MovieChat Forums > Vanity Fair (1999) Discussion > costume and make-up differences between ...

costume and make-up differences between '98 and '04?

posted 17 years ago by simone-mac
35 replies | jump to latest

I was just wondering what everyones thoughts are on the different uses of costume and make-up for '98 and '04 versions.

Do u feel that the use of more modern materials in '04 worked? or do u think that Pasztor (costume designer) did not go far enough down that quirky road she seemed to be heading towards, was there enough continuity in the costumes for time period ect

was the '98 version just playing safe with authenticity?

thoughts please...

[–] salt_n_shake 17 years ago

I don't think the costumes in the 04 version worked at all. If it was intended to look like a play it certainly pulled that off, but they were just too over the top. The 98 version's costumes were much more subtle and so were the colours. I think it looked much more realistic and I found the story more believeable because of it. This whole version was truer to the book and I think that the costumes were just another part of that.

I do admit that sometimes quirky costumes do work and it's good to have a bit of variety because if it had been exactly the same we probably would have all been slightly dissappointed. I just don't think that it worked in this case. The make-up too was very obvious but not so much as the costumes. The hair was the same.

What are your own thoughts simone-mac?

Cecil, you didn't blow your trumpet!

[–] Liza-19 17 years ago

I thought they just tried too hard with the '04 version. I prefer the '98 version, but here's my main gripe:

In the book, Thackeray clearly states how he wants the reader to think of his characters dressed. He wanted them in dresses more like the time he was writing than when they were set. I can understand why costumers are hesitant to do historically inaccurate clothes, but I wish one version would do it. The guy wrote the book, we should give him some say, don't you think?

I don't care about money. I just want to be wonderful. - Marilyn Monroe

[–] randommovies2002 17 years ago

He wanted them in dresses more like the time he was writing than when they were set. I can understand why costumers are hesitant to do historically inaccurate clothes, but I wish one version would do it. The guy wrote the book, we should give him some say, don't you think?

But I really cannot picture the women watching their husbands go off to the Battle of Waterloo dressed in hoop skirts with their hair piled into a huge chignon!

I think history has probably looked a little more kindly on the empire waistline than Mr. Thackeray did, but then, we also have the benefit of a broader historical perspective than he had, and a more culturally sensitive one, at that. Have you ever seen his sketches of Miss Swartz from chapter XXI?

http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/thackeray/21.1.html

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_19c/thackeray/c h16-34_files/frame.htm (Slide 8)

[–] Liza-19 17 years ago

Yes, I have to admit you have a point with his depictions of Africans. But there is a way that costume designers could bend what was historically accurate and still make the dresses closer to what Thackery had in mind. When they made "Emma" with Gwyneth Paltrow the costumes were not that accurate, they were more modern in style than what Jane Austen ever would have envisioned - but they definately worked and were beautiful.

It would be a little bit of nonsense to have hoopskirts at the time of Waterloo, yes, but that's one of the points of the book. It is all a little ridiculous. His characters were supposed to be like puppets in a play, so he dressed them a little out of the ordinary. In a film, I'm not sure I'd go all Gone-With-the-Wind on the dresses, but maybe a pinched waist and a rounder cut at the bottom would be more in the right direction. Just my two cents

I don't care about money. I just want to be wonderful. - Marilyn Monroe

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

Liza-19 wrote: <<Yes, I have to admit you have a point with his depictions of Africans.>>

Miss Swarz was not African. Her father was a German Jew and her mother was, possibly from Fiji. Here's the quote: "Why, surely it must be Miss Swartz, the parlour boarder," Emmy said, remembering that good-natured young mulatto girl, who had been so hysterically affected when Amelia left Miss Pinkerton's academy "The very name," George said. "Her father was a German Jew--a slave-owner they say--connected with the Cannibal Islands in some way or other."

The Cannibal Islands are Fiji. Her mother may have been of African descent -- or Fiji -- who knows?

I would like to say that although Miss Swarz is none too bright and very silly -- she is NICE. That's a rare commodity in Vanity Fair.

Liza-19 wrote: <<But there is a way that costume designers could bend what was historically accurate and still make the dresses closer to what Thackery had in mind. When they made "Emma" with Gwyneth Paltrow the costumes were not that accurate, they were more modern in style than what Jane Austen ever would have envisioned - but they definately worked and were beautiful.>>

I hate the Gwyneth Paltrow Emma, but I seem to remember that the costumes were absolutely appropriate, accurate Regency costumes.

Liza-19 wrote: <<It would be a little bit of nonsense to have hoopskirts at the time of Waterloo, yes, but that's one of the points of the book. It is all a little ridiculous. His characters were supposed to be like puppets in a play, so he dressed them a little out of the ordinary. In a film, I'm not sure I'd go all Gone-With-the-Wind on the dresses, but maybe a pinched waist and a rounder cut at the bottom would be more in the right direction. Just my two cents>>

I think Thackeray's illustrations reflected what people were wearing during the time period when the book was published, not set. This is very common. Look at movies about, say, the Old West that were made in the 1950s. Marilyn Monroe runs around in blue jeans in River of No Return. Women did not dress that way during the period in which the film is SET, but they did during the time the film was made.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

<<They do have the regency "look" with the empire waistlines, but they're actually not historically accurate, they're more a stylized take on regency fashion, to appeal to modern tastes. For instance, cutting on the bias wasn't even in practice until decades later, but used in the film to be more flattering to the actresses' forms. Additionally, there should be much more fabric to the skirt gathered into the high waist. But the costume designer felt it was more flattering to cut back on the fabric and gathering. >>

Thank you for the info! I appreciate it. Can you point to any Regency era films where you feel the costuming was particularly accurate?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

randommovies 2002, I am overwhelmed by your kindness. What a wealth of information you have given me. Thank you so much!

randommovies 2002 wrote: <<There are a couple of really good clothing websites that discussed this sort of thing years ago. IIRC, Sense and Sensibility (1995) frequently came up as having the most accurate costumes, historically speaking, and Emma (Paltrow) and mansfield Park (1999) were the least accurate. Also, I think I read somewhere that some very early BBC productions used/owned a few garments that actually dated from the period--but I read this ages ago and I can't recall any details other than what I've just stated.

I think there are a few little tidbits of information about adjusting fashions for modern tastes found in the various magazine and newspaper articles archived on the Cosprop website in the SHOWCASE section:
http://www.cosprop.co.uk/showcase.html

I think (can't recall exactly) the costume designers for P&P 1995 and Emma (Beckinsale) 1996 commented about their research and the changes they made to the fashions (to appeal to modern tastes) in the published "making of" books for those programs. I think there's some info in the Mansfield park (1999) script book as well.

I've also read that the stamped fabrics (prints) for the gowns in P&P 1995 were custom made following designs on period gowns and swatches of fabric found in museums.

I might have read coments about the particular styles in some regency films in the captions of the screencaps posted on this website. Regardless, it's a great exhibit of the costumes from these films.
http://www.janeausten.info/

Additionally, I think (can't be sure) I've read comments on this subject from Andrea Galer or perhaps Jenny Beavan, who have both done multiple projects set during this period. Perhasp this information came from their websites? Like I said, I researched it so long ago I can't recall everything I read.

It's interesting to note that most of the regency programs currently available on DVD re-use costumes from earlier productions. You can see many examples exhibited here:
http://www.costumersguide.com/reused_regency.shtml

You can find more reused costumes listed on the trivia sections here at IMDb for programs such as P&P95, P&P 2005, P&P 1980, Mansfield Park 2007, Persuasion 2007, Persuasion 1995, Becoming Jane, Mansfield Park 1999, Emma 1996 (Beckinsale), Emma 1996 (Paltrow), Vanity Fair (1998), S&S 1995, S&S 2008, S&S 1971, Little Dorrit (2008), and various other programs set in the regency.

Note that the various projects listed above are set in different years (e.g. P&P 2005 is set in 1797, S&S 1995 is set in 1800, P&P 1995 is set in 1812, Becoming Jane is set in the mid 1790s [can't recall exactly], Little Dorrit is set in 1826, etc.), and some of these costumes appear in multiple projects that are set in different years. So I think that in many cases, the costume designer is going more for an "impression" of regency fashion rather than historical accuracy.

It's also important to note that since the late 1990's, costume budgets for period projects have shrunk considerably--they hardly give them anything any more! I think it was Jenny Beavan who stated in a newspaper interview while she was working on costumes for one of the 2007 ITV Jane Austen films that her costume budget didn't allow for "makes" so she had to rent everything! Meanwhile, Andrea Galer spent much of her costume budget for Mansfield Park 2007 on Fanny's beaded wedding gown.

And if you're interested in learning more about accurate regency fashions, the Regency Garderobe website is a reliable source.>>

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

<<Oops! I just noticed that the Regency Garderobe website is probably defunct. Such a shame! I'll see if I have any saved links on regency fashions. >>

Thanks! Again, I am thrilled with the wealth of information you have taken the time to give me.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

randommovies2002, may I ask you a personal question? Are you a member of the Jane Austen Society of North America (JASNA)? If you are not, you should be. Please join -- you'd love it! And they would love you!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Liza-19 15 years ago

You might not believe it, but so am I. Look, we found something in common

I don't care about money. I just want to be wonderful. - Marilyn Monroe

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

Liza-19 wrote: <<You might not believe it, but so am I. Look, we found something in common >>

If you are indeed a member of JASNA, you really should try to use that to your advantage. You can find many educators among its members who could help you with the technical difficulties you frequently encounter in your writing, for example. They could also help you improve your vocabulary. Perhaps they could even help you learn to interpret text better (and, of course, to understand what text actually is). If you don't understand something -- say so. Don't pretend you do.

I am now going to look over randommovies2002's posts in an attempt to learn how to behave with the sublime civility he shows with every sentence. I have no great hopes for success, but at least I admit where I need help and am willing to make the effort (although that last of mine rather indicates otherwise).

[–] Liza-19 15 years ago

posted by coolbluegreen
It's been a while since I cringed at a sentence. Even the previous examples of appalling sentence structure in this thread (and the one that can be found below) did not affect me in the way the Valley Girl phrase above did.

Excuse me, but it was a joke. I didn't mean it to sound like proper English. And I am about as far removed from a Valley Girl as you can possibly get.

posted by coolbluegreen
randommovies2002 was politely saying that while the illustrations underscored key points in the book and even added information, the depiction of characters in Victorian Era costumes indicated nothing more than Thackeray's preference for the fashions of his era.

You yourself are twisting his words to fit your own meanings. Since you admire randommovies2002 so much, maybe you should let him speak for himself? I do agree that randommovies2002 is very polite. I have no problems with him whatsoever. I think you could learn a lot from him, as you are completely without manners yourself. I will be happy to have a discussion with you later, when you have learned how to speak politely and treat others with respect.

posted by coolbluegreen
If you are indeed a member of JASNA, you really should try to use that to your advantage. You can find many educators among its members who could help you with the technical difficulties you frequently encounter in your writing, for example. They could also help you improve your vocabulary. Perhaps they could even help you learn to interpret text better (and, of course, to understand what text actually is). If you don't understand something -- say so. Don't pretend you do.

The complete arrogance of your post surpasses everything I've ever seen from you. You have an awfully high opinion of yourself, and I actually feel sorry for you - it is a very unattractive quality. People with good manners do not spend their time picking at grammatical errors made online. You are an extremely rude person to say what you have said to me.

Since you have attacked my education, let me tell you that I have two college degrees in English and have written a thesis on Vanity Fair. I don't however, apply all of my grammatical rules when I'm typing online. I'm trying to get my thoughts in order and get the message out. I am not alone in this. In fact, I find that only people who have no other arguments left are the ones who start to pick on grammer and sentence structuring. You obviously were out of intelligent discussion, and this was the only thing left for you to argue about. I really do feel sorry for you.

And apart from my technical difficulties, you don't even know how to quote someone properly. I've been trying to ignore the technical mistakes in your posts out of politeness, but since you are unaware of what it means, (or to be more accurate, you expect it from everyone but yourself) I'm going to make a point of it. Learn how to quote properly on the web before you make any more "technical" complaints.

I am not going to go back into the text vs. illustrations argument with you again. I considered the pictures and captions to be as important as the text, you did not. You claim to be the expert, and that your interpretation is the only one possible. Only fools think they are right all the time.

You also posted a quote that is in the book, and claimed you found it in an interview. People who are well-educated know where they pull their quotes from.

You also keep trying to say I don't understand what text is. I kept trying to explain that I was discussing the book as a whole, you were just talking about the text. Since you are completely incapable of making the distinction, then you are the one having problems with English. You are the one who should take some more classes. It also wouldn't hurt you to learn something about online ettiquete. Most places make it a rule not to correct other people's grammer, because (guess what) it is a very rude and pointless thing to do.

You have not seriously thought about anything I've said. All you've done is complain and complain and talk about how your opinion is the only one that counts. Please spend more time with randommovies2002. If he or she is willing to tolerate you, that is.

I am done discussing things with someone who argues like a twelve-year-old. I have never made rude remarks about you personally. I have never said that since we disagreed, you must not know what you're talking about. There's a word for that, it's called bullying. I don't care for it. You are probably used to people backing down when you started bullying them, but I do not. That is why you have gone so low as to follow me on other boards and point out my typos. That says so much about your personality. Obviously you are not at a maturity level where you can have a disagreement and intelligent discussion. I hold very little hope for you. You can reply to this message if you wish, but I will not read it. I'm adding you to my ignore list. I truly wish you the best, but I hope I never run into you ever again.

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by coolbluegreen
It's been a while since I cringed at a sentence. Even the previous examples of appalling sentence structure in this thread (and the one that can be found below) did not affect me in the way the Valley Girl phrase above did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: MMExcuse me, but it was a joke. I didn't mean it to sound like proper English.>>

Oh, I know you didn't. However, you really don't know how to write well.

Liza-19 wrote: <<And I am about as far removed from a Valley Girl as you can possibly get. >>

Whatever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by coolbluegreen
randommovies2002 was politely saying that while the illustrations underscored key points in the book and even added information, the depiction of characters in Victorian Era costumes indicated nothing more than Thackeray's preference for the fashions of his era.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: <<You yourself are twisting his words to fit your own meanings.>>

No, I'm not. His meaning is crystal clear -- to those who know how to interpret what they read.

Liza-19 wrote: <<Since you admire randommovies2002 so much, maybe you should let him speak for himself?>>

I did. Not only did I let randommovies speak for him/herself, I also understood what s/he wrote. You didn't. In fact, your ability to interpret randommovies's writing is so, well, nonexistent that you thought s/he was agreeing with you. I don't think you were lying there -- I think you honestly could not understand what randommovies was saying.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

Yes, I've already admitted that. Was it too hard for you to understand what I wrote when I did? BTW, you could learn something from me about how to admit a flaw or a mistake.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

Oh, that's not true. Now you are lying. You have supposedly put me on ignore. Trust me, it's not delightful to read your atrocious writing, but that is nothing in comparison with the disgust I feel at your inability to admit it when you make a mistake or don't know something. You would rather lie than admit to a mistake. That verges on being sociopathic. Why can't you just say, "I made a mistake"? What terrible thing do you think would happen? Nothing would. I make mistakes all the time, and I admit them, too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by coolbluegreen
If you are indeed a member of JASNA, you really should try to use that to your advantage. You can find many educators among its members who could help you with the technical difficulties you frequently encounter in your writing, for example. They could also help you improve your vocabulary. Perhaps they could even help you learn to interpret text better (and, of course, to understand what text actually is). If you don't understand something -- say so. Don't pretend you do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: <<The complete arrogance of your post surpasses everything I've ever seen from you.>>

It may surpass anything you have seen from me, but it doesn't surpass what you yourself can do. Your arrogance leaves mine in the dust -- and you have no reason to be arrogant.

Liza-19 wrote: <<You have an awfully high opinion of yourself,>>

You have a high opinion of yourself, or seem to. Actually, I think you are deeply insecure and that is why you cannot admit it when you don't know something or make an error. You would rather lie than deal with the truth.

Liza-19 wrote: <<and I actually feel sorry for you - it is a very unattractive quality. People with good manners do not spend their time picking at grammatical errors made online. You are an extremely rude person to say what you have said to me. >>

Oh, I know I am rude. I've admitted it. You aren't telling me anything I don't know. Why don't you try admitting it when you make a mistake? You have been pretty rude yourself, too. You have lied about me and what I have said, for starters. Look below.

Liza-19 wrote: <<Since you have attacked my education,>>

I never attacked your education. Prove it -- if I am wrong, I'll admit it (something you need to learn how to do), but I don't think I ever attacked your education.

I commented on your inability to interpret what you read, your poor sentence structure, and your inability to admit when you don't understand something or have made an error. I also think you lie or twist things to suit whatever it is you want to believe. Your claim that I attacked your education is a good example of this tendency of yours. What you said is untrue -- but that doesn't matter to you. You just make up a lie about something I said -- or, with your weak reading comp, you may really believe I said something I didn't. If I did say something about your education and have forgotten it, cite it. Prove it. Let me know and I will admit to a mistake. However, I think you are either mistaken or lying.

Liza-19 wrote: <<let me tell you that I have two college degrees in English and have written a thesis on Vanity Fair.>>

If that is true, that is just appalling. What degrees do you have, btw? And what degree was your thesis for? What was its topic and title? How long was it?

Liza-19 wrote: <>

Are you saying it's an effort for you to follow the rules of grammar when you write? You see, for people who know the rules, it's just natural to follow them. It's instinctual.

Liza-19 wrote: <<I'm trying to get my thoughts in order and get the message out.>>

You don't do that when you write badly.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

I know. You are not in good company.

Liza-19 wrote: <<In fact, I find that only people who have no other arguments left are the ones who start to pick on grammer and sentence structuring.>>

True. However, I commented on more than your grammar (was your spelling "grammer" a typo, too?) and sentence "structuring" (use "structure"). Among other things, your polemical skills are weak. You had no argument. You didn't even know what "text" meant. I am pretty sure you don't know what "polemical" means, either.

Liza-19 wrote: <<You obviously were out of intelligent discussion,>>

It was impossible to have one with you, due to your inability to understand what you were reading. You couldn't understand the terms I used. You couldn't understand what randommovies wrote. You couldn't admit that. Maybe you don't know that. However, your ideas about the costuming of the characters in Vanity Fair were flatly contradicted by Thackeray himself.

Liza-19 wrote: <<and this was the only thing left for you to argue about. I really do feel sorry for you.>>

Well, I feel sorry for you, not so much for your bad writing and reading comp skills as for your inability to admit it when you don't have a clue. Of course, you are right about one thing -- my manners have not exactly been gracious. At least I don't lie.

Liza-19 wrote: <<And apart from my technical difficulties, you don't even know how to quote someone properly.>>

There is nothing wrong with the way I have quoted you or Thackeray on imdb. If there is, and I am unaware of it, I, unlike you, will be happy to admit that I am wrong and happy to learn the correct way.

Liza-19 wrote: <<I've been trying to ignore the technical mistakes in your posts out of politeness,>>

I doubt that.

Liza-19 wrote: <<but since you are unaware of what it means, (or to be more accurate, you expect it from everyone but yourself)>>

Where do you get that from? You just say things that you want to believe are true. It doesn't matter if they are true or not. I am not sure if you know you are lying or if you actually believe the easily refuted nonsense you spout.

Clearly I am aware of what politeness is. If I weren't, how could I be able to appreciate the exquisite manners randommovies shows?

I also have no idea why you think I expect good manners from anyone. I never said anything like that -- but that doesn't matter. If you truly believe I said that, then you really need to work on your reading comp. Well, you need to work on your reading comp anyway. However, there is also the possibility that you know I never said anything like that and are just lying.

Liza-19 wrote: <<I'm going to make a point of it. Learn how to quote properly on the web before you make any more "technical" complaints.>>

Please feel free to correct me, to show me my errors. Unlike you, I am happy to admit I have been mistaken (when and if I have been) and learn the correct way to do something. My main complaint about you, however, has nothing to do with your technical skills (although those are bad). No, I just can't stand it when people cannot admit that they have made a mistake or don't know something.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

No, because then you would have to admit you were wrong. However, you DO get back into it with me. Much of what follows is another rehash of that very argument. I am not sure if you were consciously lying when you wrote that or if you are just unaware that you said isn't true.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

I never said that. Now, are you lying or is your reading comp so bad you think I said that? Anyway, I think the illustrations are very important and I have said that.

Liza-19 wrote: <<You claim to be the expert, and that your interpretation is the only one possible.>>

I never said that. I just think your interpretation is wrong and ridiculous. It flies in the face of what Thackeray himself said. You are quite arrogant, you know. You believe that because I disagree with YOU, I think my interpretation is the only one possible. That's silly. There are many different interpretations of all kinds of things out there. Some may contradict mine, but if they are good, if they can be supported by the text, they are valid.

Liza-19 wrote: <<Only fools think they are right all the time.>>

Oh, you should take that advice yourself. I know I am not right all the time. However, I also know that you had no idea what you were talking about when we were discussing "text."

Liza-19 wrote: <<You also posted a quote that is in the book, and claimed you found it in an interview. People who are well-educated know where they pull their quotes from.>>

Prove it. I don't believe you. Sure, I could have made a mistake, but it's far more likely that you are either lying or that you misunderstood me.

Liza-19 wrote: <<You also keep trying to say I don't understand what text is.>>

You may now. You didn't when we were discussing it.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

You confused quotes from Thackeray ABOUT Vanity Fair for quotes FROM Vanity Fair itself. Nothing in the text of Vanity Fair or, indeed, the part of Thackeray's comments that I quoted supports your wacky idea that he wanted us to picture the characters in Victorian dress for some satirical purpose. He told us why he drew the characters the way he did, but his own words and explanation aren't good enough for you.

Since you are completely incapable of making the distinction, then you are the one having problems with English. You are the one who should take some more classes.>>

Oh, I think my 5 on the English AP exam, my 740 score on the verbal section of the SAT, and my summa cum laude degrees in English say otherwise.

Liza-19 wrote: <<It also wouldn't hurt you to learn something about online ettiquete.>>

Oh, I agree. I've already said that.

Liza-19 wrote: <<Most places make it a rule not to correct other people's grammer, because (guess what) it is a very rude and pointless thing to do.>>

You keep spelling "grammar" incorrectly. I guess you don't know how to spell it. Anyway, I am just pointing out that your own weaknesses in English undermine your attempts to appear to know anything about it.

Liza-19 wrote: <<You have not seriously thought about anything I've said.>>

Again, I am not sure if you are lying or if you really believe that. Obviously I have thought seriously about what you have said about Vanity Fair -- and I have disagreed with it and found it completely baseless.

Liza-19 wrote: <<All you've done is complain and complain and talk about how your opinion is the only one that counts.>>

Do you REALLY believe I have done that? If so, that's sad. You think that just because I disagree with you I believe that mine is the only opinion that counts. How egotistical of you!

Liza-19 wrote: <<Please spend more time with randommovies2002. If he or she is willing to tolerate you, that is. >>

Pathetic swipe. Perhaps you should spend more time with him/her as well.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

I am rude. However, I don't lie and I am not stupid.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

Yes, you did. Look at the very post I am replying to! You are incapable of admitting that you have any faults, aren't you.

Liza-19 wrote: <<I have never said that since we disagreed, you must not know what you're talking about. There's a word for that, it's called bullying. I don't care for it. You are probably used to people backing down when you started bullying them, but I do not. That is why you have gone so low as to follow me on other boards and point out my typos.>>

Uh, they weren't typos. You are lying again, but I agree that my pointing them out wasn't very nice of me. You really, REALLY should learn to admit it when you are wrong. I can. I do. It's not that hard.

Liza-19 wrote: <<That says so much about your personality. Obviously you are not at a maturity level where you can have a disagreement and intelligent discussion.>>

Can you? You can't even admit when you have made a mistake. You flat-out lie, too.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

Funny, I feel the same way about you. I don't think you will ever learn to admit it when you are wrong or when you have made a mistake or when you just don't know something. You are too insecure to do that. Try it -- you will grow if you do and your world will not fall apart. In fact, you will learn something.

Liza-19 wrote: <<You can reply to this message if you wish, but I will not read it. I'm adding you to my ignore list.>>

Maybe. Maybe not.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

Well, that is gracious and polite. I mean that. I admire the part of you that is capable of writing that.

Liza-19 wrote: <<but I hope I never run into you ever again.>>

I believe you are telling the truth about that.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

Liza-19 wrote: <<It would be a little bit of nonsense to have hoopskirts at the time of Waterloo, yes, but that's one of the points of the book. It is all a little ridiculous. His characters were supposed to be like puppets in a play, so he dressed them a little out of the ordinary. In a film, I'm not sure I'd go all Gone-With-the-Wind on the dresses, but maybe a pinched waist and a rounder cut at the bottom would be more in the right direction. Just my two cents.>>

Why on earth do you think Thackeray put Becky and Co. in hoopskirts during Waterloo? What in the text made you think that? There is NOTHING in the text to indicate that. If there is -- please quote it and let me know.

I know his illustrations did just that -- but his text did not.

I assume he did his illustrations so that they would appeal to the audience that was buying his books. He also did not like the fashions of the older generation (pretty common), so he decided to dress them in a contemporary style -- IN HIS DRAWINGS, not in his text. Again, if you can find examples from the text to prove me wrong, please post them here.

As I said in another post, Dobbin kept a picture of a woman who reminded him of Amelia and Thackeray writes that the woman is wearing a high waisted dress. So, textually, that supports the idea that Thackeray intended his characters to be in the appropriate clothing for their period.

Here's a quote from Thackeray on the topic:

<<It was the author's intention, faithful to history, to depict all the characters of this tale in their proper costume, as they wore them at the commencement of this century. But when I remember the appearance of people in those days, and that an officer and lady were actually habited like this [here he shows a picture of Regency Era dress] I have not the heart to disfigure my heroes and heroines by costumes so hideous; and have, on the contrary, engaged a model of rank dressed according to the present fashion.>>

In that quote, he is talking about drawing only.

[–] simulated86 16 years ago

Actually, there was at least one piece of clothing that belonged in the Victorian period. Mrs. Tinker's corset was a Victorian corset. Infact the busk in her corset was not invented until the mid-1800's. Having that type of corset was as inaccurate as if they had had a zipper! LOL.

[–] centanmods 15 years ago

Actually, there was at least one piece of clothing that belonged in the Victorian period. Mrs. Tinker's corset was a Victorian corset. Infact the busk in her corset was not invented until the mid-1800's. Having that type of corset was as inaccurate as if they had had a zipper! LOL.

You're quite wrong; a busk in a pair of regency stays was essential for creating the wished-for cleavage with the boobs clearly separated (which was looked over in at least the -98 version (haven't seen the -04 version) - I noticed Natasha Little has a more 18th century-style cleavage most of the time. See the -95 version of Pride & Prejudice for good regency cleavage :P).

A picture of extant regency stays with busk intact: http://eggboxmarketing.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54f09af618834010535d47343970b-pi

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

Liza-19 wrote: <<In the book, Thackeray clearly states how he wants the reader to think of his characters dressed.>>

Your use of the term "states" implies that Thackeray uses the written word to describe how he wants us to think his characters dressed. Well, if we rely on Thackeray's written word in the text (and that means the text of Vanity Fair -- not every single word ever written anywhere), it's clear that he dresses his characters in clothing appropriate to the era in which the action is set. He never once describes the characters in anachronistic (look it up -- don't just pretend you know what it means) clothing. He depicts them that way in the illustrations, with an apology, saying he dislikes the look of Regency Era fashions. That is his only reason for doing so. Again, he NEVER describes the characters in fashions appropriate for any era other than their own.

Liza-19 wrote: <<He wanted them in dresses more like the time he was writing than when they were set.>>

No, he didn't.

Liza-19 wrote: <>

I hope you never get your wish and do not think you know why costumers would be reluctant to grant it.

LIza-19 wrote: <<The guy wrote the book, we should give him some say, don't you think? >>

Ah, yes -- he WROTE the book. And in the TEXT (do you remember what that is?) of the book, he clearly places the characters in Regency Era clothing. So, it appears costumers have given him his "say" (again, the word "say" implies words -- not illustrations) and have outfitted the characters as he described them in the text.

[–] FishHeadSweety 17 years ago

I prefered the costumes in the Reece Witherspoon version, especially that red nightgown Reece wore in the honeymoon scene. The costumes were probably not authentic, but I didn't seem to care. I also liked the scene where the rich aunt takes off her wig and doesn't have much hair. That doesn't happen much in movies.
overall, i liked the Reece Witherspoon version best. and i think it's underated.

Thank you folks for kindly doing something dropping in-Cartoon Planet

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

FishHeadSweety wrote: <<I prefered the costumes in the Reece Witherspoon version, especially that red nightgown Reece wore in the honeymoon scene. The costumes were probably not authentic, but I didn't seem to care. I also liked the scene where the rich aunt takes off her wig and doesn't have much hair. That doesn't happen much in movies.
overall, i liked the Reece Witherspoon version best. and i think it's underated.>>

It does not create a Becky that is true to the book. Reese's Becky is NOT the Becky that Thackeray created -- not at all. God, that movie strays so far from the book sometimes. I didn't like it at all. The funny thing is, I always thought Reese would make a great Becky -- but that character she played is NOT Thackeray's Becky.

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by coolbluegreen

Miss Swarz was not African. Her father was a German Jew and her mother was, possibly from Fiji. Here's the quote: "Why, surely it must be Miss Swartz, the parlour boarder," Emmy said, remembering that good-natured young mulatto girl, who had been so hysterically affected when Amelia left Miss Pinkerton's academy "The very name," George said. "Her father was a German Jew--a slave-owner they say--connected with the Cannibal Islands in some way or other."

The Cannibal Islands are Fiji. Her mother may have been of African descent -- or Fiji -- who knows?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote:

<<Um, okay. It's been a good ten years since I read the book. How's this, "Thackery wasn't very kind to people of mixed ethnicity.">>

Thackeray wasn't very nice to most people, regardless of whether they had mixed ethnicity or not. And the fact remains that Miss Swarz is a kind-hearted person. She is better than many of the pure English folk that Thackeray wrote about -- much better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by coolbluegreen

I think Thackeray's illustrations reflected what people were wearing during the time period when the book was published, not set. This is very common. Look at movies about, say, the Old West that were made in the 1950s. Marilyn Monroe runs around in blue jeans in River of No Return. Women did not dress that way during the period in which the film is SET, but they did during the time the film was made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: <<Isn't that exactly what I said?>>

Kind of, but that is NOT what happened. You wrote:

<<In the book, Thackeray clearly states how he wants the reader to think of his characters dressed. He wanted them in dresses more like the time he was writing than when they were set.>>

I disagree. THackeray clearly states no such thing. NOTHING Thackeray wrote identifies the style of the clothing as Victorian. He sometimes talks about the sumptousness of certain materials (brocade, for example) but says nothing about Regency era people dressing like Victorians.

In fact, I remember Dobbin has a picture that reminds him of Amelia and the pictures shows a woman in a high-waisted gown, just the Regency style gown Amelia would have been wearing during the time Dobbin fell in love with her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

Liza-19 wrote:
<<NOTHING? He says NOTHING? He clearly states how he wants his characters dressed in the very same quote you put in your following post.>>

Thackeray's quote follows:

"It was the author's intention, faithful to history, to depict all the characters of this tale in their proper costume, as they wore them at the commencement of this century. But when I remember the appearance of people in those days, and that an officer and lady were actually habited like this... I have not the heart to disfigure my heroes and heroines by costumes so hideous; and have, on the contrary, engaged a model of rank dressed according to the present fashion."

Thackeray was talking about his DRAWINGS here, not his story, not his text.

Liza-19 wrote: <<You and I obviously interpret the statement very differently,>>

Well, there's not much to interpret. He was being asked about the illustrations. He was talking about the illustrations.

Liza-19 wrote: << it is very rude of you to come out and claim that he says nothing on the subject, when he clearly does.>>

It's not rude. The fact is, Thackeray does not describe the cut or style of the clothing in the text of Vanity Fair. There are a few exceptions and the exceptions always point to Regency clothing -- Jos's Hessian boots, for example. Hessian boots were fashionable during the Regency Era.

I told you that to the best of my knowledge he never writes anything that definitively places the clothing in the Victorian Era and a few times he clearly writes something that absolutely places the clothing in the Regency Era -- Jos's boots, the high waisted dress on the picture that resembles Amelia. I asked you to correct me if I was wrong and to provide textual evidence. I have no idea why you think that's rude.

Liza-19 wrote: << I'm of the opinion that since he didn't like the style of the time period, he drew different costumes for the characters.>>

Yes, that's true. I agree with that. Are you sure you understand what I am saying? I am saying that there is nothing in the text, the written text, of Vanity Fair that indicates the characters are dressed in anything other than appropriate Regency fashion. The illustrations are not the text.

Liza-19 wrote: << The man wrote the book,>>

Yes, he did, this one and many others. And in this one, the only definitive descriptions of clothing are clearly descriptions of Regency clothing.

Liza-19 wrote: <<drew the illustrations, and even called our attention to how he depicted them in his artwork.>>

Yes, he did. And, just like the movie directors of, well, all time, he chose to create a visual image that fit his time period. That doesn't mean that he put that in the written text -- and he didn't.

Liza-19 wrote: << That's pretty clear, I think. And as I said earlier, yes it's a little odd,>>

No, it's pretty common. We do it today. Have you see the American version of Life on Mars? That is set in 1973, but the clothes are clearly 1973 by way of 2009.

Liza-19 wrote: <<but the whole book is not meant to be taken so literally. >>

What do you mean, the book is not meant to be taken literally? It's fiction. It's not real. The points he is making a quite real, however. He is telling us how he feels about the world.

Liza-19 wrote: <<Your opinion, which I'm sorry, seems very far fetched - is that he drew all of these gorgeous illustrations, but had no intention of anyone picturing the characters dressed that way????>>

Uh, I never said that. Please -- prove that I said that. Find me the sentence I wrote that you believe says that. It's not there.

What I said is that the written text of Vanity Fair, when it describes clothes (and this is rare) describes Regency clothes, NOT Victorian clothes. Got it?

Liza-19 wrote: <<Okay, I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree. >>

I don't think we are even talking about the same thing.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thackeray was talking about his DRAWINGS here, not his story, not his text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: <>

They ARE separate. The descriptions of the clothes are description of Regency clothes. The illustrations are illustrations of Victorian clothes. That's that.

Liza-19 wrote: <<and I see them as a whole. That's where our opinions differ. I don't see the need to go through the entire text looking for where he makes a passing mention of a dress or a cloth, when he illustrated the entire book for us.>>

So, the pictures are more important to you than the text? Do you usually like picture books? Sorry, but I will give the text its due. It created the book, after all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there's not much to interpret. He was being asked about the illustrations. He was talking about the illustrations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: <<That right there is your interpretation, not mine.>>

Oh, lord. It's not an interpretation. That quote is from an interview in which he was asked about and was talking about his illustrations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not rude. The fact is, Thackeray does not describe the cut or style of the clothing in the text of Vanity Fair. There are a few exceptions and the exceptions always point to Regency clothing -- Jos's Hessian boots, for example. Hessian boots were fashionable during the Regency Era.

I told you that to the best of my knowledge he never writes anything that definitively places the clothing in the Victorian Era and a few times he clearly writes something that absolutely places the clothing in the Regency Era -- Jos's boots, the high waisted dress on the picture that resembles Amelia. I asked you to correct me if I was wrong and to provide textual evidence. I have no idea why you think that's rude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: <<It is rude for anyone to insist that their interpretation is fact. Whether you meant it or not, that's how it came across to me. If that's not what you meant, I apologize.>>

Look -- as I said earlier, I don't even know if we are talking about the same thing. However, some interpretations ARE wrong, plain wrong. If, for example, you tell me that Romeo and Juliet is about the care and cooking of rabbits, you're wrong. That's it. And anyone who says so isn't rude. Oh, it can be said rudely, but it doesn't have to be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that's true. I agree with that. Are you sure you understand what I am saying? I am saying that there is nothing in the text, the written text, of Vanity Fair that indicates the characters are dressed in anything other than appropriate Regency fashion. The illustrations are not the text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: <>

They are different forms of art. Furthermore, the pictures do not always reflect the text. Therefore, the should be looked at separately. To ignore such a glaring difference, to say it doesn't matter, is a bad way to approach analyis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, he did, this one and many others. And in this one, the only definitive descriptions of clothing are clearly descriptions of Regency clothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: <<With the obvious exception of the numerous illustrations he created specifically for the book. I don't see how you can discount all of them so easily. >>

Why do you think I am discounting them? I'm not. The drawings are of Victorian clothes. The descripitions in the book are of Regency clothes. That is what I am saying. Do you agree or disagree?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, he did. And, just like the movie directors of, well, all time, he chose to create a visual image that fit his time period. That doesn't mean that he put that in the written text -- and he didn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: << <<He specifically said he wanted the characters dressed in modern styles. That's in the text. You quoted it to me, I didn't even have to do it. >>

No, that is NOT in the text of Vanity Fair. That quote I showed you was NOT from Vanity Fair. How could it be? Do you think it was? Do you understand what I mean when I say "the text"? When I say "the text," I am talking about the novel, Vanity Fair, not anyting Thackeray ever said in his life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean, the book is not meant to be taken literally? It's fiction. It's not real. The points he is making a quite real, however. He is telling us how he feels about the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: <>

No. He said he drew pictures of contemporary dress because he thought Regency dress was ugly. He did not say this in the text. He said this in an interview I quoted which you seem to think is part of the novel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, I never said that. Please -- prove that I said that. Find me the sentence I wrote that you believe says that. It's not there.

What I said is that the written text of Vanity Fair, when it describes clothes (and this is rare) describes Regency clothes, NOT Victorian clothes. Got it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liza-19 wrote: <<Uh, yes you did. You keep saying the Victorian clothes are only mentioned in the illustrations, not the text.>>

I've got it. You do not know what the text is. The text is the written words in the novel of Vanity Fair. Again, the thing I quoted -- NOT from the novel! It doesn't appear in the text of Vanity Fair. FWIW, Victorian clothes aren't mentioned in the illustrations -- they appear in them. They aren't discussed. The characters are just shown wearing them. However, in the book, whenever clothing is discussed, the clothes are clearly Regency.

Liza-19 wrote: <<You keep trying to sepparate them, as though the illustrations don't translate to the text. >>

The illustrations are supposed to reflect the text. They reflect what is going on, pretty much, but as Thackeray explained -- he used clothing from the Victorian Era because he found it more attractive. And he does NOT explain or say that in the novel.

Liza-19 wrote: <<So I'm trying to figure out what you're thinking - the author purposely made out-of-time clothes for his illustrations, but intended us to think of them in Regency? I find that hard to believe.>>

Well, since the main action of the novel is set during the Regency, yes, it's pretty obvious that he wanted us to imagine the events as taking place during the Regency. The descriptions of the clothes that the characters are wearing are clearly descriptions of Regency clothes. However, I am willing to bet that you don't know what the Regency is, do you? I mean, you don't even know what "text" means. I really can't argue with you because you are not informed enough to know what I am talking about.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

I agree that Thackeray intended his drawings to add to the meaning of what he was trying to say in the novel. IMO, the drawings were used to emphasize the satire, metaphors, and other aspects, as outlined at the following link:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_19c/thackeray/f ashion.html

That said, however, I take Thackeray at his word when he states that he simply didn't find the regency fashions aesthetically pleasing.

I don't think replacing regency fashions n a film adaptation with those of a later period would make it more interesting to me; the anachronisms would be a terrible distraction and negatively affect my enjoyment. Imo, it would be too much at odds with the historical events being portrayed on screen, confusing the viewer as to the time setting of the story.

Cheers.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

Liza-19 wrote: <<Agreed.>>

without actually explaining what she was agreeing TO. Are you agreeing with randommovies2002? Because if you are, you are agreeing with me.

Liza-19 wrote: <<As I said at the beginning, I wouldn't go all hoopskirted out,>>

It's been a while since I cringed at a sentence. Even the previous examples of appalling sentence structure in this thread (and the one that can be found below) did not affect me in the way the Valley Girl phrase above did.

Liza-19 wrote: <<that would indeed be distracting. But I think they could take the Regency fashions and put some Victorian touches in them to be more in character of what he was going for>>

Well, that makes it clear you agree with neither randommovies2002 nor me. You are not aware of this, of course.

randommovies has excellent, beautiful manners. When he wrote:

<<I agree that Thackeray intended his drawings to add to the meaning of what he was trying to say in the novel. IMO, the drawings were used to emphasize the satire, metaphors, and other aspects, as outlined at the following link:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_19c/thackeray/f ashion.html

That said, however, I take Thackeray at his word when he states that he simply didn't find the regency fashions aesthetically pleasing.>>

randommovies2002 was politely saying that while the illustrations underscored key points in the book and even added information, the depiction of characters in Victorian Era costumes indicated nothing more than Thackeray's preference for the fashions of his era.

He wasn't saying what you said. You said <<In the book, Thackeray clearly states how he wants the reader to think of his characters dressed. He wanted them in dresses more like the time he was writing than when they were set. >>

He actually disagreed with that, in a manner so gentlemanly it would do a courtier proud. Sir William Lucas (a character who is famed for his civility and kindness and who gets too much censure and not nearly enough credit) could not be more civil. Of course, randommovies2002's efforts went sailing over your head, much as my blunter and cruder critisms did. You will believe whatever muddled thing you like.

[–] coolbluegreen 15 years ago

randommovies2002, with great tact and politeness wrote: <>

That's absolutely true. I never denied that. All I have been trying to say is that Thackeray's characters are not described as wearing Victorian clothing in the text -- quite the opposite in fact. Furthermore, he did not intend the depiction of his characters in Victorian Era clothing in the illustrations to indicate anything other than his preference for Victorian fashion over Regency fashion (which he found unattractive). Liza-19 disagrees.

randommovies2002 wrote: <<IMO, the drawings were used to emphasize the satire, metaphors, and other aspects, as outlined at the following link:>>

They were -- the actions in the drawings were used to emphasize, sometimes even give additional meaning to (Becky holding the poison bottle) the text -- but the clothes indicated nothing other than Thackeray's dislike of Regency fashion and like of Victorian fashion. He says so himself, in a quote you can find on the link you provided below:

randommovies2002 wrote: <<http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_19c/thackeray/f ashion.html >>

It is from that link that I got the quote to defend my argument, the quote Liza-19 thinks is from the text of Vanity Fair, but is not. Here's the quote:

"It was the author's intention, faithful to history, to depict all the characters of this tale in their proper costume, as they wore them at the commencement of this century. But when I remember the appearance of people in those days, and that an officer and lady were actually habited like this... I have not the heart to disfigure my heroes and heroines by costumes so hideous; and have, on the contrary, engaged a model of rank dressed according to the present fashion."

randommovies2002 wrote: <<That said, however, I take Thackeray at his word when he states that he simply didn't find the regency fashions aesthetically pleasing.>>

Of course you do. I do, too. That is what the quote says. There is no reason not to believe that, despite what Liza-19 wants to think. That is ALL there is to the depiction of the characters in Victorian costume in the illustrations. I have been trying to make that clear. Liza-19 thinks putting the characters in anachronistic costumes confers some satirical meaning -- how she never says -- but that is not why Thackeray depicted his characters in Victorian dress.

randommovies2002 wrote: <>

It would be appalling.

randommovies2002 wrote: <<the anachronisms would be a terrible distraction and negatively affect my enjoyment. Imo, it would be too much at odds with the historical events being portrayed on screen, confusing the viewer as to the time setting of the story.>>

I absolutely agree.