DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '26 I => Current Talk '03 I => Topic started by: Julia99 on February 04, 2003, 04:24:49 AM
-
I thought that first dress Angelique wore when Evan & Quentin conjured her up was a horror. . .BUT the pink/gold thing today was mucho ucky. . .i can't think of a better description!
-
Huh??? What??? [hdscrt]
I didn't look closely at the dress, but I think she looks pretty in pink. AND...that dress she first appears in, in 1897 was the NICEST dress I've ever seen her in.
Seeing her in something other than that ugly, puke-ridden green THING she's always wearing is a relief if ya ask me. LOL
Humbly,
-CLC
Who loves "Pretty In Pink" by the Psychedelic Furs
-
I thought that first dress Angelique wore when Evan & Quentin conjured her up was a horror. . .BUT the pink/gold thing today was mucho ucky. . .i can't think of a better description!
I like the first dress and wish we saw it more, but I wonder why she was given only those 2 other dresses-- the purple/pink one we saw her in today and the green snake dress-- for most of 1897. Poor LP!
-
I wonder why she was given only those 2 other dresses-- the purple/pink one we saw her in today and the green snake dress-- for most of 1897.
Yes - it's a baffling mystery. That first dress she appeared in - was it rented and they had to return it? LOL Okay - these timelines in the past - clothing is obviously not readily available. Some of the stuff had to be made. But STILL....look at the sets. They didn't seem to be stingy when it came to those. Everything is just beautiful - rugs, furniture, lamps, etc. Gorgeous fireplaces....
And THEN, we've got Quentin with one jacket and pair of pants. (!) Granted, it IS a magic suit of clothes. It's blue when he's normal, then seems to turn gray when he's a werewolf. LOL (Is that my imagination?)
Anyway, I would guess that suit was made for him. I would guess that weird jacket Edward wears alot was NOT made for him. It's too small.
Then there's Judith with her "extensive" wardrobe (at last compared to everyone else). Ya know, you can dress her up but you can't take her ANYWHERE IMHO. LOL I love the clothes in 1840. Q had more than one suit, and they looked to be tailor-made.
Oh yeah - while I'm at it......they spent all this money on the rooms, but then everyone seemed to have the same blue sheets and green blanket. HUH???
Oh wait -- also, I have a question. Maybe for Luciaphil??? What type of shoes would the men have been wearing in 1897?? Certainly not the plain black street shoes all the men seem to wear. Hmm???
-CLC
;D
-
Who loves "Pretty In Pink" by the Psychedelic Furs
I was already singing:
'prrrraaaaaaty ooooon paaaaaaank' before i scrolled down to this!
-
Not sure, but I think the guys would've been wearing some form of low rise boots that sported hook and eye closures.
I've often wondered where DS got their costumes. I imagine that interior sets would've been easier to do. IIRC back in the day, you could get late Victorian and early 20th Century furnishings for little to nothing. My aunt has a house full of the stuff that she purchased on the cheap at yard sales and estate sales in the 50's and 60's.
Clothes don't hold up as well as furniture, do they? They probably couldn't have simply bought old clothes. It was probably a chore to make the actor's costumes, and given the show's notoriously limited budgets... Maybe that accounts for why Ange and some of the others (Beth and Rachel come to mind) only seemed to have a couple of outfits.
Then again, I've always heard that prior to the advent of modern conveniences like washing machines, people didn't have many clothes. That still doesn't account for Angelique's limited number of frocks. Couldn't she just whip up a Worth gown, or whatever? ;)
BTW, didn't Ange look like a total floozy in her pink and gold dockside outfit? Aristede obviously thought he was going to get lucky, then whammo! Guess he got a little "choked up" when he found out she wasn't really interested. [lghy]
-
Clothes don't hold up as well as furniture, do they? They probably couldn't have simply bought old clothes. It was probably a chore to make the actor's costumes, and given the show's notoriously limited budgets... Maybe that accounts for why Ange and some of the others (Beth and Rachel come to mind) only seemed to have a couple of outfits.
The actresses' dresses all have zippers. That means they must have been made post 1920s because zippers were not invented until the twenties.
From what I've read on listservs before, the costumes from most of the historical storylines except I think 1841??? were all rented.
Then again, I've always heard that prior to the advent of modern conveniences like washing machines, people didn't have many clothes. That still doesn't account for Angelique's limited number of frocks. Couldn't she just whip up a Worth gown, or whatever? ;)
LOL! Although, too early for Worth (I could be wrong though).
As far as number of outfits, you have to consider a number of things, mainly that most clothing was made from scratch. You didn't go into a store and buy something off the rack. At least not to the extent that we had even in the 20th century--IIRC, they may have begun some mass production, but the quality was poor and these things were geared for the working classes.
People did wear fewer clothes, but they changed them more frequently. Almost all the people in this 1897 story are either wealthy or living in wealthy surroundings. A woman of Judith's station would have changed her dress probably a minimum of three times a day. The family would have "dressed" for dinner: evening dresses for the ladies, black tie for the men. IIRC, the only character who actually ever does this is Kitty, Lady Hampshire (btw, not Lady Kitty, because she gets the title not by birth, but by marriage only). Kitty has great clothes, btw and if you want to know how mourning fashions progress, watch her wardrobe. Faster than proper, but correct.
Beth has apparently two dresses and that works. She's a maid and that would be about right. That she sports those elaborate coiffures is inaccurate. In the first place, as a maid she'd be expected to keep her appearance very simple; servants were supposed to be invisible and not go above their station. In the second, she'd never have the time to get her hair that elaborately curled and in the third, that looks like a two-person do, if ever I saw one. Beth would not have someone to help her dress.
That Judith has a huge wardrobe does make sense--very wealthy woman of good family=lots o'clothes. That she's flouncing around in hot pink and lipstick says something else entirely. "Nice" women did not wear cosmetics, or at least, cosmetics that looked so obvious and a middle aged woman would have been considered too old to wear pinks and reds and such.
Connie's right about the men. Quentin, Edward and Carl, should have had a fair number of suits. Again, would have been custom-made, but that would have been the norm.
I get annoyed that the women all rush around outdoors sans hats and wearing some of the most inappropriate clothing I have ever seen. Women, even sluttish women, wore hats if they stepped foot out of doors. Period. End of story. De rigeur. Plus, they're so much fun!
What bothers me a lot is that the wardrobe goodies (regardless of year) are never even remotely evenly divided. Diana Millay and Lara Parker, both of who have pretty meaty roles and who play characters who are in upper class circumstances get extremely meagre numbers of outfits. Rachel, the governess, who would have had a pathetic salary, on the other hand, has like five or six dresses--makes absolutely no sense.
I don't know about the shoes for the men or the women (the only thing I do know is that little girls often had button boots and women wore kid slippers to dance in). Sorry 'bout that.
Is Happybat around? She knows a lot more about costuming than I do.
-
Worth began designing for his own house in 1858.
www.mcny.org/worth.htm will show you a collection from the Museum of the City of New York.
rainey
-
i always thought Parker's clothes in 1897 were awful and then in the next storylines they improve. do believe
1840 were the best of the lot!
jennifer
-
Raineypark,
Thanks for the link to those gowns by Worth. WOW! They're really gorgeous!!
-
You're very welcome. They ARE beautiful, aren't they. I guess there was a reason a gown by Worth was considered the absolute epitome of style among American women of the upper classes. Being 'dressed' by Worth would go a long way towards an invitation to one of Mrs. Astor's parties!
Judith should have taken the money and run like hell to Paris!
rainey
-
I like the first dress and wish we saw it more, but I wonder why she was given only those 2 other dresses-- the purple/pink one we saw her in today and the green snake dress-- for most of 1897. Poor LP!
What do you mean . .I've already spoken OUTLOUD about the problem . .Joan Bennett was hogging all the wardrobe money .. she has a new dress on like every 3rd day while Magda wears the same skirt, finally got a 2nd blouse, Rachel had only 1 dress (maybe 2), Minera 1 dress, charity 1 dress and a nightie. . .so obvious why the other ladies looked a bit shabby at times.. .
-
What do you mean . .I've already spoken OUTLOUD about the problem . .Joan Bennett was hogging all the wardrobe money .. she has a new dress on like every 3rd day while Magda wears the same skirt, finally got a 2nd blouse, Rachel had only 1 dress (maybe 2), Minera 1 dress, charity 1 dress and a nightie. . .so obvious why the other ladies looked a bit shabby at times.. .
Actually, Rachel had about 4 or 5 outfits. Some of them were shirtwaists, but she had quite the extensive wardrobe. Charity's been in about 3 or 4 things (at least 2 different dresses and 2 nighties (fluffy nightmare and that slutty number from last week).
-
IIRC, Orbachs and other clothing companies were anxious to have big names/stars wear their clothing so the bigger names got to wear the better clothes.
Contractually, usually the "star" of any given series or film gets the better wardrobe since that person is designated as "the star." Joan Bennett was always listed as the star of DS so it's no surprise she, and not lesser known performers, were given the better looking items to wear. Usually, that is. I am sure there were glaring exceptions.
FYI, Lucille Ball is said to have had it written into Vivian Vance's contract that she would get clothes that made her look less attractive than Ms. Ball, i.e., clothes that made Ethel look heavier than the actress really was. While I doubt Ms. Bennett ever made any such demands on what other actresses wore on the show, I know that looking good was important to her so I can see her making sure she looked good (if not the best) anytime she was on DS.
Nancy
-
IIRC, Orbachs and other clothing companies were anxious to have big names/stars wear their clothing so the bigger names got to wear the better clothes.
Contractually, usually the "star" of any given series or film gets the better wardrobe since that person is designated as "the star." Joan Bennett was always listed as the star of DS so it's no surprise she, and not lesser known performers, were given the better looking items to wear. Usually, that is. I am sure there were glaring exceptions.
FYI, Lucille Ball is said to have had it written into Vivian Vance's contract that she would get clothes that made her look less attractive than Ms. Ball, i.e., clothes that made Ethel look heavier than the actress really was. While I doubt Ms. Bennett ever made any such demands on what other actresses wore on the show, I know that looking good was important to her so I can see her making sure she looked good (if not the best) anytime she was on DS.
Nancy
Good point Nancy after all joan was the draw at first for the show! but i think it was pretty mean of Lucy
to do that! making someone appear fatter than they are should be a felony in my book! LOL
jennifer
-
Nancy Wrote:
FYI, Lucille Ball is said to have had it written into Vivian Vance's contract that she would get clothes that made her look less attractive than Ms. Ball, i.e., clothes that made Ethel look heavier than the actress really was.
I always wondered why Vivan Vance looked so heavy on I Love Lucy because when you saw her in other shows she always appeared to be half that size!
Cassandra[/font]
-
Yes, exactly, lol. If you ever have a chance to see headshots and other photos of Vivian Vance from that time period sans "I Love Lucy" publicity and set shots you will see a lovely lady with a nice figure. She was not overweight or dumpy looking. However, if you followed her career with Lucy, Vance looked a lot better in "The Lucy Show" because she would not consent to the "be dumpy so Lucy always looks the best" clause of her previous contract. By then, Vance could put her foot down as to what she would or would not agree to do.;)
Nancy
Nancy Wrote:
I always wondered why Vivan Vance looked so heavy on I Love Lucy because when you saw her in other shows she always appeared to be half that size!
Cassandra[/font]
-
Good point Nancy after all joan was the draw at first for the show! but i think it was pretty mean of Lucy
to do that! making someone appear fatter than they are should be a felony in my book! LOL
jennifer
While Lucille Ball was not renown for her kindness towards co-stars, she was not atypical of lead actresses in television or film of that era in terms of wanting to always look the best of every other female in the cast. Remember, it is one of those stigmas on women (even now) that you have to look great as that translates into being successful, having power/prestige and the rest of it. Someone can actually not believe in that philosophy but nonetheless practice it because that is the game they are in and the general perception. If you look dumpy or heavy, you are not "the star" . . .generally speaking. Performers like Roseanne managed to turn that notion on its head somewhat. [lghy]
Ms. Bennett was a very kind and considerate individual but she undoubtedly knew how to manipulate a perception and what she had to do to look like "the star." It was her business to know it.
Nancy
Nancy
-
Ms. Bennett was a very kind and considerate individual but she undoubtedly knew how to manipulate a perception and what she had to do to look like "the star." It was her business to know it.
There's an interview with Jessica Harper, who co-starred with Bennett in Suspiria on the web. In the interview, Harper mentions Bennett (fondly) and says that they were both smokers. Bennett advised Harper to never let herself be photographed smoking.
Not that this has anything to do with clothes, but it does indicate that Bennett was cognizant of the need to maintain a certain image.
Jessica Harper Interview (http://http//www.geocities.com/digitalcinema/jessicaharper.html)