Historical clothing that Hollywood has trouble with

[Bustercat]

Some re-enactors at a ranch here in Colorado pointed out that if you wear your gun belt around your hips, your guns fall out when you mount a horse.

ah of course, the infamous buscadero holster.

As far as I know, this has no historical parallel, and was invented on a movie set to facilitate the legendary "quick draw" — another hollywood contrivance.

Gunfights in the real west were about who could aim the best, not who shot first, and more often than not, involved drunk men in dark saloons with shaking hands shooting at each other through clouds of smoke.

 

[Mr Vim]

What really cracked me up in the old westerns was that every shooter was a dead ringer shooting from the hip.

If anyone has ever tried to shoot from the hip, well, they know how crazy the idea is. The term broad side of a barn comes to mind.

 

[AmateisGal]

Some period movies and TV shows from the 50s and 60s were just dreadful for costumes. I'm thinking of Dr. Zhivago and The Untouchables: big bouffants and false eyelashes in revolutionary Russia and the Roaring 20s.

Hogan's Heroes comes to mind. Hubby and I own the entire series on DVD and I just roll my eyes whenever I see a female character on the show. Never fails that she's wearing '60s go-go boots, thick, black mascara, and long, straight hair a la the '60s.

 

[jamespowers]

What really cracked me up in the old westerns was that every shooter was a dead ringer shooting from the hip.

If anyone has ever tried to shoot from the hip, well, they know how crazy the idea is. The term broad side of a barn comes to mind.

Now that depends on who we are talking about from that period. I would never want to come up against WildBill Hickok or some of the other legendary gun fighters. They knew what they were doing. They knew their equipment intimately as it was necessary to save their lives. They also knew their limitations.
In fact, Wild Bill was probably one of the documented few who participated in a real hollywood gunfight in the middle of the town square facing each other at a distance. Davis Tutt missed at 75 yards. Wild Bill drilled him easily, with a SA Navy, all over a pocketwatch and $25-45.
The thing that was most valuable to a gun fighter was steadiness. They needed to focus only on the target and hitting it even when they were being fire on. Taking aim firing and hitting the target fast enought to end the threat was what was needed. There were many who had the right stuff. They had to---their lives depended on it. [huh]
Hollywood generally has characters who were capable of firing as well as they are portrayed. Did your average person in those days have such ability? It depends on where you were. In the eastern US? Not likely but in the west it was very likely as they had to depend on their guns to save them from wild animals, indians, highwaymen and a host of other threats. If you didn't know how to use a gun you were like a clay pigeon.

 

[jamespowers]

As I said, it was just a fun post I was writing to a thread that was closed for other reasons. I just spent too long writing it to not post it somewhere else.

Most of what I wrote above was for fun, not to be taken too seriously. Just some (what I thought to be fun) observations on movies over the years.

I hear you about the corset thing. I've had that experience myself, no matter what you say some people will never believe you about 18th century stays giving them back support.

I was sure you were joshing but something funny usually is so because it has an element of truth to it.
The US was a different case than what you might have found in Europe at the time. Dandyism was not really encouraged nor was it possible unless you had a ton of money to import all of your fashions from Europe. Most Americans from the time dealt with what they had. Farmers were more likely to be seen in the fields wearing a banada tied around their necks than frilly lace and a peasant hat much mroe than a tricorn. It wasn't necessarily drab in color but it wasn't brocade silks and immense frilly neckwear.
Even that stuff came to an end in Europe with the rise of Beau Brummell's style of dress only allowing the neckwear to be the flash of an outfit that was mostly black as opposed to the peacock colors that were previously worn. It is sort of ironic for his simplicity stance though. It could take him hours to tie his cravat correctly to be seen in public.

 

[Paisley]

Hogan's Heroes comes to mind.

M*A*S*H is another one.

 

[Puzzicato]

M*A*S*H is another one.

I thought that was deliberate, because although nominally set in Korea it was a commentary on other campaigns?

 

[Mid-fogey]

Movies are made...

…for average people, not for experts. Most people never know the difference and the extra money and trouble isn't worth it to the producers.

Also, Brad Pitt doesn't look as sexy with a powdered wig and fake mole.

 

[jamespowers]

Also, Brad Pitt doesn't look as sexy with a powdered wig and fake mole.

lol lol lol lol lol

 

[JPH]

Brad Pitt doesn't look as sexy with a powdered wig and fake mole.

Says you!

Joseph
lol

 

[Paisley]

I thought that was deliberate, because although nominally set in Korea it was a commentary on other campaigns?

Maybe, but as others have mentioned, Hollywood's motto for sartorial period accuracy seemed to be "Why bother?"

 

[1961MJS]

M*A*S*H is another one.

Hi, same problem as Hogan's Heroes'? I thought that they did fairly well on the 1950's style uniforms.

Later

 

[jamespowers]

Maybe, but as others have mentioned, Hollywood's motto for sartorial period accuracy seemed to be "Why bother?"

And the rest of that quote would be:"Who will notice?"

 

[Paisley]

On M*A*S*H, it was more hairstyles and makeup: the haircuts of some of the men probably didn't meet Army regulations on length, let alone 50s style. Real Army nurses of the 50s probably wore a lot more short, permed hair than long, flowing locks.

It was still a funny show.

 

[LordBest]

If the average viewer is ignorant of the fashion, what is there to lose by making it accurate? Period accurate costumes are just as spectacular as the absurd things Hollywood comes up with, look in any fashion museum or primary source material.
As to cost, accurate costumes are no more expensive to produce than the rubbish Hollywood currently produces, possibly cheaper as they are often dreadfully overdone. On screen you can even get away with cheaper mixed fabrics, though not pure synthetic.
It is pure laziness and ignorance (as well as a certain contempt for the audience) that prevents Hollywood from making period accurate costumes, nothing more.

…for average people, not for experts. Most people never know the difference and the extra money and trouble isn't worth it to the producers.

Also, Brad Pitt doesn't look as sexy with a powdered wig and fake mole.

 

[Puzzicato]

On M*A*S*H, it was more hairstyles and makeup: the haircuts of some of the men probably didn't meet Army regulations on length, let alone 50s style. Real Army nurses of the 50s probably wore a lot more short, permed hair than long, flowing locks.

It was still a funny show.

And I suspect the nurse's tshirts weren't QUITE that tight!

I remember a line from a novel with a scene set in the Ealing studios, where some poor beleaguered producer on a film set in ancient Egypt declares that the girls can't have bare feet and everyone looks better in a nice pair of court shoes. I think the aesthetics of the time things are made always have an impact. It's one of the very impressive things about Mad Men that they are prepared to put the characters in clothes that to modern eyes look unattractive, but were very fashionable at the time.

 

[Fletch]

If the average viewer is ignorant of the fashion, what is there to lose by making it accurate?

1. Money. Yes, I know. Please see #4.

As to cost, accurate costumes are no more expensive to produce than the rubbish Hollywood currently produces, possibly cheaper as they are often dreadfully overdone.

2. Loss of reputation thru failure to supply adequate flash and drama.
3. Ditto, thru failure to feed the egos of industry folks who are used to, and indeed demand, said flash and drama.

It is pure laziness and ignorance (as well as a certain contempt for the audience) that prevents Hollywood from making period accurate costumes, nothing more.

4. Another word about cost. Hollywood accounting can excuse anything producers want, and excuses nothing they do not approve of. $10 million for flashy, dramatic wardrobe and an award-winning costumer is not a cost concern. $250,000 for un-flashy, drama-less wardrobe and a low-paid researcher is.

 

[PistolPete1969]

I've noticed this in the past couple years.......

First, let me preface this by saying I have been a Civil War reenactor, a War of 1812 reenactor, and dabbled in Rev War reenactment.

The last 20 years or so of historical movies have been getting increasingly more authentic in terms of costume & accouterments. In the old days of Hollywood, they didn't care about authenticity, it was all about money. Starting with "Dances with Wolves" and "Lonesome Dove", the movies have been getting more & more authentic. "The Patriot" was a great example, as stated in earlier posts.

This is a trend I like.


Pete

 

[Fletch]

There is, at least in Hollywood, what is probably a permanent blindspot between WW1 and WW2. Three reasons:
1. it's too long ago to be nostalgia and not long ago enough to be history
2. the styles were not as dramatic as before and after
3. they require a high level of craft, ie: tailoring, to look decent

We can expect movie clothes from this era to be best done if the style is both dramatic and familiar, ie: evening clothes, gangster dress, depression rags.

 

[dhermann1]

On this same topic, another thing that has always driven me up the wall was the way Hollywood coiffed the women in WW II movies in the generation after the war. How many films made around 1960 do you see with Sophia Loren or Angie Dickenson (just thinking of Dr Newman MD, which was on last night) and they're wearing a totally up to date 60's bouffant? Yes, granted, a lot of the styles thought classy in 1943 were though of as frumpy as hell by 1960, but those hair styles just kill my suspension of disbelief for WW II flicks of the 50's and 60's.