Does Hollywood ever get it right?

[Kimberly Scott]

Reviving this topic somewhat.  I started watching the "Hatfields & McCoys" recorded from the History Channel.  The story started during the (American) Civil War; the women's outfits made me just cringe.   (really? 5 minutes & Google - actually this message board - and the costumer would have a much better idea on the outlines)

at least the story is pretty good.

[Ms. Jean]

Reviving this topic somewhat.  I started watching the "Hatfields & McCoys" recorded from the History Channel.  The story started during the (American) Civil War; the women's outfits made me just cringe.   (really? 5 minutes & Google - actually this message board - and the costumer would have a much better idea on the outlines)

You made me think of an old joke:

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change.



Beyond sad that The History Channel does not accept responsibility for educating viewers.

I suggest an Academy email campaign.  The vendor of those shoes noticed us acting together a few weeks ago!



Jean
Route 66

[Heidi Hollister]

Good idea jean.  I'm on it.  They DO carry a responsibility to accuracy just by their claim to be the HISTORY channel and not the scifi channel.

[maureenditchman]

Good idea jean.  I'm on it.  They DO carry a responsibility to accuracy just by their claim to be the HISTORY channel and not the scifi channel.

I agree.....let us know what and how you decide to procede.....and how we can help you...

[E L Watkins-Morris]

In defense of H&M movie: in an interview with a descendant she indicated that she was pleased with the portrayal of her family story. 

Because of the H&M status within American mythology, accuracy of the story should (and did) take precedent over costuming.

Personally I was disappointed in the costuming because:
-the timeline of fashion did not match the 50-60 years portrayed
-it purports the idea that "poor" mountain folk did not follow or understand fashion.

If you go back and look at the family photos available online (mostly 1890's vintage) you see that while not uber-fashionable, the women were in fashion (to include corsets in photos taken in not so formal settings).  There is evidence within the film that these photos were a resource at least intially referred to.  I will guess that budget restraints were the real catalyst for some of the  costume limitations.

The costume designer did succeed in describing familial differences in the clothing of the wives.  Mrs. McCoy was extremely conservative in her clothing. Everything about her and her family is very neat and clean while Mrs. Hatfield wore slightly more exuberant patterns/color and had an obvious style but she nor the house/family were a standard of neatness. In that case, the costuming purpose was relevant if not historically accurate.

My favorite costuming scene is the prostitute flouncing down the stairs of the saloon in her corset type bodice and some kind of petticoat/drawers thing with an apron style overskirt on backwards.

Did anyone pay much attention to how the homes were staged? I'm a novice at identifying everyday objects and would have no idea how, say, the kitchen should look.

Liz W.

[Maggie Koenig]

I just found out through a friend who works as a movie extra in New Orleans that "12 Years a slave" is being made into a movie.  I went to school with her for costuming so I'm working on getting details from her about what the productions standards are.  I did find out that the chickens are on little invisible leashes to keep them where they are supposed to be!

[Heidi Hollister]

I wrote a letter to the History channel telling them how much I love the idea of an entire channel devoted to history and education, but also that as a historic interpreter, I hold those in authority to high standards and the way that I present myself at my museum reflects on my credibilty, and this would include costuming.  When I see an educational program which has not done the research to portray an era's clothes correctly, it damages my faith in the accuracy of anything the program has to say.  I suggested that they pay closer attention to those details.  So get letter writing!

[CL Preston]

I agree wholeheartedly that I want to see more period-correct looks in movies/TV. But it's really going to be an uphill battle, even when the production designer is on board with us. This isn't about the Hatfields movie, necessarily (I haven't seen it yet) but more generally.

A big part of the problem is going to be the actors themselves. If the hairstyle or the clothing is unflattering, they won't wear it (whether they make the decision or their manager or stylist makes it for them). And let's face it, parting your hair down the middle and smoothing it back is not a universally flattering look. Sure, there are some actors willing to get "ugly", but few enough that they make news when they do. And since this is less about "ugly" than it is about "unflattering", you'll find actors are often just not willing to take that risk. Of course, I am talking about the main talent - the background players have little say in this. I have noticed this in movies before, where the people walking by in the background look great but the main actor is off.

Then when the cinematographer/director of photography is involved, they are going to change things based on what will give them the look they are going for. Should colors pop or are they going for an overall drab look, does a particular fabric look good in the lighting, etc.

Hats get tipped back and collars turned down so that the actor's face can be clearly seen. Sleeves and cuffs get changed so that they aren't distracting when an actor gestures (unless they want it to be). Other adjustments get made so that you can see a particular body part in a particular position. Uniform colors are simplified so that it is clear who is who, unless they are dramatizing early war confusion.

And the rest is the viewing public. We grew up with Gone with the Wind and Hollywood westerns and Little House on the Prairie, and we "know" what old-fashioned clothing looks like. And what old-fashioned people ate, and said, and did ... so any director who wants a career is going to give us what we "know", or the viewing public is going to feel uncomfortable with the end product. Which is why it still makes sense to write to the History Channel, because they should be doing it right and helping the viewers train their eyes to see these in appropriate ways so eventually we expect to see stuff that's correct on the screen. I just don't know if they'll ever be willing or able to get it as right as we want it.

This is a problem in most genre movies. My firefighters used to sit around the station on slow nights and watch Backdraft and laugh at it. They loved the movie but the open coats and unbuckled helmets and non-use of safety gear drove them to distraction. But if Kurt Russell had been wearing his mask, you couldn't see his face, so they had him charging into smoke-filled rooms without any oxygen so you could see the tender look on his face when he rescued the child from the fire. During a training exercise, I witnessed an accident involving a firefighter who hadn't buckled his helmet down and had it tipped back, so it's not just a little faux-pas either. And don't get me started on depictions of CPR ...

[Liana W.]

Not really Hollywood, but I wasn't sure my kvetching really merits its own thread.   

Husband and I went to see a local production of "The King and I" Saturday night. Not sure if it would be classified as amateur or semi-pro.

The costumes (barring several wigs and one terrible orange fake tan) for the "Siamese" members of the cast were gorgeous. I suspect some of the clothing was incorrect in terms of period and style, but it appeared to be worn more or less correctly.

Anna's costuming, however...

The first scene hadn't even finished and I pointed out to my husband that she had her crinoline on backwards. It appeared to be elliptical, and she had the bulge out front. With insufficient petticoats, of course. And the trim on the bottom quarter of the skirt was not an even distance from the hem, it wandered around up and down (looked like somebody eyeballed placement, not a problem of slippery layers while sewing). And speaking of the hem, it was dragging in back and too short in front, probably because the crinoline was backwards. But inexplicably, it was long on the right side.

By the second or third scene/second dress, I really really wanted to go backstage and FIX ANNA. My husband teased me that if I wasn't careful I was going to get drafted for the costume department.

The second dress that Anna wore also had length issues on the right side. But not the dress for the ball scene, or the last dress she wore. Crinolines #2 and #3 still had ISSUES, and still no/insufficient petticoats.

And somebody needed to teach her to walk in hoops. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a woman be walk on level ground without pulling the front of her skirt up to her knees?!?  AAARGH!  DH suspects she tripped at some point in rehearsals, and reversed the crinoline to try to prevent it, along with hiking up every time she moved.

Now, the really painful bit is that I'm still really uneducated in 1860's styles, and I'm willing to forgive a lot in this kind of theatrical production - I suspect her ball gown wasn't from the right era, and there were probably similar style issues with the other costumes. Pretty sure from bodice fitting issues she wasn't wearing a corset, oh well. Zipper up the back of one of her dresses? Pfft - call it necessary for a quick costume change. Colors and fabric choices (ie: solid cotton) may have been poor, but they don't bother me. Yadda yadda yadda - this was Rogers and Hammerstein, not history.

But by heaven's sake, can we at least hope for a right-side around crinoline, one decent flounced petticoat so I can't count the hoops, and a hem that didn't look like rick-rack?

Thank you for listening to this rant.