MovieChat Forums > Shakespeare in Love (1999) Discussion > Common Mistakes Made In 16th Century Fil...

Common Mistakes Made In 16th Century Films List


Most of this movie is half and half for me. It does sort of get a pass because it was historical fiction, but it was inspired by the life of a very famous Englishman and his work in London. Plus, they did get some things right, but a lot of it was done wrong too. I learned this from visiting a historical costuming website that talks about this very thing. If you watch a lot of historical films, both fiction and non-fiction, you'll find there are a lot of mistakes that film-makers do, whether deliberately or out of ignorance, or just to try and make the people in the story more relatable (and failing in the process). I'll list them here:

Open Doublet - check

Optional Codpieces - check

Boots! Nothing but boots! - I think some of the men (and even Viola) wore actual 16th century shoes, but there were a lot of leather, knee-high boots in the film.

Long, flowing hair on the women - mostly averted, but there are a few scenes where Viola wore her hair long in an inappropriate for the situation, like when a man was visiting her at her home. She gets away with it during the "Romeo and Juliet" play because she was wearing a costume in a make-believe situation.

Casting people who don't look the part - My only complaint was that Gwyneth Paltrow didn't really look like an Elizabethan woman. Sure, she's a great actress, was a blond in the story, and had fair skin, but frankly, she was much too tall to look like an actual Elizabethan woman. (And don't try excusing that with Scottish or Danish women from that time, they don't count).

Unshaven guys meant to look hot - the assessment here is half and half. On the one hand, Elizabethan men did wear beards, but they were usually neatly trimmed, even the long beards. Sadly, a lot of the men in the Globe Theater looked just plain like slobs who were too lazy to pick up a razor, particularly Will himself.

Floating Ruff - how about no ruff at all, or wearing tiny, high-neck ruffs that would have been out-of-date by 40 years in some scenes.

People acting way too modern - check

If you have any more, please let me know.

reply

People speaking modern English with a few old-fashioned things thrown in? Check!

Sex without birth control and no mention of the inevitability of pregnancy? Check!

Leading lady having bleached blonde hair, a tan, being too skinny for 16th century tastes, and having makeup on? Check! Although that one is inevitable in modern film.

As for the unshaven look, did men who declined to grow beards shave themselves in those days? Not every man in the portraits of the era had beards, and I had thought that those who shaved were either shaved by their manservants, or went to barbers. And since not everyone could afford a full-time manservant or daily barber visits, an unshaven face would have been common enough in real 16th century London.

reply