Updates & links! I reviewed the new BBC Oliver Twist (starring Timothy Spall as Fagin). I’ve updated the upcoming films page with a lot of new listings, and found that PBS (what used to be Masterpiece Theatre and is now) Masterpiece Classics has announced their 2009 lineup; they’ll be showing some repeats, along with the new Tess of the d’Urbervilles (BBC), Wuthering Heights (ITV? does anyone know which production this is?), Oliver Twist (BBC; the one I just reviewed, Little Dorrit (BBC; I’ve seen two episodes and so far I like it), and the Old Curiosity Shop (ITV).
Also, in fixing a few links I reread my review of Dangerous Liaisons and realized that I really needed to update it with this note: Okay, it had to be said. This movie hasn’t aged too well. It’s still really really good, but comparing the costumes to those in more recent/accurate films makes these appear a bit shabby and theatrical. In particular, some of the color choices are off in the women’s gowns (most French gowns of this era were one color in dress, petticoat, stomacher, and trimmings), and the hairstyles are very 1750s (with costumes being 1770s). Which makes me wonder — which costume movies did you used to think were just the be all/end all, and now have been replaced with more interesting/accurate/well done costume movies? While Dangerous Laision used to be mine for 18th century, now I’d say it’s Marie Antoinette and The Duchess.
Marie Antoinette has some awfully modern hair and makeup at times. I’ve a feeling it won’t age well.
The Duchess will age far better I think, but having only seen it once I’m not as certain.
Jen: you’re probably right on Marie Antoinette, but I’m going to love it until I can’t!
really, dangerous liaisons (the movie version) is good for the 1750s to mid-1760s. i didn’t really see anything that made me think of the 1770s in the film (it was all big cuffs, wide hips, elaborate embroidery, and smaller hairstyles). it’s still an excellent, even be-all, end-all movie for costuming ca. 1750-1775. marie-antoinette had a couple good ones, but th cut, colour, etc. of many of the costumes was off. the duchess was particularly good for the 1780s. the duke’s waistcoats could/should have been cut much shorter, straight across the waist even, but it was on in most respects.
One 18th century movie that stood out in 1975 and remains amazing is Barry Lyndon. Kudos to Milena Canonero and Ulla Britt Soderlund. From the Irish countryside to the elegant Gainsborough interpretations, it’s still delicious. Careful hair and makeup, plenty of detail.
LuciVee: you know, I still haven’t seen Barry Lyndon! I really want to for the costumes, but then I hear that it’s kind of slow and ponderous and that turns me off… one of these days I really need to get on it!
Ahhh, Barry Lyndon… The costumes are gorgeus, but the movie itself is oh-so-slow… (or, as we say here, “Slower than the horse of the bad guy”). Still, it’s worth taking alook, because the costumes are to die for (There is a brown robe a l’anglaise that I would love to do)
Oh please tell me you’re joking, Marie Antoinette is a horrible example of period clothing! Hot pink? Hair feathers? Seriously?? Well I suppose I can’t expect taste and common sense from a woman that can make a victorian corset look as supportive as a pair of control top pantyhose. MA’s only real value is to help remind you that even the worst costume film in the last 5 years didn’t buy their poly velvet from JoAnne’s Fabrics. *hint hint*
BTW Dangerous Liasons was set in the 1760’s, can’t you tell from the hair? Or maybe you are mistaken and caught Valmont on TCM instead….
You’re kidding me, right? You think “Marie Antoinette,” with its bubblegum pink and neon blue dresses, feathers, and converse shoes, has better costuming than “Dangerous Liaisons”? And that DL is “shabby” and “theatrical”? Seriously, WTF?
And I don’t know why you think Dangerous Liaisons is set in the 1770s. Olga said it best- it’s early 1760s. There is not a single high hairstyle or polonaise in sight.
This “review” has left me more convinced than ever that you do NOT know what you are talking about.
Anonymous: well, we’re all allowed to disagree, right? Maybe if you signed your name to your comments I’d take them a little more seriously. And nice tone, btw.
I think Dangerous Liaisons is set in the 1770s because, as I recall, there is a title card at the beginning of the movie that says so.
I never said I thought Marie Antoinette was particularly HISTORICALLY accurate, just that I liked the costuming better. Listen to our podcast on the movie and maybe you’ll understand more?
Ah, and yes you’re right, my post was confused – DL is supposed to be set 1770s, costumes are def. 1760s, hair is 1750s. Is what I should have said.
Title card? I checked out the beginning of the film again on Youtube, and there is no title card.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HriCEbnlEKQ
Like Marie Antoinette as much as you want, but if YOU want to be taken seriously, don’t call the costumes of DL “shabby” or “theatrical.” That is bullshit.
Jayne – aren’t you the little researcher! You know what? You win. You are obviously the expert here. I shall go read through your voluminous writings on the subject (thanks for the references) and, should I then feel even moderately prepared to discuss the subject further, I will be certain to be as rude as I possibly can be about it. Do come back soon, as your scintillating wit and pointed intellect will be missed.