- So, I get approximately
5 million comments per day requesting me to review the costume design in this period film or
that TV drama or whatever. Lest I dig myself into a hole of producing analysis after analysis of every vaguely historical
piece ever produced over the span of my lifetime, I thought I'd at least cover the bases by going on a little deep dive into some of the worst
attempts at historical costume in the last decade or so. For the record, I'm exempting
the pre-millennium stuff with the vague alibi that designers then didn't have the wealth of information on the history of dress currently available to
designers today via the Internet as well as the abundance
of new scholarship continuously being published
in the field of dress history, which is now a recognized academic field! So I asked you friends
over on the Instagram to spill what you thought were some of the worst
offenders out there, and boy did you have some opinions. So, pour yourself a glass of the coping beverage of your choice - trust me, your sanity may need it- and let's have a look
at some truly abominable attempts at historical dress. First, however, I must disclaim that the following monstrosities
you are about to witness are not necessarily the fault
of the costume designer, and do not necessarily
signify incompetence. Having worked once upon a time in the costume design business myself, I'm fully aware that the costume design, particularly in the realm
of commercial entertainment, is under the influence
of, and at the mercy of, entirely unrelated departments, who often for some reason have final say over the designer's original intentions. Directors having "artistic visions", producers wanting "something more pretty", subject to the 21st century, leading actors refusing to wear certain shades or silhouettes, and then, of course, time
or budget constraints that prevent the production
of entirely hand sewn, completely 100% historically
accurate clothes to begin with. There is, of course,
also the inevitable truth that there is no such thing as
complete historical accuracy, so with all of that in mind, let us proceed with a bit
of humor and good fun. Our first offender, appearing
copiously among responses, was of course none other than
the infamous yellow dress from the live action remake
of "Beauty and the Beast." The subject of the
lacking 18th-century-ness in both the remake as well
as the original cartoon is one already quite frequently addressed, so I will simply state that there is pretty much nothing 18th century about this particular dress, except perhaps that maybe it is long, and if anything, vaguely 1850s? I guess? if we squint really hard? But that's not the point! Belle's dress in this moment, were it actually trying to
depict a scene from the 1740s as per the original tale, would've been worn over a large pannier, or set of structural
hoops that were very wide, and could be very, very wide
indeed, only at the sides. She would also, of course, be wearing the correct undergarments, and if I were the costume designer to whom Miss Watson allegedly
refused wearing a corset, I would've amiably and
wholeheartedly agreed, and then put her in a pair of stays. Stays are the precursor to
what would in the 19th century evolve into the corset, and the purpose of them,
unless you were so inclined to preposterously overexaggerated
extremities of fashion, which I doubt is a trait suitable to Belle's character to begin with, was basically to function as a bra, not to mangle your lungs. A pair of stays would have
smoothed and flattened the center front of that bodice, so it looks less like a babydoll
prom dress and more like, well, an 18th-century court gown fit to be worn in the presence
of... royalty, or something? She also would not have
worn her hair straight, or like that. Hair of this period was not
cleaned regularly with water, but by treating it with pomade and powder, giving it that pale, if not
white or gray appearance that we see so frequently
in portraiture of this time. We do, however, see a weird
abundance of yellow gowns surviving from the 18th century, but alas, these all tend to be made from much more substantial silks, brocades, taffetas, failles, and often featured detailed patterns woven into the fabric designs. No floofy chiffons and little
omelet layers, unfortunately. Another offender that popped
up frequently amongst responses was a TV series I hadn't
actually heard of, called "When Calls the Heart." I found it on Netflix and couldn't imagine why people were suggesting it. It seemed like a perfectly sweet, floofy little modern romcom, until I looked closer
and realized that THIS... is somehow supposed to be the year 1900. I hadn't even turned on
the film at this point, and already there's way too much to unpack in this promo image. Don't even know where to start. It would honestly just
be easier to point out the details here that
are historically correct. (music over a rather pregnant pause) Okay, well, the grass is green, they did definitely have
green grass in 1900. And faces, people did indeed have faces. But honestly, I cannot
find a single thing here that is actually
representative of the period, except this woman maybe looks as if she might be wearing a corset. Who knows? The turn of the 20th century
is a period characterized by a very particular defining
silhouette that is arguably one of the easiest historical
periods to reproduce. No bustles, no crinolines,
not panniers or farthingales, just a big of wizardry with
the dress padding and... Right, moving on, then. Hold your wits, "Outlander" trash fans, because yes, "Outlander" is next. The first few seasons are
off the hook for this video, though, because I have a
particular bone to pick with this last season
five, and by bone, I mean, WHERE ARE ALL THE BONES IN
SOME OF THESE BODICES??? Or at least stays?? Some sort of structure??? Anything???? So, a lot of the trouble with
18th-century period costume, and admittedly "Outlander"
isn't alone here - I'm looking at you too, "Poldark"- is that modern reproductions
tend to entirely miss the very specific and strategic ways in which these garments
were cut historically, which automatically robs the entire film of the easiest way to make the actors look as if they were literally
built in the 18th century. The sleeves are always set in a way that we're used to today. This looks it could've
come off a modern blazer. But sleeves in the 18th century were set supremely far into the back, pulling the shoulders back
slightly, opening up the chest, and giving the wearer an automatically more 18th-century posture, without just copping out on the excuse that "peOPlE WerE jUSt ShaPeD
DIfFerEnTLy bACk tHen." Claire's bodice in this picture also literally has curved princess seams, making this bodice look
supremely 19th-century. Like, I get she's a time traveler, but since when did she stop
off in the Victorian period to pick that up? I missed that season, but somebody let me know when it was, because I actually want
to go and watch that. Late 18th-century bodices
were most often constructed so that the only seams
in the entire bodice were the two at the side back and the one at the center back. This is possible to achieve
with no wrinkling or darts because the front panels curved such that the center front
seams ended up on the bias, allowing the fabric to stretch
slightly around the body. It's so subtle, but it's
such an important detail, the bodice stuff, yes, but
the sleeves most importantly. And it's not like this stuff is a deeply elusive historical secret, literally any of the original garments in "Patterns of Fashion"
will tell you this stuff. Our next offender is a classic within the genre of
poorly-researched costume dramas. Yes friends, it is time for "The Tudors," a subject of great costume
scrutiny throughout the years. Although, I have to admit
this isn't the worst attempt at historical costumes I've seen. "The Tudors" has fallen victim to the commonest of costume
woes, in that inevitably, vastly more historical effort
was put into the menswear than in the womenswear, because beach waves and
eyebrows and cleavage. That's right, friends, "The
Tudors" is in fact guilty of the single most blasphemous sin known to all of costume-dom, corsets on bare skin, without chemises. (montage of such horrific
crimes against historical dress) - [Man] No one likes corsets, do they? - Uh, my organs shifted. (beep) (error message tone) - Okay, that being said, this gown, despite literally everything else, is actually based off of
a very well-known gown seen in an actual Tudor
portrait dated to 1569. It literally comes up on the
first row of image results when you search for
"Elizabethan portraits," which I'll choose to
pretend doesn't reflect the level of research that
went into these clothes, but I appreciate the effort nevertheless. I tried, friends. I tried so hard, but it turns out, I would actually be disgracing myself as a devotee of dress history by not addressing the offense
to Our Lady Janet Arnold that was the recent 2019
adaptation of "Little Women." We won't talk about the
ill-fitting corsets, because at least she is,
clearly, wearing one, nor the fact that all this
bunching wouldn't be happening if the dress were padded
in the upper chest and round the shoulder, as historical originals were
to give that perfectly 1860s full, rounded shape across the chest. A complete and thorough
roasting of this one has already been done by Micarah Tewers, so I will keep this relatively
brief by saying that if they for some artistic reason determined not to put
our ladies in bonnets, or at least just caps, they could've at least slayed with some fierce 1860s hairstyles, but no! We are doing the beach waves
and timeless half-ponytail, because we actually want you
to keep in mind at all times that this isn't actually the 1860s, and we are very much, in
fact, in the year 2019. Or, I don't know, 2006, judging by the appearance
of a A LITERAL PAIR OF UGGS making a wholly unironic appearance, 140 years before their time. (sighs) Come on, we are almost done. So, next on our list is "Braveheart," telling the story of Scottish
patriot William Wallace, and thus wanting to take place
in the late 13th century. We have here an example
of a film in which the men are actually inaccurately clothed for the sake of modern aesthetic appeal. The thing is, the style
of kilt or belted plaid that is seen throughout the
film is highly documented, for the early 18th century, which is a small, negligible,
half a millennium late. The trouble is, there is no documentation for the belted plaid having
existed in the 13th century, but the earliest written
interpretable evidence appearing in the late 16th century, and the earliest visual
depictions not until the 17th. Aside from the obscurity
of any evidence whatsoever for late 13th century highland dress, the level of research that
would need to have been done to depict something vaguely accurate is understandably beyond what
the Hollywood costume industry is often willing to put up with, especially as I've broken my
post-millennium guidelines for this 1995 film, meaning that the research for this film would need to have been done before the era of easily
accessible Internet databases. With access to said online
databases in our year 2020, however, I have managed
to unearth a reference to a Norse saga dated to the year 1093 AD, in which is described
the return of King Magnus from travels to the western lands and subsequent adoption of the
dress he encountered there. Short tunics, bare legs, and
some sort of upper garment, but no mention of anything
resembling the plaid. Yes, okay, without further ado, our final subject is the
most highly requested, what has to be singly
the worst vague attempt at any sort of historical
dress all throughout time. Rather than distressing ourselves with the unanswerable curiosity as to where all these 16th-century ladies happened to find so many
Wish.com bridesmaids gowns in which to for some inexplicable reason spend their entire lives
lounging round the house in, I am throwing in the towel on this one. "Reign," ladies and gentlefolk, is entirely historically
accurate, because in reality, it takes place in the year 2013, they do in fact have access to Wish.com, and they are getting paid to lounge around in the whims of the 21st century. That, my friends, is in fact
complete historical accuracy. (peaceful music)
Surprisingly interesting.
Also surprising is it's literally a channel on historical dresses with a ton of views. Youtube is wild.
Where is she from? Her accent sometimes sounds American but then there's something more
I’ve never heard or seen her before! Super fascinating, thank you for sharing. These types of videos are exactly why I enjoying r/mealtimevideos
perfect meal video
Bernadette! I love her!
I really like her channel, I've learned so much from her videos.
Anyone have any recommendations for a similar channel but for men's clothes?
Interesting stuff!
But im not so suprised a lot of the film/tv garments aren't accurate. Historical accuracy probably would take away from the look they are going for. It would also sacrifice actress comfort I imagine as well.
So i appreciate her critiques....but I dont understand her suprise.
She’s the best! I love her! :D