Period dramas or historical or costume dramas, less often called heritage films – who doesn’t like them! Whether a tv series or a feature film, a good one gives you something to look forward to and offers a path to escape our hustled, modern lives for anything between 45 minutes to two hours. But what drives their growing popularity?
I am convinced that one of the main reasons why we love them is because they are visually exciting. All these interiors, costumes and props, so different from the objects we are surrounded with nowadays, evoke either a cry of desire when you watch opulent, palatial rooms or a sigh of relief when the action takes you to a humble hut, rat infested attics or gloomy dungeon. No, I don’t find it superficial. On the contrary, I think visual aspect is very educational and informative. It gives us a glimpse into lifestyles of the past, allows to place the story more accurately in historical context and to experience greater empathy towards its characters.
BEGINNINGS
Film is a relatively new form of visual art, newer even than photography. But even throughout its brief history, the attitude towards costume design has gone through different stages and it seems that a significant change is happening now. Or rather – I can see two different “schools” coexisting in the modern film industry. Skip silent movies and have a quick look at costume dramas in 30s. “Queen Christine”, for example, starring Greta Garbo (1933).
The costumes are beautifully designed but if you look at them carefully, you will notice that they have more in common with 1930s fashion rather than with 17th century court dresses. The collars, the fabrics, not to mention hairstyle and make up. Today Greta Garbo is not convincing as 17th century monarch. She looks more like a contemporary woman dressed up to go to a costume ball. Also Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara in an opening scenes of ”Gone with the Wind” is wearing a hairstyle typical for 1930s, but certainly not of anytime around American Civil War.
AFTER THE WWII
It is tempting to conclude that early Hollywood costume productions were for the most part historically inaccurate due to general ignorance of historical dress details, with more focus on making box office a success, for which old and new were mixed as producers pleased. Well, they were not alone. Post war French historical dramas present the same historical incoherence. “Fanfan la Tulipe” (1952), “Royal Affairs in Versailles” (1954) or “The Three Musketeers””(1953), they all show characters dressed in costumes vaguely related to the fashion of 17th or 18th century but showing far more in common with what was en vogue at the time when the film was made.
From contemporary perspective they look a bit like Disney’s characters. Believe me, Gypsies girls in 15th century certainly did not dress like Gina Lollobrigida as Esmeralda (top left), marabou feathers were not used to trim Marie Antoinette dresses, nobody was wearing sleeveless tops in mid 18th century in Europe and ladies’ hair in d’ Ártagnan days was made up very different from the one in the film scene although male costumes do bear some resemblance.
Was it a bad thing? Evidently nobody saw it as a problem, films were fun to watch and no one was bothered about costume details, nobody shouted: ” Gosh, I’ve never seen such laces in 1645 dress before!”. It is interesting, however, to learn how understanding and function of period costume changed overtime,
Or could it be perhaps that historical accuracy was taken lightly when the action taking place on the screen was set in a time long ago in which case historical resources for accurate reconstruction of clothes were unclear? Not exactly. “Where Eagles Dare” was filmed in 1968, only 23 years after WWII ended. It tells the story of brave men fighting against the nazis.
Yet, its hairstyle and make up are like a trademark of swinging sixties rather than the austere 40ties, although there were many people around at that time when the film was made who had lived through IIWW and recreating 1940s look should have been quite an easy task. So I don’t think there is any correlation between how authentically dressed the actors look and how far back in time you have to reach to follow the story.
BUT WHY, COULDN’T THEY SEE?
What I think is that for the first few decades of its existence, film industry continued to rely on theatrical techniques and principles. Unsurprisingly. After all, theatre was film’s closest relative. Both were to tell and show stories. However, it took film makers some time to work out their own tools of expression in terms of acting and visual set up. In theatre, no matter how technically sophisticated, there is just one stage, so when the action spreads through time and space, decorations and props must be used in a symbolic way. It is part of an agreement with the audience and a phenomenon of theatre – we imagine things. Forests, castles, sea waves, gardens or tavernas are collusive. If they are too realistic there is a danger they will look naive and kitsch. That is why so many plays, even classical ones, are often performed with very modest decorations, sometimes reduced to the sole spotlight. The rest needs to be imagined. Actors in the theatre are always watched from considerable distance, even by lucky viewers occupying the first few rows. And so costumes need to be clearly visible, colours saturated, gold and silver must shine, the use of small patterns or small elements is pointless since no one will be able to see them. Historical accuracy, if observed, is down to first impression created with cut, shape and colour, with no space for intricate details that may go unnoticed. As for stage make up – it is an absolute necessity. On stage actors use it not so much to beautify themselves but to make their faces distinguishable since strong lights and distance from the audience make everyone look pale and blurry. Lips without strong lipstick almost disappear, eyes without fake eyelashes and exaggerated eye brows seem small and expressionless. Faces without generous amounts of foundation and powder miserably shine.
All of this can be handled quite differently in film. Scenes can be recorded in any location in the world and the only limit is the film budget. Someone will arrange an appropriate location in post production and voila! No need for props and decorations. The scenery you see in film is very often real. Scenes on the sea side, in the forest, on the balcony or on the mountain top are shot in real places. Real is also furniture you see, old cars or carriages and all kind of accessories like candleholders, clocks, tea cups etc. These objects either belong to a private owner who kindly rents them to the film crew to make a nice extra profit, or they were hunted for in flee markets and antique shops by production managers and their assistants.
Actors can be filmed from very close up showing the tiniest facial movement and details of clothes they are wearing. There is no need for strong make up, considering the fact that people did not use make up in the olden days, except for 18th century. Everything looks more like “real life”, this is films’ biggest advantage and this is why film costumes began to differ from stage ones when film became more independent form of art and has shaken off its theatrical heritage.
THE DAWN
In 1974 BBC produced a tv series, “The Pallisers”, based on Anthony Trollope’s novel, featuring the lives of English aristocratic families in second half of 19th century. Costumes were better than ever before. Colours, details, hair does and hats were elaborately copied from Victorian era paintings. Moreover, the story spanned over 20 years and the changing silhouette of the Victorian era was lovingly presented with all its details and nuances.
Those costumes were so good that they reappeared, almost unchanged, in many other productions. According to www.recycledmoviecostume.com one dress worn by Lady Glencore was seen in “The Paradise”, “The Buccaneers”, “Onedin One” and was last seen in 2006 on Scarlett Johansson in “Prestige”.
Encouraged by the drama’s unquestionable success, two years later the BBC presented an even more ambitious project, the brilliant tv series “I, Claudius”, based on Robert Graves’s novel on life of 4th Roman Caesar, Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus in the 1st century. Fascinating stories of complex political fights in Rome were enhanced by costumes. Unlike the 1963 production of ”Antonius and Cleopatra”, where antique Romans were dressed in lots of glitter and synthetic fabrics and most clothes showed a lot in common with contemporayr, 1960s fashion, “I, Claudius” presented dress directly inspired with Pompeian frescoes. If polyester was used, it was discreetly hidden giving the appearance of wools and cottons. Ornaments and jewellery were more subtle, tasteful and true to their original prototypes.
Look at the photos on the right, the ones with Elisabeth Taylor. Don’t they look a bit like 2019 Disney’s Aladdin”? Nothing wrong with “Aladdin” itself but it is a kids’ film where the “once upon a time in a faraway land” convention is absolutely fine. “I, Claudius” on the contrary, (left) looks more like a serious, grown ups’ historical drama with action located in a specific time and place.
THE PAST MATTERS BUT IT HAD TO BE REDISCOVERED
Quality costume was here at last and an era of beautiful period film productions commenced. Of course, not all films made since then succeeded in reaching high level of historical accuracy but certain standards were set. I think there is also something else. These historically true costumes not only testified of extended research the dress designers had gone through, but also of certain tenderness, love and respect for the past. Since we are all here thanks to our ancestors, the past belongs to each one of us, so telling their stories tenderly and lovingly feels like the right thing to do. For all those with a yearning historical nostalgia looking at carefully recreated objects and scenes from the past seems to be the closest think to travelling in time.
So one factor behind why film industry started presenting stories through ”historically honest” costumes and settings was that its technical abilities were finally understood and employed. Secondly I think, connected is the fact that from about the mid 20th century, academic historians begun to recognise and include in their research the perspective and experience of common people. Michel Foucault (1926-84), Jaques Derrida (1930-2004) or Margaret Mead (1901-78) to name a few, all expressed criticism on how up until then it was political history that dominated the way we see and try to understand the past. New historical methodology was open to include contexts that have always existed outside the mainstream resources – social and economic perspectives, as well as the history of ideas and mentality. They called it “deconstruction” and this new tool was to help to rediscover the forgotten stories of those pushed aside or blurred with the passage of time, also known as “history from below”. In 1980 the American historian, Howard Zinn, published his best selling book “The People’s History of the United Sates”. It was not based on political, diplomatic or military records but rather on individual, human experiences searched for in history of material culture, as well as written documents traditionally employed in historical research. This is where the dots connect: attention to history of private lives translated into care for visual, historically accurate details on the screen. It was like looking at these stories with a magnifying glass, where small elements became significant.
All that coincides with the appearance of the New Romantic movement, a pop culture trend born in the UK in late 1970s. New Romantic fashion style was glam and a bit eccentric but clearly related with the early Romantic period of the late 18th and early 19th century fashion, happily using velvets, laces, fake jewellery or feathers. It is not surprising that in 1981 Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren presented their first catwalk show – The Pirat Collection (below), full of nostalgia for the past. New Romantic was out of fashion in two or three seasons but it was important and left a meaningful message: “Discovering History can be fun”, “The past matters”. Enough to say that one of the outfits of the collection is possessed and proudly presented by the V&A Museum (the one on the left).
Vivienne Westwood remained faithful to this historical aesthetic and “nostalgic” is probably the word that most accurately describes a few more of her later fashion collections.
The next three decades were not short of classy costume productions both for big and small screen. 1985 – “A Room with a View”, 1986 – “Out of Africa”, 1988 – “Dangerous Liaisons”. I am deliberately referring to internationally acclaimed hits as those are most likely to have a place in our shared memory, easy to visualize, to discuss or to watch again. I am sure however that the same priorities were applied to smaller, national productions viewed by a smaller audience. It can be argued that the majority of period dramas show lives of privileged members of society. However, this is not always the case, and with time, more and more scenarios made room to show the perspective of servants or traders, for example in “The Girl with a Pearl Earring” (2003), “Downton Abbey” (2010-2015) or “Tulip Fever” (2017).
The list is very long and it is not my intention to name all of the titles but let me just mention a few – Jane Austin’s novels, “Pride and Prejudice” and “Sense and Sensibility” (1995), “Mrs Brown” 1997, “The Dutchess” 2008, “Royal Affair” 2012, “Downton Abbey” 2010-15, “Belgravia” 2020 (it would be almost perfect if not for rather contemporary make up) and, yes – “The Crown” 2016-2020.
“BETRAYAL”
A few years back something began to change again. Quite a few high profile costume productions, some based on classical literature, presented costumes that were only a loose interpretation of period styles. They were simplified in cut and ornaments and “updated”, meaning the effort was put into making them resemble to the clothes we wear today. As a result the silhouette remained more or less as it historically was, but fabrics, decorative details, hair styles and make up were mixed and matched with contemporary fashions of early 21st century.
WARNING: Embargoed for publication until 00:00:01 on 11/12/2018 – Programme Name: Les Miserables – TX: n/a – Episode: Les Miserables episode 1 (No. 1) – Picture Shows: **EMBARGOED FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL 00:01 HRS ON TUESDAY 11TH DECEMBER 2018** Zephine (AYOOLA SMART), Fantine (LILY COLLINS), Favorite (CHARLOTTE DYLAN) – (C) BBC – Photographer: Robert Viglasky
I think I noticed it for the first time watching “Anna Karenina” (2012), the one with Keira Knightley and Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Lack of literality in costumes was justified of it being a theatrical play conveyed to the big screen. A bit of an unusual approach but classical literature can always be reinterpreted so it was still aesthetically coherent.
“War and Peace” (BBC 2016) was the next one. Warmly received by viewers and critics, it had one fault for me – its costume update. I know I might came off as rather orthodox here but Tolstoy’s novel is precisely allocated in time and place – namely, early 19th century Russia, during French-Russian war.
Then there came “Les Miserables” (2019), “Enola Holmes” (2020) and the brightest and latest of these examples – “Bridgerton” where ladies’ costumes are very picturesque but apart from raised waistlines bear little resemblance to Regency fashion. And group shots remind me of Dolce&Gabbana advert photos more than of anything else.
So why do costume designers do that? Why do they drift away from historically accurate fashion of the past and replace it with updated hybrids? It is certainly not lack of knowledge on their side but a sober choice they make. Well, they probably want to make the characters look more contemporary so that we can find it easier to identify with them, to attract younger audience for whom “period drama” might be otherwise a synonym with something utterly boring. Generally it is to appeal to modern viewers and the aesthetics they live with to make the story more appealing for them.
I am not saying that all these films and tv series are bad just because their costumes are not historically accurate. But I feel I want to take the liberty of having this blog to say that I do not agree with the concept of reinterpreting history, even if it is just history of fashion to make it more acceptable and palatable to the public. Popular tastes are being satisfied in so many other areas of life that I really expect period dramas to retain an educational quality.
True, there were fashions in the past that we would not find attractive today but there is something priceless in having a chance to learn, while watching a film, that beauty used to look different to people who were here before us? To learn about the reality they lived, the clothes they wore, the houses they inhabited and objects they valued. Would it ever cross your mind to photoshop Rubens’ nude models to alter their voluptuous shapes in order to comply with slimmer silhouettes of today’s beauty standards? Just in case that they may put somebody off going to the art museum? “Old” does not need to mean “useless” or “out of date”. To me it also means “precious and fragile”, something that needs to be cared for. It helps us to UNDERSTAND these people a bit better and accepting the fact that they were not quite like ourselves, shaped by entirely different circumstances is the first step on this path.
And besides, is it really worthwhile to watch a story that may have or has taken place dozens or hundreds years ago and see people “just like us”, rather than confront something you are not familiar with? In the same way, we travel to remote places and meet local people who are different from us to widen our horizons? I do not agree with this uniformization of taste and conviction that our vision of beauty is better than the one of people in the past.
I am aware that a lot of you may disagree with me and my conservative costume views but I hope there will still be films made for audience of both preferences. On that note, I plan to rewatch “Tulip Fever” again to travel back to the Golden Age Amsterdam or I might choose first season of “The Crown” to remind myself what our world was like when my Mom was young…..
