“There are but three great men of our age, myself, Napoleon and Brummell, but of we three, the greatest of all is Brummell.”

— Lord Byron

For a film about one of the most desirable men of the Regency starring one of the most desirable British actors, I would have thought it impossible for Beau Brummell: This Charming Man to disappoint.

This 2006 biopic about the man responsible for the simple yet sophisticated men’s fashion of the early 19th century — fashion that still dominates today — comes across much like Mansfield Park 1999: it feels all wrong. From the shoddy cinematography, to the shaky history, to the unrealistic social scenes, the entire movie is just uncomfortable to watch.

George Bryan “Beau” Brummell is such an interesting and influential historical figure, it is tragic how little justice this film does to his story — as in, there is no story at all. An audience at least deserves to know how a commoner like Brummell manages to get on a first-name basis (which I find almost impossible to take seriously) with the Prince of Wales, a man remembered for his vanity, pride, and sense of station. Instead, we find Brummell already the Prince Regent’s right-hand man with no backstory whatsoever. For clarification purposes, Brummell was the grandson of a self-made valet, born into a well-to-do family, but a commoner nonetheless. The Prince met the 15-year-old Brummell one day in Green Park, and offered the handsome boy a place in his regiment, the fashionable 10th Hussars. But when exactly Beau had the brainwave that “less is more” and invented the Dandy is unknown:

By what means a young man, neither noble nor rich, nor particularly talented, managed to persuade society not only to follow his lead in fashion but to regard him as the ultimate authority remains unclear. (An Elegant Madness; Murray, 29)

Self-confidence seems to have been his making, and he had an abundance of it, which is made clear in the film. His arrogance was legendary, but so was his charm. It seems unlikely, however, that he would have been so loose with the Prince Regent in the company of others — more due to the Prince’s own pride than Brummell’s. Hugh Bonneville’s Prince is downright charitable in this film, which was certainly not the case with his touchy historical counterpart. The manly bonhomie between the two of them was significantly exaggerated. I also have a hard time believing Brummell and his valet/master servant Robinson (Phil Davis) would have been on such an equal footing, or that Robinson would have accompanied Brummell dressed as if an acquaintance rather than a servant — but perhaps the Beau would tolerate only the best wardrobe even for his man.

The nude dressing scenes are another example of modern “bromance” sneaking into a costume drama. Being invited to watch the Beau at his toilette was an honor, this much is true, but under no circumstances would the observation begin from the nude. A Captain Jesse arrived to watch the Beau dress and found, much to his delight and surprise, that he could see Brummell in the early stages of his toilette through the cracked door and the reflection in a mirror; even when supposedly in private, Brummell was recorded wearing trousers and a robe (Murray, 26). And in his biography Beau Brummell: The Ultimate Man of Fashion, Ian Kelley refers to the “half-naked toilette” (82) that the Prince Regent would attend in a discussion about the speculated physical intimacy between the Prince and Brummell; if it was a naked toilette, Kelley would have certainly mentioned it here.

Kelley also believes the evidence that Brummell and Lord Byron (played by Matthew Rhys) were romantically involved is “flimsy” (203), though he does devote considerable time to the subject. Byron definitely had a thing for young men, but Murray states in An Elegant Madness,

[...] Brummell is not on record as ever having shown any serious interest in women. He was not homosexual, merely uninterested in sex, and far too much of a narcissist to be bothered with loving anyone else. (31)

Whatever the facts, I can forgive the filmmakers for their interpretation. The idea of Beau Brummell and Lord Byron together — two unattainable, enchanting, dazzling men, the heartthrobs of the Regency — is, understandably, too good to pass up.

I’m also not sure whether or not the shaky, dizzy camera shots were meant to be “artistic”, but when it gives you a headache, something is definitely wrong. Used sparingly, these shots are wonderful for emphasizing chaos, confusion, drunkenness, etc., but when a character is examining a piece of muslin? That’s just pointless. And to open a film with a prolonged, shaky, zoomed-in shot of the sexy star getting dressed? That’s counterproductive. The film lacks many wide-angle shots overall, allowing for very little “breathing room.” A “stuffy” costume drama indeed.

There are some delightful lines and scenes (i.e. “the making of a Dandy”) in this film taken straight from Brummell’s biography, but on the whole, Beau Brummell is a disappointment. I would have loved to see more about the Carlton House Set, or a scene of Brummell holding court at White’s bow window — his trademark pastime. What we get instead is the fall of Beau Brummell, rather than the magnificent rise. James Purefoy delights us once again with his delicious frock-coat-and-trousers-wearing self, complete with those magnificent sideburns so reminiscent of Rawdon Crawley in Vanity Fair 2004, but that is the only reason I am going to bother buying the DVD. 2 stars.

Here’s a brief article in the Telegraph about Dame Judi Dench’s return to Cranford to film a two-part Christmas special. The filming is taking place in Wiltshire and is expected to finish this Sunday.

One visitor to the Allentown Art Musuem in Pennsylvania was troubled by the title of one exhibit of film costumes: “Period Costumes for the Screen.” Were they really authentic replicas? Or are they modern interpretations?

The answer, supplied by the museum’s textiles curator, Jacqueline M. Atkins, is all of the above. According to Atkins, most of the clothes are modern interpretations based on designs from the periods depicted. Many gowns represent the Regency period of the early 19th century, the high Victorian era, and the Edwardian years of the early 20th century.

“In many cases,” Atkins explained, “the designers tried to use fabrics of the time and not to use synthetics. They tried very hard to replicate the type of fashions being worn.”

To this end, the costumers sometimes incorporated bits of authentic period materials into their gowns. For instance, the collar piece on a wedding gown worn in Sense and Sensibilitydates from 1810. Two-thirds of the lace on a gown worn by Lee Remick in The Europeans is authentic to its period.

Two outfits in the show are exact replicas, “down to the buttons,” of historical garments. And two other gowns are entirely authentic – a 1912 red number worn in Titanic and a slinky white sheath from the 1930s used in Gosford Park.

To further enliven the mix, Atkins has interposed some samples of historical textiles from the museum’s extensive collection. Knowing that these exhibits were authentic and that most of the dresses were not, I found the simple samples more satisfying aesthetically than the far more ornate concoctions produced by the costumers.

I remember blogging about this exhibit when it was in Ohio months ago. I’m still jealous! This gorgeous “Fashion in Film” exhibit will remain at the Allentown Art Museum through August 9th, before being picked up by another venue (the next two date slots are still available…*dialing High Museum of Art in Atlanta…*).

The awesome Jane Austen Today blog brought my attention to a nice BBC DVD sale going on at Amazon.com. There are a number of good costume dramas included in the sale, including The Charles Dickens Collection Vol. I and The Elizabeth Gaskell Collection.

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?

Holkham Hall, an eighteenth-century treasure home built by the First Earl of Leicester, Thomas Coke, was used in the filming of the 2008 film The Duchess, starring Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes. From June through August 2009, the Hall will display some of the Oscar-winning costumes from the film (Michael O’Connor: costume designer).

The clothes are now on display until the end of August each Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from noon until 4pm.

London costume company, Cosprop, has provided the faithfully-reproduced clothes which were worn in scenes shot in Holkham Hall’s sumptuous salon – a grand setting with walls lined with the oil paintings of masters including Rubens, Van Dyck, Chiari and Carlo Maratti.

An article in Lynn News, the local newspaper for King’s Lynn, near where Holkham Hall sits on the north coast of Norfolk, reports that accuracy was essential in creating the costumes, and the exhibition allows people to examine the garments up close and appreciate the historic detail for themselves in a way that is not possible in scenes only a few minutes long, if that. Hours went in to faithfully designing clothes that would only be briefly seen on screen once—that’s Oscar worthy in my book!

The passion for accuracy even extended to some of the actors having to be sewn into their costumes before each day’s shooting, to make sure their shape was absolutely authentic.

The underwear, though obviously not seen, was also designed to match exactly that worn at the time. For Keira Knightley this included tight corsets and hidden panniers to make her hips look very wide and her waist very slim – the shape that was all the rage when the duchess was young.

In later years, the look was slimmer and ‘bum rolls’ for the women and bottom pads for men came more into fashion.

These hidden constrictions, made just as carefully and accurately as the outside garments, ensured that the movements of the 21st century actors would more accurately reflect the way their forebears moved more than two centuries ago.

This looks interesting.

COSTUME-CON is an annual conference about costumes. The convention has its roots in science fiction and fantasy conventions and historic re-enactment type events, but all forms of costuming are welcome, including anime, fursuit, etc. Costume-Con is a “travelling” national-level convention, and is in a different city and run by a different committee each year.

Timonium, Maryland will host the 27th Costume-Con from May 1-4, with this year’s theme being Vampires, Villains, and Vixens (Twilight, anyone?). Filled with fashion shows, costume competitions, and instructional panels, Costume-Con is any costume lover’s dream.

Talk about a reunion of Austen girls! Sally Hawkins, who played dear Anne Elliot in Persuasion 2007 (and who recently won a Golden Globe for her role as Poppy in Happy Go Lucky), has joined Keira Knightley, the unforgettable Elizabeth Bennet in Pride & Prejudice 2005, for the film Never Let Me Go, a story about a seemingly idyllic English boarding school that is actually hiding terrible secrets. The adaptation of Kazou Ishiguro’s best-selling novel also stars Carey Mulligan, who portrayed Kitty Bennet in P & P 2005, and has just recently begun filming.

Just in time for the thickening of Little Dorrit’s plot, a Barnes & Noble Classics Book Club is welcoming legendary Andrew Davies as a special guest from April 20-24th. The screenplay writer of Little Dorrit, his experience in the adaptation world is almost unparalleled, having written such costume drama greats as Bleak House 2005, Sense & Sensibility 2008, Brideshead Revisited 2008, The Way We Live Now 2001, Emma 1996, Pride & Prejudice 1995, and countless others (IMDB credits him with work on 72 screenplays, dating back to 1967). His newest adaptation of George Eliot’s Middlemarch is due out in 2010. (Interestingly, Andrew Davies holds the No. 48 position on a 2008 list of “the 100 most powerful people in British culture” as determined by Telegraph!)

A few weeks ago I watched the BBC’s 2006 adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. I read the book last May for my term paper (which was nearly 20 pages—I got somewhat carried away ), so the details weren’t fresh in my memory. Having not recently re-read the novel, I don’t feel comfortable giving a lengthy review of the film. In a nutshell, I give it 4 out of 5 stars.  To be quite honest, it was pretty long, but Jane Eyre is not a short read, and the film was for the most part a true adaptation. So I certainly should not complain, and I highly recommend it if you have the attention span necessary to survive four hours of muted, but appropriate, action.

While doing some research on Ruth Wilson, who plays Jane Eyre, I stumbled across a lengthy exposition on the novel’s mistreatment by Hollywood and its significance for the genre of “feminist” literature. The author throws in a number of her own personal opinions, but she makes many wonderful points in her discourse and gives great insight into Jane Eyre’s message for women everywhere. “Why Jane Eyre Is More Important Than Iran’s Nukes” is definitely worth the read.

I also found a Daily Mail article that I remembered seeing around the time of the movie’s premier. “‘Jane Eyre’s’ agony over 15-inch corset” nearly made me cringe while reading it. Ruth Wilson’s dedication to the film’s accuracy is absolutely laudable, and it adds a whole new dimension to the film (and history) when one considers the persistent physical pain the actress (Victorian women) is enduring in every scene (every day).

I also found out that BBC 4 produced a prequel to Jane Eyre called Wide Sargasso Sea, based on the acclaimed novel by Jean Rhys.

Set in lush 19th-century Jamaica, Wide Sargasso Sea tells the story of the relationship between a passionate Creole heiress, Antoinette (Rebecca Hall), and a brooding Englishman, Edward Rochester (Rafe Spall).

Adapted from Jean Rhys’ award-winning novel, Wide Sargasso Sea is a prequel to Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre and paints a rather different story of Mr Rochester’s first wife.

Born to a Creole mother, Rhys felt Bronte had misrepresented Creole women in her work. She wanted to show an alternative to the story of Bertha Mason, Mr Rochester’s first spouse, and dispel the ‘mad wife’ image created by Brontë.

Written by Stephen Greenhorn (Derailed, BBC TV) and directed by Brendan Maher (Kidnapped), this is a period drama with a very contemporary feel, conjuring up all of the passion, paranoia and racial tensions of the original novel. Previous productions by the makers, Kudos, include Life on Mars and Spooks.

*Puts Wide Sargasso Sea at the top of movies-to-watch list*

A woman from the UK loves Pride & Prejudice and the 1995 adaptation of the book so much, that she rented the actual costumes used from the film for her second wedding. What a neat idea And she added that was “economical.”

This was cute:

She added: ‘Stuart sent me a text on the morning of the wedding to say ‘Got outfit on – must love you!’”

You can read about her here and here.

I stumbled across these Duchess featurettes on YouTube recently; each is about 3 minutes long and highlights a certain feature of the film with interviews and clips.

Costumes: Some of the designers explain how costume dramas often have to “soften the edges” and modernize some of the features of costume, hair, and makeup to fit the actors and make the picture more visually pleasing.

Locations:

Cast: Keira, Ralph, Dominic, and Hayley share insights into their characters.

I finally uploaded a photo of my Halloween costume last night:

Since this was my final Halloween as a legal child, I persuaded my wonderful mother to indulge me with a rather extravagant costume — and one that was custom-made for me. As a size-2, I have three options when it comes to costumes: 1) make my own (like I have the time for such a thing), 2) buy an adult one and let it engulf me, or 3) buy a child’s costume. This year, I was finally able to have a costume that not only looked great, but looked great on me! I did a lot of researching and shopping and settled upon Crimson Gypsy for the bodice and skirt. I am wearing the Navy Blue brocade Deva Bodice with the Navy Blue Peasant Skirt. I LOVE THEM BOTH. The bodice is extremely durable and works wonders — I have no boobs whatsoever, but this thing pushes me up and gives me more cleavage than I ever thought possible (though you can’t see it in the photo, because my mother was standing below and I had the chemise pulled higher for this particular evening). The skirt fits nicely right underneath the bodice and fans out beautifully. The chemise is an Irish Muslin Chemise I bought from The Very Merry Seamstress – I ordered this particular one because I loved the drawstrings in the sleeves that I can adjust to any length (and it was nicely priced). I highly recommend both of these sources for historical clothing. My costume was a hit wherever I went. I got plenty of reactions like, “Is that a real corset?” I simply smiled and nodded yes, inviting them to feel the steel stays. I can’t wait to wear it to the Renaissance Festival next spring!

A little late now, unless you are one of those I-put-Halloween-costumes-together-at-the-last-minute types, but this writer has ideas for how to perfect a Georgiana Cavendish costume from a Marie Antoinette prototype. I am considering something like this for next year. This year I am Katherine Howard, Henry VIII’s fifth wife. She was 15 or thereabouts when she married Henry and, yes, was beheaded for adultery with Thomas Culpepper; she’s a little more obscure and my costume is not nearly elaborate enough for an Anne Boleyn ensemble. I will put up some photos when I get them uploaded. Post photos of your historical Halloween costumes here and tell us who you were!