AlbertCat said: >The problem with your $$$$ argument is that most lousy costuming has nothing >to do with budget in the major motion picture and TV industry. It's usually >a designer who just doesn't get it....or cronyism....or both. I agree. What particularly infuriates me, personally, is when something is grossly inaccurate when doing it accurately would _NOT_ have been any more expensive or difficult. And all it would have taken to do it right would be ten minutes' worth of asking around among people who actually do know.
Common sense, of course, also enters into it: if something is only going to be seen from 20 feet away, make it look good at 20 feet. That's often more a matter of color and silhouette than what actual materials are used. So shortcuts, timesavers and so forth are perfectly reasonable (no one's going to see the bodice and skirt are held together by giant snaps!). On the other hand, if you're doing closeups that show someone's sleeve cuffs on screen from four inches away at 300% of life size, they had better look good from four inches away. That usually means going with more authentic materials and construction. And if a movie bills itself as fiction, of course they can dress their characters in whatever they want. What was most annoying about the film "Elizabeth," a few years ago, is that they did lots of things in counter-historical fashion AND billed the movie as "educational", with study guides and everything. I have no idea how many people came away thinking that Sir Francis Walsingham actually _did_ go to Scotland and murder Mary of Guise after sleeping with her (or whatever it was the movie said he did) -- when in fact I don't think he was ever _in_ Scotland. ____________________________________________________________ 0 Chris Laning | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> + Davis, California ____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
