Carolyn asked,
> What do you look for in a living history program you're considering
> joining? What, besides the fact that it's a time period you're interested
> in, would attract you to such a program and, time permitting, make you
> want to come play?
I would consider whether or not the program allows me to do what I
want to do. Personally I like to demonstrate a skill and talk to
visitors about what I am doing. There may possibly be some
discussion of who I am portraying (general category, not a historic
character) but usually not in first person.
Also from a personal viewpoint, I enjoy some people who do first
person and interacting with them to some extent. But I have
experienced the sort who are overbearing, set on "acting" and treat
other interpretors as extras. (insulting, etc.) If that was going on
in the program, I would lose interest. Other people might enjoy that
kind of conflict.
> How authentic to the period should the costumes be at first? We have
> several male characters who are wearing OK-looking generic working class
> clothing from our period, and about three women in garments that are about
> right for the year we've chosen (1901). Should we go easy on the
> authenticity at first, and try to raise the standards later, or should we
> change to the higher standards now, and try to raise the few older members
> up to them?
I think a change n the program is a good opportunity to introduce
better authenticity standards. People will be making or buying new
thing all the time. Encourage the highest authenticity that's
feasible, and work on raising the older members to the new standard.
Thinking in terms of being new to the group, I would be very annoyed
if I was told my (about to be made or purchased) things were ok, and
then told later that they were not. ESPECIALLY if someone knew all
along they were not right but did not say anything!
> What is the best way to tell people who have been doing the program since
> it began, but whose standards of authentic costuming are not what the new
> person in charge wants them to be, that they have to meet higher standards
> now - if the new person in charge hasn't been in the program as long as
> they have? The same question goes for me, the new costume mistress for
> the program. My own solution would be to ask that when an objectionable
> garment wears out it should be replaced by a better one. But I'm a
> volunteer, as are all the participants, so the question becomes a delicate
> one to ask.
It's a tough call, depending on the motivation and resources of the
existing people to update their clothing. There will always be the
types who want to wear what has been accepted for the last 50
years....
I also don't agree on the "when it wears out" school of thought. I
would make categories based on the complexity/expense of each
garment. A pair of gloves, for example, might last a long time, but
would be easy to replace. That should be done by the next season or
within a month, whatever works. A tailored coat is expensive and
might have a "grandfather" period of a year or two.
An "old" volunteer might have something incorrect in his wardrobe
that only comes out once or twice a year, and would take eons to wear
out. Also have you considered if someone decides to give or loan
their old, incorrect item to a new person in the group?
Also as far as the time to replace/wearing out - how visible is the
item? Say a different period skirt worn underneath the correct skirt
or an earlier chemise (if either is appropriate). If you can't see
the difference when the person is dressed, how soon must it be
replaced? (Unless the person is doing a demo on the layers worn
under an outfit of the time, of course.)
> Which 'cheats' are considered acceptable and which are not? Some of the
> male characters are played by women with long hair, and they have always
> braided it and let it hang down their backs. By 1901 pigtails were out of
> use by working class men, even sailors. Should we insist that these
> women, who aren't going to extremes to fool anyone but who do act like
> guys, do something about the hair and obvious female anatomy? (BTW,
> the program's female characters have always worn corsets, or at least
looked
> like they were.)
Yes, women playing men (or vice versa) should make an effort to look
the part. For women, put up the hair under a hat, take off the
makeup and nail polish (yes, I've seen this!) bind and pad to look
like a heavy guy rather than a skinny guy with breasts. Also pencil
in the eyebrows a bit if the woman plucks them - men don't pluck!
It's not necessary to add 5-o'clock shadow and a prosthesis, just
hide the things that are obviously female.
> I have just begun an inventory of the stock of costumes this program has,
> and have compiled a list of "over my dead body" items I don't ever want to
> see used in a program I'm costume mistress of. There's also a soft list
> of things, like some of the mens' shirts, which read more like the 1850s
than
> like 1901, which I'd like to phase out or, if currently not in use, to not
> issue to anyone.
Great idea! For the shirts, how much of it shows? Are they wearing
waistcoats and coats, or is the shirt fully exposed?
> The new person in charge also wants a list of costumes we need in
> stock. I'm currently talking to him about getting participants to make
> their own costumes, to save program budget money we no longer have. I
> have rashly volunteered to help all participants do this (and the program's
> historian has already roped me into a two-person shirt-sewing session with
> her).
Also a good idea! There will be people complaining about "uniforms"
and "cookie cutter" looks. Maybe they can clear their research with
the committee before making something that is not within the new
guidelines.
I look forward to reading about your progress in this project!
-Carol
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
