They did it again!

Originally posted by Happybat on the Dark Shadows: General Discussion Forum on February 26, 2002 at 07:53:28:

How fun seeing Angelique's and Josette's debut on DS and a very fetching Barnabas caught in clinchers with both ladies! And I was also impressed by Josettes's lovely white gown; it is fairly accurate historically, which is something of a surprise. Sadly, one can hardly say that about Vicky's mousy little dress.

I think it is very interesting that the DS writers chose a transitional year in terms of costume. If I recall my fashion history correctly, 1795 was just about the time when female fashions changed from the stiff, corseted 18th century gowns to the high-waisted gowns that we associate with the Empire and Regency periods. This means that Josette is a very, very fashionable gal. As for the men, I would expect that at least one of them would still wear their hair long and tied back in a queue, but no one does, not even Joshua, which is a bit surprising, considering that he is hardly living at the epicenter of western fashion! In some ways, the Countess' stiffer 18th century fashion rings truer, especially for someone of the older generation who is clearly proud of her noble lineage.

And have you noticed that they again messed up on the portraits? In a scene with Vicky and Angie, there is a portrait of what should be a Collins incestor ... uh, I mean ancestor, but is clearly a descendant, circa 1840s. Why in the world couldn't they just have used a portrait of a man in powdered wig? How difficult could that possibly be?

Love this show!

Originally posted by CastleBee on February 26, 2002 at 09:04:51:
In Reply to: They did it again! posted by Happybat on February 26, 2002 at 07:53:28:

Why in the world couldn't they just have used a portrait of a man in powdered wig? How difficult could that possibly be?

I KNOW! Sometimes the most obvious and you would think easy to remedy stuff blows through! Then you see a great makeup job like Barn going ancient on us and you think what might have been. I was watching the bloopers tape this weekend and saw people stumbling all over styrofoam gravestones and I thought - you know, it wouldn't have cost a fortune to have purchased some real stones for props. You only saw the names occasionally anyway and most could have been used over again. Only on a show like DS would grave stones have been a great investment - LOL!

Originally posted by jennifer on February 26, 2002 at 11:45:58:
In Reply to: They did it again! posted by Happybat on February 26, 2002 at 07:53:28:

You are so right Happy Bat!! I think the real reason Angelique is in a dither is that "mousy little dress".
LOL
jennifer

Originally posted by Julia99 on February 26, 2002 at 18:03:46:
In Reply to: They did it again! posted by Happybat on February 26, 2002 at 07:53:28:

Sadly, one can hardly say that about Vicky's mousy little dress.

historically accurate or not, I thought this dress flattered AM-I's figure much better than the 1960s garb which seemed to make her very slender figure look wide and thick. . (the same is true for Julia's 1840 duds. The 1960s suits made Grayson look bigger than she appeared in person or at least in her films, see Night of the Iguana or Satan, she seems Calista-thin).

J99

Originally posted by Bob the Bartender on February 26, 2002 at 18:37:42:
In Reply to: Re: They did it again! posted by Julia99 on February 26, 2002 at 18:03:46:

Dear Julia99,

Didn't the Duchess of Windsor say that you can never be too rich or too thin? (Or was it Diana Ross or Steve Winwood who uttered those memorable words?)

Bob the Bartender, who thinks that the venerable Professor T. Elliot Stokes might want to check out that new product, Body Solutions.