Top 10 Fashion Facts That Historical Fiction Leaves Out
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Historical fiction always leaves these fashion facts out. Welcome to MsMojo, and today we’re counting down our picks for the fashion details that historical movies and shows get wrong. Our countdown includes bright colors, too much cleavage, doublets hanging out, and more! Which historical fashion fact surprised YOU the most? Let us know in the comments below!
Watch more great fashion videos here:
Top 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Costumes on TV - • Top 10 Most Historical...
Top 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Costumes in Movies - • Top 10 Most Historical...
Top 10 Most Historically Accurate Costumes in Movies - • Top 10 Most Historical...
Don't forget to play our Live Trivia games at 3pm EST for a chance to win cash! The faster you answer, the more points you get!: www.watchmojo....
Have Your Idea Become A Video!
wmojo.com/msmo...
Subscribe for more great content!
wmojo.com/msmo...
MsMojo is a leading producer of reference online video content of Top 10 Lists, Origins, Biographies, Commentary and more on Pop Culture, Celebrity, Movies, Music, TV, Film, Video Games, Politics, News, Comics, Superheroes. Your trusted authority on ranking Pop Culture.
#Fashion #History #HistoricalFiction #Wrong #Inaccurate
Which historical fashion fact surprised YOU the most? Let us know below, and check out our video of the Top 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Costumes on TV - ruclips.net/video/04RTrTxVFQM/видео.html
The open doublet and togas surprised me. I had no idea the white shirt is underwear and wearing a toga is like wearing a tuxedo. By the way, wearing a corset is like wearing a modern day bra. So, the ladies shouldn’t be suffocating at all.
I don't know, I can't think of any historical clothes in movies and tv I would say random
As another video pointed out, it was silly for Bridgeton to have a tight lacing scene, seeing how its' fashions were Regency with empire waistlines. (That, and metal grommets didn't exist. If you try to tight lace a set of stays with cloth eyelets, you will quickly pull out the eyelets.)
Actually Queen Charlotte hated the empire waist. She wanted her debutantes to wear the gowns of her youth.
The poopooing and villainizing of corsets has annoyed me for YEARS.
I'm a costume performer and my corsets SAVE me from so much discomfort! It's like a comfy back brace that keeps the weight of my hoop, crinoline, underskirt and overskirt from digging DIRECTLY onto my poor hipbones. Corsets and stays kick ass.
I see what you’re saying. They CAN be supporting, and when I have worn them to fairs I was always comfortable. . However, in the past, women were tight laced. That is the difference, imo. No break, no nothing. No wearing anything else in public. Or even at home🙀 . No jeans, tees, whatever. ALWAYS being so laced that women fainted all the time. Let’s get that 19 inch waist, ladies! Doesn’t matter if your natural waist was 25. Gotta give it to Queen Victoria. She flat out refused 💪
@@mangot589 You are misinformed. If women always tightlaced, there was no need to warn against it. Also, you will not faint if you tightlace. You just breath differently. Tiny waist were just an optical illusion as padding was used to enhance the bust and hips.
I was worried i was going to sigh at most facts, because a lot of pages/videos still get a lot wrong. But it turned into sighs of relief!
I try to be period accurate/plausible when making and wearing fashion history and beauty(1750-1910) and you got things quite right!
Thanks for watching! 😊
I want to mention that in the 16th century and for many centuries before then it was standard for unmarried young women to wear their hair loose and flowing. It was a symbol of their unmarried state. A married woman covered her hair. So someone like Anne Boleyn would have worn her hair loose until she married. Her daughter, Elizabeth I, wore her hair loose all her life to stress her virginity.
nope - never loose hair at court except for the queen in very formal affairs
@@christyb2912 I am not going to argue with you. Not that important.
as far as natural colors... while YES most movies use colors that were not historically accurate? there were certain colors available that were truly eye popping. obviously purple was restricted in most times by law or just price.... but a truly bright yellow was easily accomplished (it did fade quickly, but it was there) and if you had trade with the celts or the far north? lichen dyes made for absolutely appallingly bright greens and yellows.
scarlet was also possible, if difficult to dye well and very $$$$
depending on your water supply, you can also get some oddly bright pink shades...
Came here for the same comment. I assume the writers have never heard of turmeric. It gives an amazingly vivid yellow. Red cabbage gives a great blue. A little research could have easily prevented this error.
Fiction basically never gets History right
Clue is in the name….!
History is ugly and not as entertaining as it could be.
Corsets weren't just for waists; they were meant (along with an undershirt-like garment) to support the breasts. Basically, they were there for the whole torso. Their decline is partly why bras were invented.
I feel like the colours thing is a bit misleading… people did wear bright colours, albeit not often blue or purple. In battle, soldiers & knights needed to be able to distinguish friend from foe, and even metal armour could be coloured to some degree!
As for Greeks & Romans, cloth armour was actually more common than bronze chest pieces. It was made with layers of resin & linen, to make for a more breathable, flexible protective garment.
Oh, and we never see nearly enough brigandine! Movies always feature full plate or chain mail, hardly any variation
I mostly agree... Except on the blues. You can get some pretty bright blues with woad, and that's been cultivated in Europe for thousands of years.
I don't think the problem in period dramas is too much colour, but not enough of it...
I remember an archaeologist friend with an interest in fibres telling me that they discovered some fabric scraps at a dig somewhere in Scotland and at first thought they had to be modern because the colours - which included pink - were so bright and vibrant they assumed they had to be modern dyes. They weren't, wish I could remember where exactly and when but it was mentioned in passing conversation. So they certainly had bright colours to match any modern dyd even if there was probably a lot less choice.
Codpiece- how a man overcompensated
...and how he peed without completely undressing.
Women didn't go barelegged in the 1940s? Hell, women didn't go barelegged in the 1970s!
I wore nylons when I went to high school - 1961-65! Hated girdles and the only other choice was garter belts. I was ecstatic when panty hose became available in 1970!!!! Haven’t worn a girdle since😁😁😁👍👍👍. But hose were important always except for certain times and places! Haven’t worn hose for years except for our son’s wedding 12/2019!!!!
I remember finding both leg 'sanders' (used instead of razor blades that were in short supply during the war) and makeup in my family's bathroom cabinet. There was a darker shade that was used to draw a seam up the back of one's legs to mimic hose. That's how important appearing to wear hose was in those days.
Even now, I don't consider bare legs to be properly dressed. If you're wearing a sundress and sandals, yes. But I consider not wearing hose when dressed for business or more formal occasions to be unacceptable. A woman is not properly dressed without hose.
Even up to the 1990's!!
The pretty often contemporary make-up in a common friend of the flowing hair.
Huh???
Bright colors. I beg to differ. I have a lot of experience dyeing both silk and wool yardage with medieval/ renaissance natural dyes. I have been able to get bright, vibrant colors; yellow, orange, green, blue, even scarlet red from madder. It's all in the mordant. If I could do it, professional dyers in period were certainly doing it too.
Now do 20thC fashion done wrong in movies. Women going to church in slacks in the 1930s? Not if they didn't want to be kicked out. 1920s flappers wearing dresses halfway up their thighs? A mere bit of a knee was the risqué thing. Round, close together breasts in the 1950s? Why no, mam, you need a pointed, lift and separate, torpedo bra to be chic.
Then do plastic surgery and cosmetic procedures that make actors' faces and bodies look horribly anachronistic in historical roles. Lip filler in the 18thC? Not so much. Breast implants in the 1920s? Never. Every single Viking with a full head of hair no matter his age? Yeah right.
And then, when you've done those two themes, try anachronistic beauty standards. A skinny beauty in a Dickens adaptation? Perish the thought! She must be prettily plump! Squared off eyebrows in a Jane Austen adaptation? Please God no! Perfectly aligned, super white teeth in the 16thC? Not when orthodonture was not yet invented, and sugar was suddenly available in abundance for the rich so blackened teeth were a status symbol.
It’s always the loose hair for me. Totally takes me out of the time period.
funny your comments mirror my grandmothers way of thinking and of living, in our quirkie little village I believe most things did not change for hundreds of years, people don't believe me but it's true, it was a case of if it's not broken don't change it, and I remember my grandmother being very particular about how she presented herself to the outside of her own home, in the local community. She did not dress up, but dressed clean tidy and neat with co ordinating things. Yes women's hair was always hidden in hats or scarves, it was tantermount to nakedness to do anything else, when I moved out of my little village the real world was a shock but I adjusted over a number of years. Though I believe my grandmother was right you don't need to dress fancy, just tidy and respectable for yourself to be out in a public place, as most people had no TV, no radio, no phone, no bicycle, or car, nor bus or train, you relied on yourself and so you were the most precious thing you had, you and of course your loved ones. It wasn't much different to look at but the mind set was completely different, as you had to rely on yourself for much much more than you do today so talking and learning was passed down from parents to children through stories and experiences that were as precious as air.....
The clips shown under the boots section aren’t all set in the Renaissance era (it’s a great point, just funny to call out that period specifically while showing shots from Regency and Jacobean period pieces)
I used to make historical costumes, and I read somewhere that people can only tolerate so much historical accuracy - they think it looks inaccurate lol.
It's the Tiffany-problem... It's a real medieval name, but people think it sounds way to modern.
I was a professional bellydancer for many years. A group of my dancer friends were hired at a Renaissance Faire and told they had to have historically accurate costumes. They researched and came up with very covered up costumes that would have been worn in the middle east at the time. Time and time again at the fair people would tell them they couldn't possible be belly dancers because they weren't showing enough skin. The next year the powers that be at the fair had them dress in Tribal Fusion style. Sigh.
Oh how I have been waiting for this.
“many modern filmmakers are more interested in aesthetics.” I think it’s more like they’re interested in sensationalism. Hence the inaccurate low cut historical costumes, and the modern contrivance that everyone was messing around willy nilly, without fear of pregnancy or disease.
YES. GURL, PUT YOUR HAIR UP. Also, women wore linen coifs under French hoods.
A woman covering her hair wasn’t a rule just for social and moral reasons. The practical ones far outweighed them. It meant hair was kept out of the way and protected while doing work, especially in places where even close braids could catch on things and be pulled. Not fun, have had it happen. Also, the head coverings were always made of linen, which is excellent at wicking away oils which helped keep hair clean
I knew some of this info, but not all. Working at an office in the mid-1980's, they would send women home if you weren't wearing stockings with any a dress or skirt - even in hot Los Angeles. Crazy.
We always kept at least one spare package of antyhose in our desks in case we got a runner.
This was great. I'm always yelling at the screen during Regency period movies "Where's the bonnet?!".Drives me nuts. Why I can't explain.
How girls and women curled their hair before rollers .. I learned that from Anne With an E.
I didn't watch the show, since it butchered the book so bad, how did they curl their hair back then?
@@kelleyk28 They tied bits of rag in it somehow
Bernadette Banner did a video on how to use rags to curl your hair, if you're interested.
@@LaLayla99 I'd read about that, but never seen it done.
I wore long shoulder-length curls when I was younger. You take a hank of hair and tie on a long thin cloth in its middle. The tie should be next to the scalp, as close as you can get it. A full head of hair will make about eight to ten long curls, maybe even twelve depending on the thickness of your hair. Mine was very thick. Enough for three women, my hairdresser said.
You wind the hair carefully around one half of the cloth (the same way you would around a roller) and wrap the result in the other half of the cloth. Fasten with a rubber band. Let it dry overnight. A hair dryer, not even the old-fashioned hood type, will not do. It's tricky to remove and keep the curl intact, but it can be done.
I even did this as an adult when I had long hair and wanted to do something unusual for a special event. It's not difficult, just time-consuming.
Miranda priestly to the movie producers: this stuff😁
You are entirely WRONG! Bare legs were occasionally necessary when stockings weren't available. Women took an eyebrow pencil and drew a seam line down the back of their bare legs. This was particularly true in England during WWII. How do I know? My mother was a WAF in 1939.
Thank you! I was hoping someone would point this out. My mum told me all about this and said that stockings were like gold dust during WW2,especially if you lived in rural areas.💛
Liquid stockings is mentioned in this video at 4:32.
Poldark got a lot of these right.
I was surprised by the dating of the kilt. I thought it went back to the Picts, so you can see how out-of-date my knowledge was.
I knew about the codpiece, although I hadn't heard of the etymology of "the family jewels."
A corset can be a wonderful thing, however. In my 1950s youth we wore something called a Merry Widow (I think it was a style name of Warner Bras, but I'm not sure) under our formal gowns for proms and such. It was a long-line bra that went well below the waist. It supported our backs and was very comfortable. It enabled us to be comfortable all evening, dancing the night away. I'm sorry they can't be found these days.
Purple snails
And the green dyes were deadly for the wearer of green frocks. Since green is my favourite colour, I'd be fashionably pushing up the daisies in my green wardrobe. Arsenic is a bugger.
The big boots thing seems to have become more prominent in the last 20 years. Productions based on this era just don't want their male stars walking around in tights anymore.
That plus a few other things on this list were quite noticeable with The Tudors 😅
I'd wear a codpiece if I could find one.😂
Never a codpiece in sight😂 Thank goodness! However, it was so very hip, good for any actor that actually has the guts to wear them. In another 300 years, they’re going to be amazed by sagging, I’m sure. Just as ridiculous as codpieces lol.
Too bad they didn't do an honorable mention.
My daughter's mother would have loved this video.
I think it's silly to think that anything in Bridgerton is historically accurate (still fun to watch, but it's hardly a documentary).
You forgot to mention that in the movies everyone has perfectly straight white teeth - not something supported by history.
Historical portraits never show the sitters teeth - and for good reason
I'll be darned. This was the first video I've seen in ages the content of which I was completely unaware. I suppose I assumed that the costumes worn in period films were designed mostly for a modern audience. But I never really thought about what may or may not have been period correct.
Actually, that's not true. I remember learning about the inaccuracy of the kilts worn in Braveheart. That was because I did some research into William Wallace's actual life and the fact that he wouldn't have worn a kilt came up. So, I knew about that. But the rest was all new information that I enjoyed very much.
One that annoys me is seeing women wearing high heeled shoes in historical films. High heeled boots and shoes were originaly for men. The boots specifically were meant to help them ride horses better. They also felt the added height of a heel made them appear more masculine. Flats or rather what the equivalent of flats would have been then is what women would have worn. Much more dainty and feminine.
It's so funny how the ONLY kind of historically accurate thing in Braveheart is Sophie Marceau's hairstyle and headwear.
Especially when combined with that hideous pink crushed velvet dress. 😂
I think in the 1968 Romeo and Juliet movie the men wore the cod-piece and I couldn’t stop laughing ( I was 17 when I saw the movie) I snickered most of the movie which ticked off my cousin cause she couldn’t stop laughing either and she wanted to actually watch the movie.
4.43 might have applied in the US but in other parts of the world such as EUROPE - you know, the bit that actually bore the brunt of the war - bare legs were normal in the 1940s [and yes, my mother grew up during the war in England], IF you were going out the defacto leg covering was either the paint or - for most who couldnd't afford it - it was gravy browing with a line drawn up the back of your leg using mascara or eye pencil [mum, having a very steady hand, got to draw the lines for her sister and older evacuees when they went out]. If you are going to say something like this then ensure you mention it is ONLY applicable in SOME parts of the world such as the US and not imply that every country had access to nylons because they didn't.
What surpised me, the amount that wasn't quite right. Bright colours WERE available and worn [have you ever seen the colour that comes out if you spill turmeric on your dress or even saffron. I've seen bright pinks and greens as well and even if they didn't last long - though it did depend on the fabric - they WERE AVAILABLE.
Loose hair was worn by women until they married and even afterwards in some eras. But you were right about the French hoods
I don't think there were many nylons during the war. Most women wore cotton stockings if they wore any at all. Nylon, silk, and even rayon were in short supply. All consumer goods were in short supply.
I remember being with my mother as she picked up hose that had been repaired. I always assumed it was silk or rayon, but maybe there were nylons. There would be a corral with several women sitting in it doing something with hose stretched out over what looked to my childish eyes like water glasses. The women were repairing runs, by reknitting them, I think. There are RUclips videos that show how to repair runs in knit sweaters. I assume the process was similar for hose.
I think the key word here is FICTION 😳😜
Cod pieces getting bigger was partly due to the rise in some deceases that effected the genital area. More room ment relieve if everything was sore or covered in blisters and pus.
That women in the west had covered hair most of the time was the most surprising to me. It makes xenophobes who look at women who cover their hair for religious/societal expectation purposes in modern times as doing something unheard of all the more ignorant.
I can't believe how often the 1970s gets botched. I was there, and it was nothing like most movies porray it as. Also, the only really great job I've seen styling the 30s is the HBO Mildred Pierce miniseries. It's a tough decade to pin down for a number of reasons, but it was certainly not all deco and marcel waves...there were plenty of simple homemade dresses and flour sack garments.
So often I've seen costumes for 1970's movies using outfits they only wore in the 1960's - not that long ago, you'd think it would be easy to get it right
Regency not Renaissance....correct correctly....
"facts" in this are about as accurate as in the American films.
Bright colors. Happy wednesday morning, Rebecca, take care and God bless you. Greetings from Colombia to you as well.
ehemmm Bridgerton plead guilty
two hundred years from now they'll have period movies of the 21st century with men wearing walking around with their trousers unzipped and wide open, though to be fair that was definitely a 22nd century thing... 🙂
another thing they get wrong is women walking around with their nipples showing. yes modern actresses are known for them and it's an important part in our identification algorithms, but back in the 2020s they always had them covered...there were even *laws* against it. so to be period accurate, always keep them under cloth. one might argue what's the point of using big name actors, then? 🙂
Imagine how many sore feet there were caused by heels
And shoes were not made for left and right feet - shoes were interchangeable with feet!
Not that uncomfortable as the upper class people (well into the 1800's) had their shoes and boots personally fitted, made for them by cobblers. And, even men had slipper like shoes for home use.
A.k.a UK/British historical fiction
Sarung nangka wear super tight corset
Marie Antoinette 😍
FGS. You can’t critique others and in your very first point say ‘the Renaissance era’ which is Italy in the 1400s to 1520 and show drama and experts of the English Regency period which is 1810 to 1820! Major fail at the kick off. Doesn’t anyone check your scripts?
I didn’t know corsets were so controversial even then. 🤔 I thought all women had to wear their corsets as tight as possible because it was the ‘way’. 😅
Nope! Corsets and stays existed before bras & panties (I hate that word but they’re both underwear so I’m saying it to distinguish the two).
Everyone wore them, from nobility in fancy dress to farmer’s wives out tilling the fields. You couldn’t really tight lace them until metal rivets came along in the industrial age, or else you’d tear the fabric
Additionally, they could be constructed with the boning (support) being cotton or linen cord to be super flexible. Wearing such garments is very like wrapping a blanket or towel closely around your torso. You will feel it, and you will be slightly restricted in how you can move, but it should be reasonably comfortable
Take a good look at real photos from the time they were available - women looked different when posing for a good photo (corsets) but everyday women didn’t wear them for the most part!
Also, working women--servants and such could hardly tight lace themselves, they'd never be able to get their work done. They wore corsets that were less restrictive.
Nylons suck
To be honest they all sucked for people back in those days but the worst is the corset cuz I'm surprised they didn't break their ribs every time the thing was tightened YIKES 😓🥶😰
A corset was just underwear that helped shape their outer garments. It was flexible and actually provided a lot of support. Tight-lacing is what you're referring to and it was not as common. It's akin to saying all women today wear 5" stilettos instead of comfortable 1-2" heels
Or none at all
My grandmother has to wear a corset after an auto accident about 1957 - it was like hugging a tank (not that we were allowed to even hug!!!). My great aunt owned a corset shop well into this time before she passed away!
you’re the best
👌🏼
@gremlita