MovieChat Forums > In Secret (2014) Discussion > Thérèse's ahistorical shaved underarms

Thérèse's ahistorical shaved underarms


In Secret strikes me--untrained though my eye is--as incorporating a more or less scrupulous re-creation of mid-nineteenth-century French clothing, buildings, common objects, and lifestyles. One error that I did notice, however, and that annoyed me quite a bit, was the absurd, more or less clean-shaven appearance of Thérèse's armpits. Underarm shaving was almost unknown in nineteenth-century Europe--as is evidenced, for example, by the anonymous nineteenth-century sexual memoir My Secret Life, in which the author, recounting his sexual encounters with hundreds of women (including prostitutes) all over Europe, often expresses admiration for women's armpit hair but never once, as far as I know, mentions a woman's armpits being shaved. I suppose that at certain times and in certain places, some relatively prosperous women might've temporarily shaven themselves in preparation for wearing a sleeveless dress at a social event, but that's the only significant exception I can think of. And I suspect that for women to shave their underarms to please a husband or lover, at his request or otherwise, was vanishingly rare.

The reason for this error might have been ignorance, a belief that it was an acceptable poetic license, a desire to protect the moviegoing public from the presumedly upsetting sight of female armpit hair, vanity on the part of actress Elizabeth Olsen, or a combination of these. I don't consider any of those reasons to be acceptable, though.

reply

You're right about the armpit hair - at that time, removing body hair was not part of European culture at all. And why would they, since none of it was ever going to be seen in public anyways.
But it's missing even in movies plaing in the stone ages, so... it's probably one thing (of many) people were more relexed about a 100 years ago...

reply

[deleted]

MicahFish: I find it strange that you seem to think there's only one way actress Elizabeth Olsen's portrayal of an ordinary nineteenth-century woman could have been made physically accurate, namely by gluing fake hair to her armpits. What about having her simply grow out her armpit hair a few months in advance? In the last ten or twenty years, several well-known actresses have appeared in movies with real, grown-out armpit hair: for example, Anna Faris, Kate Winslet, Emma Thompson, and Marisa Tomei. Ms. Olsen could have done that, too, as long as other acting and public appearance commitments didn't disallow it.

I think the filmmakers should have cared about that bit of period accuracy, just as they of course cared, say, about the female actresses not having visible dragon tats, and about not letting somebody's iPhone accidentally get into one of the shots. And I make no apologies for discussing this question on IMDb: talking about questions of historical accuracy is a completely legitimate, and very common, reason to go onto IMDb discussion boards. To the extent that doing that makes someone a snob, it's a very mild, acceptable, and constructive form of snobbery.

reply

grow out her armpit hair a few months in advance
She wouldn't even need months. Weeks more like it. If even.

reply

I think it's only you that cares about this to be honest. I believe that it's quite ridiculous that you would even call it an error because there hasn't been one professional review that has mentioned or moaned about Elizabeth not having armpit hair. That is probably the last thing critics were interested in; they were most likely focusing more on the actors' performances and the way the plot and set was handled. Not Therese's armpit hair. You'll probably find that almost every film ever made has at least one mistake. You can't criticise a film like this for such an insignificant mistake when there are a lot of hugely successful films that've been made with 10 or more mistakes during just three or less scenes.

reply

Nicola-tidmarsh-657-229821: I know from experience that there are other people on IMDb besides me who care about armpit hair historical inaccuracies: I've sometimes gotten expressions of support from them in threads I've started on the subject.

It's absurd to say that, just because you don't know of any professional reviews that have criticized Thérèse's lack of armpit hair, it's therefore not an error. As you yourself indicate, professional reviews concern themselves with such matters only sporadically at best. That's one of the great things about IMDb: We can take the time and trouble here to discuss movie errors that would only have a small chance of ever being noted in a review, article, or book.

You're quite right that essentially all movies have flaws; but I think that postings on IMDb can be part of the process of reducing the quantity of those flaws over time. Obviously there was already lots of improvement in historical accuracy in movies during the pre-Internet decades; and I'd tend to think that the Internet can only have helped accelerate that process, and most likely will continue to do so in the future. I assume that, the more filmmakers are reminded that audience members are paying attention to small matters of historical accuracy and are getting annoyed when there are mistakes, the more they'll be motivated to try to get things right.

reply

Good catch! I hadn't noticed but I think that is because I'm used to seeing women's shaved pits as normal. I do remember noticing when women do have hairy pits, again, I think because it varied from what's become visually normal.

If it were my own project, I would like this detail to be accurate. It's a strong factor that shows characterization. It supports the viewers' ability to suspend disbelief by adding another aspect that shows both time and place.

So, yes, good catch!

reply

I really hope this post is a joke. I mean, out of all things to notice/ criticize in a movie... The actress wasn't hairy enough?!! I'm all for historical accuracy, but I really couldn't care less about whether an actress has hairy armpits... I don't think that it would've drastically changed this movie for me.

reply

Really? Are you serious? Out of ALL things, THAT is what you are concerned about - Elizabeth Olsen's armpit hairs? Wow. *deep sigh*

reply

I found this article interesting on the subject.. check it out at www.katetatterall.com

reply

That's the one thing you picked up from the film, shaved armpits??? I despair at the idiocy prevalent on Imdb.


reply

No, I picked up lots of things from In Secret, not just the shaved-armpits mistake. Armpit shaving is just one small matter that I happened to feel like discussing. So I started this thread.

reply

I swear that I mean no malice whatsoever towards you with my reply, and indeed cannot argue with your "historical correctness" lament, but just admit to us once and for all that you have a bit of a fetish about women in their "naturally hirsute" state (not that there's anything wrong with that). Then we can all agree to disagree, and go on about our business... 





Right. Well, I have to-- I have to go now, Duane, because I, I'm due back on the planet Earth.

reply

No fetish necessary to be alerted to this one. It's a pretty obvious anachronism, actually. And filmmakers definitely notice - especially any that've ever attempted a period piece and hired a decent production designer.

reply

[deleted]