again. I can’t remember what I talked about anyway, so it’s kind of like filming a new video. Yeah. Yeah. Let’s go for it; and also, the last time I kind of picked the films myself, but now I’m just going to see what you guys suggested, because why use my own ideas when I can just use yours? Okay, so let me explain the rules briefly to you: so I’m going to judge the costuming in particular films based on whether or not it’s historically accurate, so it’s nothing personal and it doesn’t matter whether I like the movie or not, but if the costumes are not accurate it’s gonna get a bad rating. Marie Antoinette. Marie Antoinette is one of the cases where I think it’s been really well thought through (through through) and it’s really well done actually. The only thing I don’t like is that it kind of, like, reinforces this stereotype that 18th centuries was all like pastels and candy, whereas if you look at, like, paintings from the era or like portraits of Marie Antoinette herself, you can see that’s clearly not the case because she–I don’t think there’s a single portrait of her wearing something that’s actually, like, pastel. So that’s the only thing I don’t really like and obviously there is plenty of costumes in the film that shouldn’t actually exist back then, but still, like, overall I think it’s a good piece of art and I think the costumes are really, like, well made and crafted and you can … you can see, like, the attention to the details and stuff. Sometimes I would argue whether or not the overall, like, silhouette is okay, but that’s, like, down to either corset free or or like Kirsten Dunst. But overall I think it’s it’s a solid, like, eight out of ten when it comes to, like, accuracy. And also, the thing is, like, the whole film is kind of, like, screaming, “We’re not trying to be historically accurate. With all the, like, music with, like, the sneakers lying around and stuff. It’s kind of like in-your-face, we’re trying to be, like, modern and pop and stuff.” So I think … I think it’s kind of like, they know the costumes are not, like, 100% accurate, and I think it’s very comforting to watch it knowing that the costume designer knew what she was doing. Eight out of ten. Nevertheless. Okay, Pride and Prejudice, guys. So we all know there are only two versions that actually count. There’s the Mormon one … just kidding. Okay. There is the BBC one and there is the Keira Knightley one. I am one of those people that love both versions. Sue me. I love the BBC version, because it’s the most, like, Austen-like and I like Colin Firth. I think that, like, the cast suits the book better, but I feel like the romance bit is better in the Keira Knightley one, because it actually brings up the romance. Like when it comes to, like, the last, like, proposal in the BBC version, you’re kind of, like, “is that it?” because that’s kind of lame. Whereas in the , you know, 2005 one, you’re kind of like oh, my, God, and I’m a sucker for, like, scenes like that. So even though it’s a bit cringy. Um, I like both of them. What can I say. I feel like I’m being a bit, like, overactive in this video and I have no idea why. It’s probably because I got my period today. Anyway the costumes. The BBC version is more accurate and the BBC version is an ultimate goal when it comes to accurate representation of Regency. Obviously there is plenty of things that are not 100% correct, but, you know, just the fact they let Jennifer Ehle wear the weird curls, and I don’t think they have ever done that in any other adaptation of Jane Austen, and that was such a common thing to wear. Like I’m pretty sure, like, 99% of women back then wore those, like, weird Regency curls and that never happens in period dramas because for us nowadays it’s kind of like “you look like a dog” and obviously you wouldn’t want, like, your romantic heroine to wear awkward and weird stuff, so usually they just kind of ignore it and they’re like, well, they she can also wear like a loose bun, can’t she? 1995 Pride and Prejudice is one of those rare examples where they did this and it works, because Jennifer Ehle is like pretty anyway. It really doesn’t do anything to the way we perceive her as a character. She doesn’t look, like, frivolous or something and she just looked so .. like, she looks like … I think what’s cool is that they cast people that will be considered really pretty back in like Regency era whereas nowadays they never do that. They’re kind of like, well, we have to find her pretty and not some, like, fictional Regency folks. So for example like Jane Bennet, I think plenty of people nowadays could consider her ugly, but she looks like from in Regency-era painting. Same goes for the clothes, kind of. Like they made the boobs in the right place, they gave them the right silhouette. I think what’s … what’s interesting is that they didn’t make them look poor at all, because that’s not who the Bennets were. Like, they had servants, they had their own house, so they weren’t like super low class, and I think that’s what the series kind of like brings up. So that 2005 version, when it comes to costumes (my turban is itchy) is, um, It kind of draws attention to something different, because the whole adaptation is kind of like all around nature and how close to nature Lizzie Bennet is and how it all happens on this beautiful, like, English countryside and stuff, and I think that kind of shows in the clothes they chose, because the stuff that Lizzie Bennet wears is kind of like, you know, earthy tones … um … a bit worn out. It’s all kind of like she’s been just rolling through the grass and stuff. Same goes for other characters actually and in this adaptation that like the Bennets are made much less wealthy then they are in the ’95 version, I think. So, like, Lizzie’s running around, like, around pigs and stuff and it’s all kind of, like, messy. You know, the clothes are probably old; the youngers that are obviously wearing what the oldest used to wear. What I like about the 2005 version is that, because of that–because they’re focusing on that kind of, like, low-class situation– they’re also showing, like, the transition between the classes. So, like, obviously the mother is wearing stuff that’s not fashionable anymore. She’s wearing, like, something that’s way like 18th century, and if you entered the ballroom they’re dancing in at the beginning– what’s it called? Meryton townhall or something–you can see, like, the differences. LIke some of the girls are wearing, like, empire-style dresses and then some of the girls are, like, stuck in the 18th century because they can’t afford new clothes. And that’s a, kind of like, variety I really like. So when it comes to accuracy, I think … I think overall–and, like, when you when you compare, like, the hairstyles and the accessories and stuff–I think 1995 version is more accurate so I would give it like a 9 out of 10 or like 8-1/2 out of 10, whereas the 2005 version is kind of like a 7, but it gets a bonus point–or like not a point–like, bonus doughnut for showing this variety that I was talking about. Why would I give it doughnuts instead of eating it myself? Let’s move on. Sherlock Holmes is actually one of my favorite movies of all time and, yes, the Guy Ritchie version, because it’s just one of those films you can watch a hundred times, and it doesn’t affect how you perceive it, cause, like, there isn’t much in it. It’s fun. It’s light. It’s like, I remember watching it the first time with my sister, and we liked it so much we watched it again the next day, and it’s like–it’s just one of those movies. You know, Guy Ritchie does this a lot. Like I had the same with Man from Uncle, I had the same with the second part of Sherlock and stuff. Accuracy. I’m not going to, like, judge guys’ clothes, because I have no clue whether or not they’re historically accurate. The only thing I know probably is not is that Lord Blackwood, or whatever he was called, is wearing, like, a leather coat and it’s kind of like … it’s more like Count Dracula than like a proper 19th-century gentleman. But when it comes to female characters of the movie, Ithink they’re pretty good. I think what Irene Adler is wearing when they’re, like, on the tower and, like, running around and, like, tight pants that kind of like expose her ass properly– It’s, like, I know you only did this because Rachel McAdams has a pretty nice butt, but that’s not historically accurate. Why is she running around in pants in the first place? I think around 1890s it would begin to be socially acceptable to, like, ride a bicycle in pants like that, but they weren’t really a thing until, like, late… or like mid-1890s. And you can tell she’s still wearing, like, a bustle, so that’s probably supposed to be, like, 1880s. So, like, why would she wear pants like that? But as I mentioned before, we all know why. So I think her clothes are pretty cool. There’s this one coat. She–oh, my god, my computer is dying. She’s wearing, like, this coat that’s called dolman, I think. It’s, like, kind of like a coat that’s, like, open at the back, and that’s where your bustle comes out. It’s hilarious and it kind of looks awesome, and then it has, like, those huge sleeves. That’s one of the clothes I really like that appear in the movie. Otherwise it’s kind of like typical steampunky thing, where they take a thing that could be accurate and they kind of make it, you know, neon pink because why not? Though, um, I would say, like, probably, like, a 7 … okay, for the pants, though, that’s like a minus half points so 6-1/2 out of 10. I hate inaccurate costumes. They ruin the movie for me. Every time I see an inaccurate costume, I am reminded that what I’m seeing is just a movie. Thank you. Thank you, very much. Okay, I think we’re gonna stop there. ♪ My ovaries are killing me. ♪ ♪ But I must confess, ♪ ♪ I wanna die. ♪ ♪ Wanna die. ♪ Okay, yeah, it’s probably a good time to stop. Let me know if there are any other films that you want me to talk about. I am only choosing the films I have seen or I know that costumes very well, so sorry if I just ignore some of the suggestions. Okay, I need to pack, because I’m going to the airport in, like, a couple of hours, so …


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *