Actors the Wrong Size?

Great costume dramas and period films are often so because of their concern for historical accuracy, among other things. But one professor thinks that for all the fuss over costumes, sets, locations, and speech, movie makers neglect perhaps the most basic element of all: the humans who portray historical figures themselves. He contends that “Costume dramas give a false picture of the size people used to be.”

What are the most obvious changes to have occurred in the shape of the human body in recent centuries? TV costume dramas are notable for their attention to detail, to the most minute aspects of costume or furnishings. But there is one aspect of the past which, unavoidably, they get wrong. The actors are too tall and, usually, too fat, properly to portray historical characters. (The Independent)

The excerpt goes on to talk about anthropometric history, the study of the sizes of people in past times, but his reference to films is what interests me. Doubtless, his critique of actors being “too fat” appears ridiculous—for costume dramas it seems, the skinnier and more shapely the better, at least for the significant characters. Corsets have a more dramatic and visually pleasing effect on women like Keira Knightley, than women with much fuller figures, so it’s only natural that for period films—as for all other films for that matter—thin people are sought after. The reverse, that people are in general too skinny in these movies, seems to be true, but I won’t press that point much. (Just look at some portraits from the Georgian/Regency Era and one can see that the women are pretty “soft” and have some meat on their bones; and as for the men, they aren’t all fit and toned themselves.)

The issue of actor height, however, is worth looking into. It is no secret that people in the past are generally considered shorter than we are today. Although partially correct, people living in Northern Europe during the 9th through 11th centuries were actually about the same height as modern Americans today, says one study.

Steckel analyzed height data from thousands of skeletons excavated from burial sites in northern Europe and dating from the ninth to the 19th centuries. Average height declined slightly during the 12th through 16th centuries, and hit an all-time low during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Another source specifies that in this all-time-low era of the 1600’s through the 1700’s, the average male in England was around 5′6″ and 5′ 1/2″ for females (colonists in America, however, were faring better with more abundant resources and stood nearly two inches taller than their counterparts in Britain); the Industrial Revolution which began in the mid-18th century is widely believed to have reversed this downward trend, and heights steadily increased (whith some minor fluctuations) throughout the 1800’s and 1900’s. Google and google as I might, I can’t find an average height for the late Georgian/Regency eras.

That’s were Jane Austen can lend a hand, for when describing a character, she almost always makes a reference to height. Mr. Rushworth, the simple, yet goodhearted gentleman who marries Maria Bertram in Mansfield Park makes repeated criticisms of Henry Crawford, pointing out that “Nobody can call such an undersized man handsome. He is not five foot nine. I should not wonder if he was not more than five foot eight” (Ch. 10). Probably biased by his ill-opinion of Mr. Crawford, Mr. Rushworth might have been overly critical. After all, the average man in the UK today is 5′9 1/2″. Is modern England full of undersized men? Was the average man taller in the early 1800’s than today? Hmmm. Austen’s heroes and gentleman are described as being tall or fairly tall and bearing a noble stature; it is probably more reasonable to assume that the average man in Austen’s time was between 5′8″ and 5′10″, with the truly desirable height being 6′ or taller. In an online article at JASNA, Jean Graham writes on “Austen and the Advantage of Height,” and cites a female character from Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones who is nearly 6 foot, which gives her a manly quality that no suitor could look upon favorably. With 6′ being too tall and 5′1 being probably too short (as that is not much improvement since the 1600’s), a pretty heroine like Emma Woodhouse would probably be around 5′6″ or 5′7″, with the average being close to what it is today: between 5′3″ and 5′5″. But as no one in all the world wide web can seem to provide this information, it’s mere conjecture.

So what does that mean for the actors and actresses in our favorite costume dramas? Keira Knightley is 5′7″. Sally Hawkins is 5′5″. Kate Winslet is 5′6 1/2″. Gwyneth Paltrow is 5′9″. Emma Thompson is 5′4″. Cate Blanchett is 5′8 1/2″. Charlotte Riley is 5′9″. Gemma Arterton is 5′7″. Jennifer Ehle is 5′7″. Nothing too extraordinary here. It’s not as if we have women near 6′ playing Anne Elliot or Marianne Dashwood.

Ugh. That was exhausting. There doesn’t seem to be any significant basis for which to assume that actors in period films are totally unsuited for the people they portray, as the professor claims. Does anyone else have any input on this?

~ by Lady Ashley on June 11, 2009.