MovieChat Forums > Ship of Fools (1965) Discussion > The clothes etc. - my theory

The clothes etc. - my theory

posted 15 years ago by suaheli
17 replies | jump to latest

There have been a lot of complaints about the clothes and hairdos being not early Thirties which of course is true. One can assume though that the costume and make up designers knew what they were doing. I think Michael Dunn's character gives it away. In the beginning he says that the audience might find themselves on this ship (of fools), in the end he says "You wonder what does this have to do with me?". I believe that the contemporary look (60's) was a fantastic knack as the prejudices and evil found on this ship are just as alive today, in the 60's and any given time as they were in 1933. Had the look been Thirties you would have been much more distant, as in "that's history and done and over with".
Just my five cents.

[–] denise3551 15 years ago

i just wanted to tell you that i think your theory is right on target.

[–] suaheli 14 years ago

Thanks, Denise!

[–] thormn8 14 years ago

I would add that period films very often fudge the past not on purpose, but in order to avoid alienating the audience too much, especially with a modern story like this one. The grotty details of Thirties life would have been too much to take in 1965. Further, period films, by their nature, encourage us to draw the distance between yesterday and today closer. This is easier to do if we identify with the settings. My favorite example is The Godfather Part II. Though it takes place in the 50's, the hairstyles were straight out of the early 70s. Authentic looks in that film would make the film look too self-conscious and make it seem like dress-up rather than a representation of life.

Think of nearly all period films, such as Shakespeare in Love or Titanic whose sexual politics are very contemporary. It's difficult for us to pretend that prejudice was normal, making it impossible to face the story. The fudging of period details with modernity makes this palatable.

[–] skiddoo 14 years ago

This is all very interesting and perceptive. The problem then comes when a person from the future, such as today, watches the movie that was made more contemporary to appeal to that audience and finds it not only remote but also anachronistic. So what they gain with the original audience they lose for later audiences in terms of identifying with the characters' motivations. It's hard for a movie made that way to stand the test of time.

[–] nrangerseven 10 years ago

Exactly. I lost interest fairly quickly because nothing about the movie seemed to be about the 1930s. I'm amazed by how many people think that just because it's fiction it's ok to be anachronistic. No, it's not. It's jarring and the audience is less capable of immersing themselves in the film.

The people you idolize wouldn't like you.

[–] goleafsgo27 9 years ago

"Think of nearly all period films, such as Shakespeare in Love or Titanic whose sexual politics are very contemporary."
I beg to differ. Through the first 20 years of the 20th century, one of the huge issues in the US, Canada, the UK and elsewhere in Europe was whether to allow women to vote. There were nightmarish scenarios invented by opponents to scare the undecideds into opposing women's suffrage. When in 1933 David (I think) discusses "modern women" being different than their mothers, it is very true. After the issue was decided in the US in 1919, all through the 1920s there was much made of how women were changing. A bit later, during WWII, most of the Rosies who went a'riveting were the daughters who'd grown up taking the vote for granted. Sexual politics has been much discussed for many generations. Google Mary Wollstonecraft.
It's silly and trite, but what makes me cough is seeing zippers on dresses in movies set before, say, 1930, when they were not yet widely used, or even better, in the Old West, before they were even invented.

I have seen enough to know I have seen too much. -- ALOTO

[–] deborahwithanh 14 years ago

Thanks! Do you have documentation, costumers' interview notes or something else to base it on? Was it this director's trend? You may be right of course. But if we're going to talk in general theories, I think you are quite incorrect. It's more likely to be something like the influence of Jean-Louis (see credits), a tight budget, stars' egos (notice Signoret's shoes e.g. are more compliant), etc. Plus, your argument makes no sense because a few years later it wold be out of date again. If there's one thing I hate it's a true period piece of critical historical significance where the hair and costume and make up are all wrong. Although I'm the first to admit it's a personal preference thing and if you have proof to the contrary, let us know! It sounds like you made it up. Finally, given the director and era, do you really think they thought audiences were so "limited" to not see the universality of the themes if they were in 30's drag? Huh?

[–] d-letta-1 13 years ago

I think you're right on target. Imagine BONNIE AND CLYDE (made a few years later) in 1968 dress...or CHINATOWN, THE GREAT GATSBY or for that matter, would NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA be more relevent in modern-day dress? I think the costumers, hairdressers and makeup people wanted to show how on point they were relative to contemporary looks in those days to ever go backward. And the results were ridiculous. Think THE CARPETBAGGERS, TEA FOR TWO, SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER.
The stars, too probably had a big say as to how they would look, style-wise. The passing of time, as well as the refining of telling a story accurately has eliminated such foolishness.
In SHIP OF FOOLS, I found it interesting that Elizabeth Ashley was cutting edge 1965 where Vivien Leigh was fairly accurately 1934...they treated her like an old car...they were always period specific.

[–] cnicknz 12 years ago

One of the few films of the sixties that had the courage to dress and coif the women as they (and the men for that matter) would have looked in the period was They Shoot Horses Don't They?

[–] TopFlight 11 years ago

To me, this is ruined by the heavy eyeliner and false eyelashes on all the women. No one would have had that in 1933. Even when done today, it screams 1965. I'll be glad when this infatuation with the "Mad Men" era is over.

[–] Clemencedane 10 years ago

It took me a long time to figure out that we were supposed to believe this was the 30s rather than the 60s. In fact, I didn't know it until I read a description of the film. Then it made more sense. But at first I thought it was about racists and petty people being the dinosaurs of the swinging 60s.

[–] sad-989-416571 12 years ago

I agree with the OP's take on the clothes. I just wanted to add that back in 1965 studios weren't thinking about long term after-market. Back then the most current movie shown on TV were over 5 years old and there wasn't any kind of mass market resells. The clothes just had to fit in for the time the movie was originally shown.

How do we know for an absolute fact that hard work never killed anyone?

[–] BG43214 11 years ago

What all of you fail to realize is that NO movie accurately reflects the clothing, hairstyles, etc., worn during the 20th century era.

Probably due to the expense of having to recreate all the many period clothes.......

"I'll Cry Tomorrow' is a good example; made in 1955, it reflects the clothes, etc. of 1955, not the 1930's/40's when the story took place.

Just a sad fact of economics, I guess!!!!

Period films, of course, are different..generally those accurately reflect clothing worn at that particular time in history......

But contemporary eras? forget it.

I got the biggest laugh from "Bonnie & Clyde'....the REAL Bonnie Parker had the wherewithal and style sense to have here hair done like Faye's!!!! yeah, RIGHT.

So it's just something we have to live with, and try to imagine those in the movie wearing the kinds of clothing they should be wearing!!!!

[–] gripybutt 9 years ago

It's kind of like a movie that takes place in 1955... with a '59 Chevy in it. It ruins the movie for me. Totally.

[–] denis-38 11 years ago

Interesting theory! But I fear the truth is, until the late 60s early 1970s, designers deliberately created clothes (and hairstyles) that the audience of the time could relate to. Watching many of these films now, it does lessen the impact of the story.

Still, "Ship of Fools" contains two of the great females performances ever--Simone Signoret and Vivien Leigh. Their talent overrides their wardrobe.

[–] Zuider_Zee 10 years ago

I couldn't tell if the anachronistic clothing and hairstyles were the result of a concerted effort or the result of shoddy film making but the effect was jarring, sometimes laughably so.

[–] aafleming-19569 8 years ago

Just watched this movie again today after a long time and was amused by Elizabeth Ashley's perfect 1965 hairdo, and the 1965-ish nature of her relationship with her boyfriend. She certainly was beautiful, though.