Thread by @mimicofmodes

So, my thoughts on the Bridgerton costumes. When you get down to it, I'm actually a really big fan of using flashy modern fabrics and hairstyles - it can create a lot of cool visuals and a look that's distinct to a particular production.

What I find irritating, though, is when this is done out of a belief that we're being Not Like Other Girls, because the "average ... period drama" is "restrained" and nobody has ever shifted the period aesthetic to be "scandalous and modern". (Quotes from the Vogue interview)

The fact is that it's actually been really common for period dramas to be sexy and creatively use anachronisms in costuming to make points to the modern audience. This is true across the board, but just as much in Regency-set shows and movies.

2018's Vanity Fair runs more to the accurate side, but is definitely sexy, accessible, and far from muted. (Note Bridgerton's Eloise as Amelia Sedley!)

And I mean ... this year's Emma is bold and bright and features both very modern-looking yet accurate costuming, mainly on Emma herself.

Not only is Emma well-costumed, it's irreverent and funny, and shows its characters in ways we REALLY wouldn't normally see people in an Austen adaptation.

Go back farther and we can see the same kind of aesthetic in Bright Star (2009) - also not a buttoned-up, sexless production by any means.

The controversial 2005 Pride & Prej also has highly updated costume design melding 2005-ish fashion and pre-Regency dress, and doesn't skimp on sexiness.

And to come full circle, the 2004 Vanity Fair made use of a really bold palette, lots of modern touches, and very low-cut necklines.

(I skipped Sanditon because I didn't want to think about it that much. But yeah, very recent, low necklines, sex and scandal in the narrative, etc. The heroine walks in on the guy swimming naked in the ocean!)

We can go back even farther to the most famous Austen adaptation, the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, for a production that was committed to anachronistic amounts of cleavage at all times!

And the thing is, it's funny to use a scandalous modern aesthetic as a theme ... when the costuming of the leads (the Bridgertons) features mostly bland, pastel-colored gowns and very accurate menswear.

To look outside the Regency for people doing this kind of costuming, we can take The Favourite (2018), with an anachronistic black-and-white color scheme and modern fabrics (along with very modern speech):

The 2016 live-action Cinderella was also filled with a delightful mashup of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, and we basically all love it, right? (Both Cinderella and The Favourite were costumed by Sandy Powell, not a coincidence.)

Alexandra Byrne costumed 2018's Mary Queen of Scots, which also combined multiple eras and created a very distinctive, anachronistic look (which some people love and some people hate).

So the novelty aspect of the costuming is really not as noteworthy as the reports make it sound. That means that I start to ask myself about the *execution* - how well the concept has been handled, thematic consistency, cutting and fitting, etc.

And the answer is ... the execution is not great.

For instance, I have a real problem with the corsetry. I think the stitching and finishing is well done (as it should be, it's by Mr Pearl), but the shape is not just very inaccurate, but very unappealing. They're essentially tubes!

By pushing the bust in and up, you do get intense cleavage, but you also get a really flat silhouette in profile. The gown basically has nowhere to go in between the bust and stomach.

In some cases, the high waistline looks almost randomly placed. It's kind of awkward.

Backing off of these specifics, there's the question of how well the deliberate inaccuracy serves the costumes in general. For Daphne's beaded, 1910s-ish gown, for instance, the answer is yes! It's ethereal and dainty and makes you think "duchess".

On the other hand, there are plenty of very plain gowns that are just ... there. They might as well be more accurate, because as it is they're kind of like costumes someone might make with the Simplicity pattern for an English Country Dance ball.

I'm impressed that they made 7,500 costume pieces, but why not make fewer, rewear some gowns, and make them count visually?

All these tweets and I didn't even touch on the fact that only one (1) male character - Simon Bassett - has costuming that is touched by this whole "modern, sexy, scandalous" aesthetic. His hair/stubble are modern, his shirt has no collar, his waistcoats are modern fabric.

This is a *really big* problem, in terms of judging this production on its own terms. This is saying "yeah, yeah, that other stuff was fun but we know you want to see the real thing😉". It's basically an admission that they're not going all in.

(At best. At worst there's a real Implication about women and Black men being eye candy but white men needing to be taken seriously. I don't think that was intended but it's kind of ... there.😬)