In the captivating world of movies, every detail matters, from a subtle glance to a character’s quiet words. The clothes worn by actors, whether they’re donning elegant historical attire or practical wartime outfits, play a crucial role in shaping our perception of the past, raising the important question of how filmmakers balance storytelling with historical truth.
It’s a balancing act that often pits artistic vision against the cold, hard facts of history. Take, for instance, the recent fervor around shows like “Bridgerton.” Its undeniable extravagance and visual flair have captured millions, even as eagle-eyed viewers and historians delight in pointing out every lavish, historically dubious detail. Yet, the show’s runaway popularity suggests that for many, the allure of a captivating aesthetic far outweighs the demands of strict authenticity. This dynamic tension, where entertainment often trumps education, is at the very heart of the costume accuracy debate.
This exploration delves into the critical balance filmmakers strike between creative freedom and historical faithfulness in costume design, examining the significant impact these choices have on a film’s ability to accurately represent a bygone era.
1. At the heart of costume accuracy in period films lies a constant tension between the desire for stunning visual appeal and the commitment to presenting a historically truthful representation, where aesthetic beauty often takes precedence over strict adherence to the past.
“Bridgerton” stands as a prime, dazzling example of this phenomenon. Its costumes are opulent, vibrant, and undeniably gorgeous, perfectly fitting the show’s escapist, fantastical tone. However, as the context points out, this extravagance has led people to “pick apart each little false detail.” Despite this scrutiny, the show’s immense popularity “indicates that most viewers appreciate the aesthetic over authenticity,” signaling a clear preference for creative flair.
Ultimately, narrative cinema is typically driven by the creative vision of the director, rather than a rigid adherence to historical facts. While costumes are undeniably a part of the art of moviemaking, this often grants people the liberty to take creative license to convey character traits and overarching themes. It prompts a vital question: where exactly is the line between artistic storytelling and what some might perceive as lazy research, particularly when the visual appeal is so compelling?
2. Beyond artistic vision, the very real financial constraints of filmmaking frequently present a significant hurdle to achieving genuine historical accuracy in costume design, as recreating authentic garments with period-appropriate materials and methods can become prohibitively expensive.
Jennifer Mower, a professor of fashion history at Oregon State University, highlights this financial constraint with a compelling anecdote: “I recall the HBO show, ‘The Borgias’ was very accurate for the portrayal of the Italian Renaissance. However, the drive for costume authenticity also cost a lot of money, which was a contributing factor to the end of the show.” This stark example underscores that even with the best intentions, financial realities can derail the most ambitious projects aiming for historical precision.
New York City writer and fashion historian, Sonya Abrego, further explains the complexities of true replication. She notes that if one were to “re-create exact replicas with, for example, the original silk, embroidery, tailoring detail, and embellishments then yes, that’s a challenge.” However, Abrego also offers a pragmatic solution: “There are materials that are comparable and more accessible that can work on camera. Textile technologies can make up for a lot of that.” This suggests that while absolute authenticity can be costly, clever substitutions can achieve a historically believable look without breaking the bank, balancing budget with visual integrity.
3. **The Peril of Misinformation: Shaping Public Perception through Fiction**While creative liberties can enhance storytelling, a significant and often overlooked consequence of historical inaccuracy in costumes is the pervasive spread of misinformation. When films present a fictitious history, they inadvertently “cause the public to believe in something false,” shaping collective understanding in profoundly misleading ways. This isn’t just about minor anachronisms; it’s about altering fundamental perceptions of past societies.
The most glaring and common example of period films perpetuating false information is the enduring belief that corsets were excruciating torture devices, designed solely to restrict breathing and movement for a desired silhouette. This misconception has been cemented by countless on-screen depictions, with films like “Titanic,” “Enola Holmes,” and “Gone With the Wind” all contributing to this powerful, yet fabricated, narrative of women in pain as their corsets are laced up.
However, as LancasterHistory clearly states, “Women of all classes wore corsets, which meant that this garment needed to function for the daily laborer just as much as it needed to function for the wealthy elite. As a result, women had to be able to move and breathe in them and would lace their corset accordingly.” This widely adopted false belief has become a powerful, albeit fabricated, symbol of women’s oppression. It’s a powerful reminder that a seemingly minor misconception about skirts or undergarments can unfortunately blossom into a profound misconception about an entire society and the struggles women genuinely faced.
4. **Costumes as Strategic Tools for Character Development and Plot**Sometimes, the deviation from historical accuracy is not an oversight, but a deliberate, strategic artistic choice intended to deepen character understanding or advance the plot. When deployed thoughtfully, these anachronisms become powerful storytelling devices, offering visual cues that speak volumes without a single line of dialogue.
Owen Phillips, head of costumes for Franklin Performing Arts’ “Mean Girls,” perfectly articulates this when discussing how the show would change without costume design. He states, “I think it would’ve changed a lot about how we view those main four Plastics especially. We had to create almost a hierarchy with making sure they stood out and rose above the other cast members … Without it, they just look like anyone else and the mystique they have is gone and suddenly you don’t care about Regina George because she’s not special at all.” Here, accuracy is sacrificed for immediate, impactful characterization.
Shows like “Bridgerton” intentionally play with historical accuracy, as costume designer Jennifer Mower notes, “exaggerating design features, purposely using colors and textiles that wouldn’t be accurate for the period.” For instance, the Featheringtons’ vibrant and “gaudy wardrobe” signifies their status as outsiders within their elite social circle, making their clothing a direct reflection of their personalities and social dynamics.
The historical comedy “The Great” offers a compelling example, where Elle Fanning’s Catherine the Great wears a striking, historically inaccurate bright pink gown that visually amplifies her character’s “fiery undertones” and “oddball nature,” powerfully conveying her ambitious plans and unique personality.
5. **The Allure of Modernization and Sexualization for Audience Engagement**Another intentional, though often contentious, reason for historical inaccuracy in costumes is the drive to appeal to a wider, often younger, audience through modernization and ualization. This approach prioritizes contemporary sensibilities over historical fidelity, aiming for immediate relatability and visual appeal.
The TV series “Reign,” set in 1558 France, deliberately employs costumes that are “more reminiscent of the 2000s” to capture a “young, teen demographic,” consciously disregarding historical accuracy as noted by Rebecca Lane, who points out that “the number of period styles one might recognize in the girls’ costumes in a single episode can span the entire history of Western clothing.”
The ualization of period clothing, as seen in “Reign” and other productions, can be particularly problematic. While aiming for a wider audience, it risks reducing characters, even lead roles, to mere “eye candy,” making them appear more one-dimensional. This can also veer into disrespect and cultural appropriation if handled irresponsibly. “Reign” costume designer Meredith Markworth-Pollack candidly revealed the studio’s directive: “They didn’t want the men in pumpkin shorts because it’s not sexy, so we decided to give all of the men custom leather pants.” This clearly illustrates how modern notions of sex appeal can override any commitment to historical accuracy.
6. While films aim to create immersive experiences that transport audiences, historical inaccuracies within costume design can shatter this illusion, pulling viewers out of the narrative and exposing the artificiality of the production.
Such jarring inconsistencies often become viral moments, sparking widespread online ridicule and debate. The internet, for example, “practically blew up when Emma Watson’s character in “Little Women” was seen wearing a seemingly neon green plaid scarf in 1860s Massachusetts.” Similarly, the sight of Yennefer “re-fastening her bra in episode 5 of season 3” of “The Witcher” in a medieval setting immediately broke the immersion for many, prompting questions about the show’s commitment to its fictional universe.
Sonya Abrego succinctly explains why these visual missteps are so detrimental: “The textiles and color palette usually jump out first to me. Sometimes the costumes are visibly synthetic, or the wigs are really bad, that can make [the film] hard to be believable.” She likens it to seeing “a film set in the 1600s to feature characters using cell phones”; it’s a jarring anachronism that reminds the viewer they are watching a movie, destroying the suspension of disbelief. Unless anachronisms are fundamentally part of communicating the story, such inaccuracies do more harm than good.
