| Braveheart (1995) |
| I'm putting this film on the top of my list very gladly. Even when not considering costume part, isn't it strange how a film so full of inaccuracies, false history, pathos and patriotism can at the same time be so
appealing and - cute? Is it for Mel Gibson? Is there enough humour (unlike in one more kilt-sensation Rob Roy) to make you feel as if everything is just a big joke? |
| You should better feel so. So that you wouldn't get annoyed by so much mistakes in interpreting a whole era. |
| The first, and the biggest thing to say about costumes in this film, is one big truth that people seem to overhear. Namely, the fact is that
kilts just didn't exist at the time of William Wallace. Wallace lived in late 13th to early 14th century and the
kilts were - oh yeah! - invented in the late sixteenth. |
| So, this must be a big disappointment for Scottish-lovers who considered a kilt to be the ancient robe of the Celts. However, if you
are a male lover of one hole for the legs, I could cheer you up with the fact that the Irish and Scottish possibly wore something like that. Namely, they wore a long shirt or a tunic called leine. According to some illustrations, they wore
it without trousers underneath, which was later on misinterpreted as a kilt. Kilt, as we
know it today, was really invented in sixteenth century, very possibly by an English tailor who wanted to make a distinguishable garment for Scots. |
| The kilt, however, possibly didn't derive from the leine, but from brat, a woolen piece of cloth used as a cloak. Combining brat, which was wrapped around the shoulders and
pinned on the side, and leine, which was a long shirt belted around the waist, people could easily come up with an illusion of a kilt as it was shown to be worn in Braveheart. |
| Honestly, the way that piece of tartan was shown to be wrapped around the waist as in Braveheart looks to me more suitable for sarong than for anything else worn in Scotland. |
| Braveheart is a great example of how history looks like in an average spectator's opinion. 13th century clothes were obviously not attractive enough and the story of Scottish patriotism is lame without
kilts. But men's skirts are not the only mistake. Namely, the noble English people are wearing something that would be more suitable for 15th century. Maybe the early 14th century doesn't have enough brocade for a lively vision of "knights-and
tournaments" Middle Ages as the audience would like them to be. |
| However, admit you were yelling Freeeeeedom!!! along with Mel Gibson as he was being quartered by dirty bad deceitful cruel greedy Englishmen at the end! |
| |
| The Scarlet Letter (1995) |
| This is one more film to which there are a bit more things to mind than only costuming. Unlike Braveheart, it wasn't even some fun and many people who read Hawthorne's book were
only annoyed by this screen adaptation. |
| I will stick to the costumes. So, the story is taking place in Puritan America. This immediately determines the time (17th century) and place (East Coast). But it also determines the
society. It is quite obvious what a Puritan is. Somebody who fled from England or Netherlands because he took religion too seriously. Not somebody from a French court who was taking holidays in a harsh and muddy wasteland in his trunk hut. However,
the costume designer who got a job for this film obviously had the latter image in his mind. |
 Hester
Prynne is more a fashionable lady who wears her scarlet letter on silk and brocade, surrounded by pearls than a society-martyr in a Puritan surroundings as Hawthorne depicted her. Since Puritans took religion so seriously, they surely adopted the
old medieval belief that body is just a cage of an eternal soul and that it deserves no care to be taken of. That's why you'll see those first Puritan settlers' images as those of people dressed in simple, monochrome clothes, with hardly any of that
baroque lace on collars and cuffs. |
| On the other side, actual 1860's hairdos were not good enough for the main characters. Vivien Leigh, that ways, throughout the Civil War wears something that would have been
more suitable in late 1930's, when the film was made. Melanie Wilkes, however, and all the other women characters of less importance regularly have those tightened shiny Victorian hairdos. The same is with the men. Although men's hairdos haven't
changed too much from 19th century on, those horrible side-whiskers are a "privilege" only of annoying characters, like Scarlett's husbands (before Rhett). |
 Vivien Leigh later on filmed a story about Anna Karenina, a version that was - as far as costumes are concerned - far better than 1935 version with
Greta Garbo, where all of the bad things of "old movie" costuming came true. The newest version with Sophie Marceau, however, can boast the best costumography of all of the three versions, but also the worst cast in the history of filmmaking. |
| For these reasons I would put Gone with the Wind as one of the pre-1970's movies with the best costumes and, if you can stand 3 hours sitting in front of the TV
screen, it will give you those 3 hours of feast for your eyes. |
| |
| But, what is even nicer and more important for this website, the costumes were really breath-taking. Along with the scenes of the royal court filled with gold and infamous
baroque kitch, fountains of lace, brocade and silk depicted the Restoration era more than vividly. |
 The film starts with this splendour, falls into mud, dirt and disease to rise up with dignity. No boastful richness, but dignified sobriety of Rationalism that was about to take place in history. And all that was presented with
costumes that, as in the case of Gone with the Wind, kept a steady pace with the passing time. |
| Indeed, that year's Award went into right hands! |
| |
Hester
Prynne is more a fashionable lady who wears her scarlet letter on silk and brocade, surrounded by pearls than a society-martyr in a Puritan surroundings as Hawthorne depicted her. Since Puritans took religion so seriously, they surely adopted the
old medieval belief that body is just a cage of an eternal soul and that it deserves no care to be taken of. That's why you'll see those first Puritan settlers' images as those of people dressed in simple, monochrome clothes, with hardly any of that
baroque lace on collars and cuffs. 
That is why I'd like to emphasize Gone with the Wind both as an exception and follower to this rule. On the one side, there is an indeed astonishing costumography, where spectators can only admire the pedantic care for
details (and not just copying from pictures and images of the era) and a capability of the designer to follow the fashion changes within some 15 years of 19th century.
Vivien Leigh later on filmed a story about Anna Karenina, a version that was - as far as costumes are concerned - far better than 1935 version with
Greta Garbo, where all of the bad things of "old movie" costuming came true. The newest version with Sophie Marceau, however, can boast the best costumography of all of the three versions, but also the worst cast in the history of filmmaking.
The film that won this Award in 1995 was Restoration. Unlike Braveheart, it seems to me it was too fast forgotten and I can bet many of you won't even remember it. In my opinion, it was rather good than a great
film about a doctor getting caught in all the splendour and squalor of 17th century England. The cast was quite nice, with Robert Downey Jr. in a role of a doctor and Sam Neill as King Charles II.
The film starts with this splendour, falls into mud, dirt and disease to rise up with dignity. No boastful richness, but dignified sobriety of Rationalism that was about to take place in history. And all that was presented with
costumes that, as in the case of Gone with the Wind, kept a steady pace with the passing time. 