costume snobbing

[anotheranon]

I've resigned myself to the fact that "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is going to have very little to do with the actual Elizabeth Tudor's actual "golden age" in the late 16th century.

I've also accepted that the director, Shekhar Kapur, is aiming for larger than life rather than any semblance to historical reality in both plot and visuals.

Really, I get all that. I'm going to see it eventually for the acting, because a triple header of Blanchett-Rush-Owen can't be passed up.

But when Shakur says:

"I more or less like the spirit of the historical look," Kapur says from Los Angeles. "The spirit -- not the actuality of that. Because the actuality can be quite boring."[emphasis mine]

I have to ask - what is he smoking???

I mean, has he EVER looked at any of the umpteen portraits of the real Elizabeth I? By even the most modern Vegas showgirl standards, these clothes are NOT boring - full of veils and ruffs and velvets and crusted with pearls - this is boring??

Mr. Kapur, don't quit your day job :P

Comments

[semmie17.livejournal.com]

From the costume-clueless:

I'd love to see a list of what was actually done incorrectly, based on historical records. I catch things in medieval movies, but don't know enough about Elizabethan textiles and clothing to make a judgement.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen this one yet, but I can volunteer what I noticed in the "Elizabeth":

Too much undress - men didn't run around in unbuttoned doublets at court; adult women always wore their hair up in a coif or other kind of headdress. I remember big bouffant dresses when Elizabeth (Blanchett) is dancing outdoors with her ladies, and Tudor styles were very controlled and geometric. Also, I'm pretty sure that stretch panne velvet didn't exist then :P