Historical Costumer and Textile Conservator in training. Works primarily with 18th and 19th century but is interested in the entire scope of Western Historical dress.
Follow along for dress history discussions, preservation tips, and sewing adventures!
In addition to the horrific decision to let anyone wear this iconic dress, you do the math. Marilyn Monroe’s measurements were 36-22-36. Weighed 118 pounds. Height 5’5”. Kim Kardashian’s measurements are 38-27-42. Weighs 128. Height 5’3”.
The truth the muslin like fabric used to make the Chemise a la Reine was produced in India ,from a rare plant that no longer exists ,also the French Revolution with all the looting in hence saying this love the one on Stich in time beautiful copy
this was great. covered a huge amount of stuff that I knew was bullshit but wasn't sure about why or how it would actually work. thanks for all the insight.
Even i would not go to the museum to ask " hey can i wear Marie Antoinettes dress please?" No i would make my own replica and with my favourite colors and make it on my size.
I don't like the 1940's version but in the books epilogue we do get a run down of what happens to the various characters . One of which " lady Catherine, does eventually make peace with Lizzie and Darcy. So the 1940 version just goes with this small fact.
i am sorry but Lizzie Bennet Diaries is easily S Tier because the modern re-telling with the use of social media, the depth to Lydia's character a beautiful insight to Charlotte's choices in contrast to the Austen era.
I stopped watching after you trashed the 1980 series of P + P. I agree with you there is a lot of subjectivity here and clearly the way you and I assess film/romance/literature/drama etc is very different. Put it this way, you wouldn't be my go-to critic to help me decide whether to watch a movie or not. Thanks for the heads up! It's much appreciated!
Hi Margaret! The comment you made in one of your earlier videos about wanting to do something academic, but also wanting to use your hands, and loving clothing really resonated with me. I'm wondering if you would be able to help me understand what the difference is between being a Dress/Fashion Historian (I've seen both terms used), a Textile (dress) Conservator and an Archivist who works with historical garments. I finished High School last year, so I still have a long road of education ahead of me, but I'm trying to get an idea of what path I want to pursue. An interest in historical dress is something I've had since I was a child, but I'm torn between not wanting to solely go down the costume route for fear of not being able to do academic research, nor wanting to solely be in a research position where I am unable to interact with the items I am studying. Hopefully that makes sense.
I don't think that's the reason for those underarm pads based on two historians RU-vid videos: 1. Silk was made cheapy during that era and that is why it has a tendency to shatter. Metal was added to the silk to increase the weight. 2. Corsets of the era caused empty areas under the armpit area that required padding. Sources: Nicole Rudolph and Morgan Donner RU-vid channels
It’s not a Watteau pleat unless it’s from the late 19th century. It’s only confusing when you use it on a sack dress, the context is incorrect. We don’t know if you’re talking about a tea gown or a Georgian dress. That term is very specific to a time.
Just watched a video about the Darkha Muslin (hope I spelled that correctly). The muslin these gowns was made from had a thread count of 1200 per square inch. It was made from a now extinct cotton plant and had a 16-step process to make such fine fabric. I would also assume that the lifespan of this sort of fine fabric would be shorter than even the following versions of muslin, which were not as fine. You know how they say a whole dress could be pulled through a wedding ring, it was so fine. I also like the chemisette and lace cape theory - these gowns would have been cut up for those things, the bits of such fine, now unavailable fabric treasured!
P&P 1995 is more faithful to the book BUT P&P 2005 is just so beautiful in every way and became my favorite all time romance movie! My oldest daughter cried at the end, and I bought the book to learn more about the story. That says a lot about the power of the 2005 version.
I LOVED that part!!!! But I thought to to myself: here we clearly have someone is the costume department who knows about busks but we still have the tight lacing = social cage scene 😖
YES! I loved Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. It was so much fun. Also, I loved Mr. Collins in this - it's such a good time. Saw it in theaters when it came out.
We need to stop pushing this narrative in pop culture. Little do they know corsets and stays also help distribute tension on the waist from petticoats/crinolines/bustles/skirts being tied to the waist
Adaptation, not “adaption’. ‘Adaption is when something has been changed by its environment. Adaptation is changing or updating something to make it better or more functional in a different setting. Sorry, after five weeks of working on this, she should have run across the correct vocabulary.
Nicely done! I also liked the 1967 and 1980 versions. Both may not be masterpieces but they both have some very fine moments! I also liked Unleashing Mr. Darcy but I never thought of it as even remotely like the other versions. I am looking forward to watching your solid recommendations. Thanks a lot for that. I find that watching and rewatching these movies always makes me feel very good. You can find true love and although things are very tough, they will work out in the end. Happy, wonderful endings is probably Jane Austin’s great contribution. I also love the Jane Eyre movies. Why don’t you do a similar video on them?
let me say it nicely... all ego ego ego I now think the dress is worth nothing anymore... what was paid for it is 4.8 million... now that Kim has worn it it is no longer worth anything in my opinion... right because only Merilyn Monroe wore it, the dress was worth 4.8 million...no one should have worn this dress more than MERILYN MONROE! The buyer paid for that!!!!!has nothing to do with Kim's idea…. her greed her thoughts why she had to frolic around in the dress what Merilyn Monroe did best... all in all the magic of this dress is no longer magic to me! what a selfish person and ego to enrich their own wealth… in 3/4 minutes at the Met Gala…and the buyer even worse!!!! that he approved it.. no respect for Merilyn Monroe at all.. terribly stupid Merilyn Monroe always said that people like this exist; NO RESPECT... for what she actually wanted to be and wanted to radiate who she is and was!!
" Why not both ? " . because the 2005 version is hot garbage. it is objectively bad film . The actors speed read their lines , the editing leaves out scenes necessary to explain character reactions , Donald Sutherland is visibly phoning it in . I can only explain peoples affection for it by their being distracted by it's excellent cinematography .
Personally the “controversy” reminds me of the “glove box” in cars - most people use the glove box these days for insurance paperwork, clean wipes, etc. and I can’t be convinced that even when cars were first invented and open-air and it was more common than not to have driving gloves that the glove box was always just for gloves; other items went in them even when they were called “glove” boxes The parasol pocket seems the same-while I’m sure other items were put into parasol pockets the name came from somewhere and I still think that plenty of parasol pockets saw use with holding parasols (For what it’s worth most fashion plates I’ve seen showcase outfits either outside (when a parasol would most likely be used and in hand) and at home (where one wouldn’t have a parasol on them)-had we more fashion plates showcasing places where the parasol would have been pocketed, such as a shop, I wonder if we’d see more of them in fashion plates
Oh, 1980 miniseries is my favourite! I love all of the characters and their interactions, and the fact that the characters have their own set of clothes used throughout all the episodes! I would really reccomend it! I do not like the 2005 version so much, because I believe that it is hard to squeeze a whole book in one film. But I must admit that it is beautifully filmed, and I watched it over dozen times myself xD And I know that you focused on English adaptations, but I found and old Italian one on YT with eng subs, and I adore it! It is so cheerful and funny, I love it!
Yes, it's my favourite, too. The 2005 version has really, really good casting, but the script is too modernised for my taste. And it's just too short to do the story justice. The 1995 version I like, but some of the acting is a bit over the top and I am one of the few people in the world who hate Mr. Darcy's swim in the lake scene... LOL!!
1995 and Lost in Austen are my favorites, with 2005 being a close 3rd. If they would just slow the pacing, particularly the dialogue down by 5-10% in 2005, it would be fantastic.
My English teacher in high school brought her own VHS boxed set of the 1980 BBC Pride and Prejudice in to class for us to watch because it was "the only version accurate to the books" She had _very_ strong opinions about a lot of stuff. Kept an _ancient_ dictionary around because "it was the only one I've found that's accurate" and used it to "correct" word pronunciations she didn't like to archaic ones. Seriously, I think that dictionary dated back to the early 1900s. I'm sure a very worthwhile investment so she could make an appeal to authority that "buoy" should be pronounced like "boy" and not like "boo-ee" 😂
Il primo in assoluto e' quello del 1995, fedele al libro e perfetto in ogni particolare. In confronto tutti gli altri valgono poco, in particolare il film del 2005 che presenta protagonisti e personaggi poco incisivi e certamente lontani dal libro
