Why change the period from Regency to Victorian??? I found that to be the most distasteful aspect of the film (other than the fact that the story is severely condensed).
What can I say? Maybe I'm too loyal to the novel and ofcourse the best screen adaptation which starred Jennifer Ehle adn Colin Firth.
"I'm no Trilby!!!!"- Lily Garland in "Twentieth Century"
Yeah right, all the fangirls say the same thing, this issue is like a broken record, you need to come up with something new to denigrate this excellent movie.
The dresses are gorgeous, I wish they would colorize P and P, and I'm normally against the colorization of the classics, this is the only movie besides Marie Antoinette (1938) that I would advocate the colorization of.
I don't like the costumes, but that has nothing to do with my love of the source novel. I'm afraid I just don't care for that style of clothing.
The people have appointed me. I am their leader. I must follow them.share
i prefer victorian costumes to regency or georgians . so im glad they changed the time !
shareI wish they would colorize P and P
I had a hard time seeing the gowns and hats, etc. Although, I am sure it wouldn't have bothered me if I didn't know that is not what was in fashion. LOL Maybe, I have seen one too many P and P's for my own good.
It took me a bit to get past all the hoops and sleeves, but the actors eventually pulled me into their story. It's hard to really mess up such a timeless piece.
...and she has never been the same again.
They changed the costumes to go with the change of the tenor of the piece. The more frilly, frivolous clothing was perfectly in line with the more superficial, frivolous interpretation of the work - which is not to say that I didn't adore the movie; I can just tell the wide difference between the 2.
I also insist that the best version was the 1980 BBC miniseries w/Elizabeth Garvie & David Rintoul: they are the definitive Bennet & Darcy.
Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it.
i thought the costumes were kinda poofy, and they wore big bows on their heads. they looked a little silly to me. i still liked it though.
i personally don't think any of the adaptations ('40, '80, '95, '05) have perfectly fit the novel. either that, or they're just not what i picture when I read it. but that's no big surprise considering the people who made these adaptations aren't in austen's or my head. there are parts of most of the adaptations that i don't find fit well with the novel, and many things that do.
I'll be honest that I had no idea these costumes were inaccurate for the time period P&P is supposed to be set in, so maybe that's why I didn't think of them as "absurd." Apparently it was part of an attempt on MGM's part to save the studio money (and recycle old costumes from the designer's previous work on GWTW).
~I am not afraid of storms, for I am learning how to sail my ship~ LMA
The costumes are not recycled. That's an "urban legend."
shareIt is rather annoying to start with, but you soon get used to it. At least it was consistent.
And would you consider pride a fault or a virtue?
I bet it's not. Short cuts get taken a lot, mainly due to budgets. I've worked on shoots were the costumes often have the character names from the last shoot written on them.
shareShort cuts get taken a lot, mainly due to budgets. I've worked on shoots were the costumes often have the character names from the last shoot written on them.
Is it apocryphal (urban legend) or not? According to the TCM website:
Although Austen's novel was set in Regency England (late 18th-early 19th century), the period was set at a later time. This anachronism has been explained in a couple of ways. Those more favorably disposed to the studio system claim the styles of the Regency Period (when women's dresses resembled nightgowns) were thought too plain for public taste, so new gowns were created in the voluminous Victorian style of the 1830s to give it a more romantic flair. Others have pointed out that because MGM wasn't willing to put a huge budget behind the risky venture, costumes left over from Gone with the Wind (1939) were altered slightly and placed on background players to save money. New gowns in the same flouncy style were designed for the female leads.
It's easily proven false by the fact that MGM did not film Gone With The Wind, it was independently made by David Selznick and they only released the movie, hence the costumes used in GWTW were not owned by MGM. TCM is simply using some inaccurate film book (and there are hundreds of those) and didn't bother to confirm it elsewhere. The idea that this P&P didn't have a "huge budget" is ridiculous; it's clearly one of the most lavish, expensive films MGM released in 1940. And the movie was filmed in 1939 - likely on the same days GWTW was (both movies were naturally released in 1940 at about the same time although GWTW "premiered" in Atlanta in 1939.)
shareYou beat me to it.
The costumes aren't similar at all. P&P takes place in the 1830s. GWTW takes place in the 1860s. That's a 30-year difference. Just because all the dresses are long and wide doesn't make them the same.
1830s:http://www.maggiemayfashions.com/romantic.html
1860s: https://www.uvm.edu/landscape/dating/clothing_and_hair/1860s_clothing_women.php
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
The designer did not work on GWTW. The films had different, separate costume designers.
shareOh, I see that now. Very careless of me not to double check.
All the same, I don't feel like inaccurate dresses should ruin the movie for some people. It's a poor excuse.
~I am not afraid of storms, for I am learning how to sail my ship~ LMA
Since the costumes from GONE WITH THE WIND were designed by WALTER PLUNKETT, and the costumes for PRIDE AND PREJUDICE were designed by ADRIAN, I rather doubt it. (g) Adrian designed for the Crème de la Crème of MGM Ladies in 1940,and that included Greer Garson. Louis B. Mayer Idolised Greer, and if there had been even a whiff about "recycling", there would have been "H" to pay!
"I do hope he won't upset Henry.."
That is an urban legend. Completely untrue.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
Actually, the only thing really wrong with this film is the costuming. It's early Victorian (think Dickens) instead of Regency England. I would conjecture that the reason for the switch was because the styles of Regency England were a lot plainer-looking (especially for women) than the styles of some 20-30 years later.
shareI had the pleasure of meeting Marsha Hunt (Mary Bennett) this past weekend in Baltimore. When I mentioned the still-hot controversy of switching the ladies costumes from 1800 to 1830, she surprised me somewhat by saying the impetus to make that change was not from the designer Adrian (as is commonly assumed) but rather from Greer Garson. Adrian's initial designs were in fact in the Regency style but Garson wielded her star power to nix them based on fears they would not flatter her. Personally, I prefer the fashions used in the film but then again I'm not an Austen purist. Marsha Hunt, btw, is turning 93 but she is still vital and appears years younger--just a delightful person.
shareWell, another member of the cast has also stated (in video clips, no less) that the costumes were done in that style because Vivien Leigh was supposed to play Elizabeth and they wanted to play off the success of gwtw. Take that one with a grain of salt because P&P was already being shot by the time GWTW came out. (And the costumes would have been in production long before that.)
shareI agree. I just saw this version for the first time. Considering the author of Pride And Prejudice died in the early 19th century and the costuming was from the mid 19th century it was all off. I kept waiting for Scarlett O'Hara to emerge. Absolutely ridiculous.
shareNot really. Shakespeare wrote plays about ancient Rome, and the actors wore clothing that was contemporary to the time the play was written. I saw a Shakespeare adaptation that took place in the late 1900s, a couple of hundred years after Shakespeare died.
It happens all the time.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
I kept waiting for Scarlett O'Hara to emerge.
Then you would have waited a long time (approx. 30 years). The costumes in this version reflect fashions of the 1830s.
The movie is on at 8 p.m. Eastern on AMC!
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
The problem was too much costume and not enough woman. Regency is so delicate and sweet and totally Jane Austen!
shareJust to correct these costumes are from an era designated as the Romantic period, a rebellion of the severe, simple lines of the Directoire and Empire (which is correct for Austen). Their silliness here sets the tone (and I think it's the wrong tone for Austen). An example of another film set in this period is the original "Dr. Doolittle." "Gone with the Wind" was set in from 1860-90 which was the Victorian era in fashion design.
The costumes look so ridiculous to us because we don't often get to see examples of them on film. In this case, they're magnificently reconstructed, but also reveal why designers steer away from this particular era (it's hard to see the actresses buried under layers of ribbon and over-sized bonnets.