And Yet Another New Slideshow

[Gerard]

I found it odd that they made a really big point of setting the piece in 1972 and then the costumer did absolutely nothing to reflect that in "angie's" wardrobe and hairstyles...


everything she wore in the film could easily be worn today and look perfectly current.

I remember many women (and girls) wearing those types of outfits and hairstyles back in '72.  It was the Marcia-Brady-look. 

Gerard

[Mysterious Benefactor]

MB dearest, she IS a witch ...

True. And I really did consider that.    But does simply being a witch make one all-knowing? If so, I must have missed that chapter in the Witch's Handbook. 

[michael c]

I remember many women (and girls) wearing those types of outfits and hairstyles back in '72.  It was the Marcia-Brady-look.

the black pantsuit??? the black skirtsuit??? the blue bustier ensemble??? the red sequined gown??? the black dress seen in today's slideshow??? sorry G but nothing Angelique wore in the film remotely resembles anything Marcia Brady ever wore.

[Gothick]

One of the things I just can't get past with this movie is the look chosen for Angelique and Barnabas.  Between his ugly clown makeup and those awful faux-Trask line-readings, and her ghastly dyed blonde hair with that trampy clothing, my reaction could be summed up in a noted saying of the great sage Lucy van Pelt:  BLEAH.

G.

[michael c]

I actually think Colleen Atwood did an amazing job with the costuming...


considering it was set in 1972 it could have been, and I feared it would be, WAY campier. but there wasn't really a bellbottom or platform shoe to be seen. and Atwood's palette was beautiful. she handled it with a subtle hand. I liked what she did with Elizabeth, Julia and Vicki in particular. and Roger's "Van Heusen" look was spot on.


 I just think she wimped out on "Angie".

[Gothick]

Imagine if "Angie" had been given something like the outfit Parker wore for the "tycoon to lackey" scene in 1970... now THAT would have looked great on Eva Green... particularly if whoever was responsible for the hair had had their act together.  But, as Sandor uttered in 1897, "what might have been... can never be!"

G.

[michael c]

oh G now yu're going to get me going way off-topic...


but do not even get me started on the chicness what was former model/trophy wife mrs.Schyler Rumson of little Winnewood island!


to paraphrase Nicholas Blair..."Angelique how well you look in black".

[Gothick]

Well... you have to get up pretty damn early in the morning to outdo a Witch AND Now Look fashion plate who takes a drive to the airport and comes back sporting a completely different wiglet AND up-do!

Little Maggie Collins in her Junior Sophisticates off-the-rack trash didn't even have a chance... (mixing storylines, but wotthehell..)

G.

[Nicky]

MB:  I was thinking about the bat Ang sent to spy on Barnabas in 1795.  Maybe her Tim Burton counterpart had similar tricks up her hooker boots?  (I was going to say "sleeve," but I like hooker boots more.) 

[Josette]

One of the things I just can't get past with this movie is the look chosen for Angelique and Barnabas.  Between his ugly clown makeup and those awful faux-Trask line-readings, and her ghastly dyed blonde hair with that trampy clothing, my reaction could be summed up in a noted saying of the great sage Lucy van Pelt:  BLEAH.

I had mixed feelings about Angelique.  The whole look for her, particularly the bright red lipstick, the overall impression, rather than being beautiful, was rather garish.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I can't speak to Angie's clothes because I honestly don't remember Colleen Atwood commenting on the look they chose for her (though, believe it or not, there are extras on the Blu-ray that I still haven't gotten around to watching, so there may be details in them) but so far as her make-up goes, I honestly do think that the intention was for it to be garish because it fits in completely with the fact that Angie's supposedly retained beauty in 1972 is very much a facade.

As for Depp's look as Barnabas, we know for a fact that mainly it was a backlash against the Twilight franchise (but then, so much of the film is a backlash against that franchise). Both Depp and Burton had commented on numerous occasions that they don't like how in too many current vampire films it's impossible to tell who the vampire(s) is(are) because they basically look just like everyone else. They wanted a return to what they consider the "classic" vampire look in books and films of yore.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

MB:  I was thinking about the bat Ang sent to spy on Barnabas in 1795.  Maybe her Tim Burton counterpart had similar tricks up her hooker boots?  (I was going to say "sleeve," but I like hooker boots more.) 

I definitely prefer "hooker boots" as well.    And yes, I can see Angie using a bat henchman rather than a human one, particularly because it would easily be able to get into places where a human would have problems. Though I also like the idea of a potential human informant at Collinwood. In fact, wouldn't it have been fascinating if that informant had been Julia. We were told that there was some connection between Julia and Angie, but in the film as edited there isn't the slightest hint of it.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I forgot to post that I absolutely love the quote Midnite chose for yesterday's installment of the slideshow:

1972 - Barnabas: 'Yes, I killed Dr. Hoffman, and the workmen
and those very nice, unshaven young people. But know this:
With each life I take, a piece of my wretched soul dies. For I
only kill because I'm compelled to. Compelled by your
witchcraft. By your curse. Why have you done this to me?'

It's completely classic Barnabas.

And I also love the quote Midnite chose for tomorrow's installment - but I love it for other reasons. 

[dom]

I can't speak to Angie's clothes because I honestly don't remember Colleen Atwood commenting on the look they chose for her (though, believe it or not, there are extras on the Blu-ray that I still haven't gotten around to watching, so there may be details in them) but so far as her make-up goes, I honestly do think that the intention was for it to be garish because it fits in completely with the fact that Angie's supposedly retained beauty in 1972 is very much a facade.

I hadn't thought about it until it was mentioned here but I am inclined to agree with you MB, as it was the first thing that came my mind when the subject came up. The only thing I found somewhat distracting was the very red lipstick, but now even that makes sense.

[Gothick]

What the BarnaDepp makeup makes me think of most is the Munster makeup used in the 1966 color film MUNSTERS, GO HOME, where makeup designs were used based on the Bud and Wally Westmore adaptations of the original Jack Pierce classic Universal monster designs.

The joke or "camp" in the movie was that those makeup designs were specifically meant for black and white shooting.  Using them in a color film really made the family look like cartoon characters.  On a related topic, there's actually footage on Youtube of a color Frankenstein monster makeup Jack Pierce devised, presumably when the notion of shooting SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939) in color was briefly considered and it's more subtle.

Depp's makeup would have worked much better in b&w.  In color it looks very cheap and garish.  And then there are the fingernails...

G.