Lauren
Distinguished Service Award
- Messages
- 5,060
- Location
- Sunny California
Vanessa linked me to this article, and I'm sorry, but I can't let something like this go unargued. They are misinforming the public with their own ignorance.
The article is entitled "Why Costume Designers Hate The Oscars"
http://www.slate.com/id/2137272/?nav=tap3
Read that. Then listen to my arguments.
Page 1:
"Every year, it seems, the Academy Award for costume design goes to a showy period film?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùlast time around, The Aviator's glamorous take on old Hollywood won the day?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùwhile groundbreaking work in contemporary films gets snubbed."
First off, the nominees for last year SUCKED. And to call the Aviator a showy costume piece is unfounded. Especially on the same page as they are saying "Ask a costume designer, though, and she'll point to the corset. Or the bonnet. Or the hoop skirt. Or the ruff." That has absolutely no holding on the argument of the Aviator. We'd be lucky if they made the actors wear girdles. Not only that, but regardless of opinions, there were several pieces that had a modern line- but in contemporary designs of a costume piece from the 20th century without using historic piecs, it it the closest I have seen in a long while.
Page 2:
"Deborah Nadoolman Landis, the president of the Costume Designers Guild, admitted she's tired of all the old lace. "Why do we need to nominate?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùthey're going to kill me for saying this, but?¢‚Ǩ‚ÄùPride & Prejudice? Again?" she asked. Austen films are a costume-Oscar perennial: Both Emma and Sense and Sensibility were nominated in the '90s. Landis thinks Prejudice is intelligently designed, but it pains her to see films with extraordinary contemporary costumes overlooked."
Maybe this is why we have such laxed accuracy. If the president of the Guild herself is tired of period pieces, don't you think that that will influence future designers? I'd kill for a place in the guild, but not enough to sacrifice my passions. And not only that, but out of the three Austen adaptations, Sense and Sensibility was the closest to being historically correct, and even that had very little historical accuracy costructionwise. It gave the best portrayal of the Regency that has been seen in big budget American films, and I applaud them for it, but Pride and Prejudice is like dress up. A modern popular actress grabbing something from her mother's closet that is slightly above waistline and making it pass. Is is the same with the other two. You can see the heavy influence of the time period you are in in period film. No one can't say that the jacket Kiera Nightly wore were not like something you could buy in the stores last fall. And Gweneth Paltrow's dresses were like formals from the late 90's. So if they're arguing that they did another poor interpretation of the Regency for a modern audience? Sure, I agree.
Page 3
"Over the last 20 years, 18 period pieces have won the costume Oscar."
Tell ya what. When they put as much effort into making, designing, and researching modern clothing as they do for a period film, I might agree that it sould go to something not period.
Page 4
No argument
Page 5
No argument. I don't understand why, but no argument.
Page 6
"In contemporary film, you're much freer to work very hard on the character. If you think of the clothes as being a language, you couldn't be more fluent in your own time. In period film, you're learning the language as you go along."
And that's what you're paid for, sweetheart. I've been to the costume library at Western Costume, where they charge an outragous amount HOURLY to research. If you're not clever enough to make use of resources, than you have no argument. To say that there is no way to show a character's personality in period pieces not only shows lack of knowledge, but lack of drive. It's not hard to look at pictures of time periods and pick out who was the eccentric, who was the bum, who was poor, who was rich, who was shady. Come on, now. It's just that it's much easier to go and buy something modern. Or for that matter, have something modern made since seamstresses and tailors are familiar with modern cuts and fabrics.
Page 7
"In Dangerous Liaisons, though, costume design fetishizes period detail at the expense of character. Glenn Close's conniving Marquise de Merteuil is not at all like C?ɬ©cile, the naif played by Uma Thurman. But as Lowell Detweiler, who teaches costume history at New York University, noted: "At any moment, the ladies could exchange their costumes and it would look no different."'
Not true. There were several styles in the period. There were little things to distinguish who was of what age, of what class. But, yes, historically, most clothing was the same and stayed the same from the age of 12 on up! If it's more important to show "character" than historical accuracy, as is the case with many films targeting modern audiences, then change it. But don't expect our respect for it. The costumes that Uma wore showed her character. The ones that Glenn wore showed her. And it frightens me that a costume professor can't tell the difference.
Page 8
"She put him in classic business attire but made sure the details were a bit off. In this hunting scene, for example, his overly formal dress shirt marks him as "an outsider?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùa person who wouldn't have been included in that hunting party with Dick Cheney." He wears the clothes of someone who wants to fit in, but doesn't quite know the code."
And this can't be done in a period film? Again, it just shows ignorance on the side of the author.
Page 9
Makes me frightened of the board of directors. Maybe this isn't really my field if they all place a modern film which was done with stylist work with a period film where the pieces are made. Yes, stylist work can be hard, but it's still a heck of a lot easier than making everything from scratch and researching history (which up to this point, we have seen is not always the case).
Page 10
That's good that they get the recognition they deserve, but the film that won is one of the reasons I quit the costume program. I'm not going to sacrifice my principals for a career. Not ever.
Page 11
So bring back two awards, one for historical costume and one for modern costume. Then everyone will be happy.
Page 12
"The black-and-white Oscar in 1950 also went to Head, for the contemporary drama All About Eve, which featured Bette Davis in the trappings of a successful New York actress."
Here's the thing. Edith Head (or her cronies) DESIGNED and MADE the costumes. It deserves recognition. But I think we all know that pretty much the standard for modern films is to do stylist work. If these recieved an award, wouldn't you have to recongnize the designers who made the clothes? All the costume designer is doing is taking credit for the work of other people put together to show the personality of the character. I do that every day when I dress myself.
Page 13
"But the trashy, cleavage-baring get-ups he designed for Julia Roberts set up the class and gender tensions that underpin the film. They also brilliantly underscored the fearlessness of the paralegal she played: Any woman brave enough to pair leopard-print with tiger-skin couldn't be cowed by some corrupt CEO."
Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Making trashy lingerie IS on the same page as making the costumes from other films nominated that year. Silly me. And I don't know about you, but I see people dressing slutty nearly every day, and they don't need to be bright to put together their outfits.
Page 14
"In Saturday Night Fever, John Travolta's white suit deftly captured his character's oversized sense of himself, and it contrasted nicely with his working-class Brooklyn origins. But Patrizia von Brandenstein's costumes were denied a nomination in 1977."
Probably because they were cut along the line of a modern suit. How hard is it to have a suit made?
Page 15
Again, speaking of stylist work. I don't consider this a relevant argument.
Page 16
No argument. Seems they get it if it's the 50's and 60's.
Page 17
"The difference between it and their hostesses' helps illuminate the Bennets' financial woes as no earlier adaptation has done."
Adding to my previous arguments about Pride and Prejudice that are applicable here, even those with financial problems knew how to make over their clothing. It was important to keep up appearaces, even if you remade the same dress five times for five different siblings. The one redeeming thing I liked about this movie was the way the older women wore the styles of the 1700s still. That, in the country, would have likely been the case, but not all of them. The younger women would be trying to keep up with fashion. After all, they're not running around wildly in the countryside all day. If Mrs Bennett let her daughers run around wild, there would be no hope of her ever having financial security. Gosh people, study history.
The article is entitled "Why Costume Designers Hate The Oscars"
http://www.slate.com/id/2137272/?nav=tap3
Read that. Then listen to my arguments.
Page 1:
"Every year, it seems, the Academy Award for costume design goes to a showy period film?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùlast time around, The Aviator's glamorous take on old Hollywood won the day?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùwhile groundbreaking work in contemporary films gets snubbed."
First off, the nominees for last year SUCKED. And to call the Aviator a showy costume piece is unfounded. Especially on the same page as they are saying "Ask a costume designer, though, and she'll point to the corset. Or the bonnet. Or the hoop skirt. Or the ruff." That has absolutely no holding on the argument of the Aviator. We'd be lucky if they made the actors wear girdles. Not only that, but regardless of opinions, there were several pieces that had a modern line- but in contemporary designs of a costume piece from the 20th century without using historic piecs, it it the closest I have seen in a long while.
Page 2:
"Deborah Nadoolman Landis, the president of the Costume Designers Guild, admitted she's tired of all the old lace. "Why do we need to nominate?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùthey're going to kill me for saying this, but?¢‚Ǩ‚ÄùPride & Prejudice? Again?" she asked. Austen films are a costume-Oscar perennial: Both Emma and Sense and Sensibility were nominated in the '90s. Landis thinks Prejudice is intelligently designed, but it pains her to see films with extraordinary contemporary costumes overlooked."
Maybe this is why we have such laxed accuracy. If the president of the Guild herself is tired of period pieces, don't you think that that will influence future designers? I'd kill for a place in the guild, but not enough to sacrifice my passions. And not only that, but out of the three Austen adaptations, Sense and Sensibility was the closest to being historically correct, and even that had very little historical accuracy costructionwise. It gave the best portrayal of the Regency that has been seen in big budget American films, and I applaud them for it, but Pride and Prejudice is like dress up. A modern popular actress grabbing something from her mother's closet that is slightly above waistline and making it pass. Is is the same with the other two. You can see the heavy influence of the time period you are in in period film. No one can't say that the jacket Kiera Nightly wore were not like something you could buy in the stores last fall. And Gweneth Paltrow's dresses were like formals from the late 90's. So if they're arguing that they did another poor interpretation of the Regency for a modern audience? Sure, I agree.
Page 3
"Over the last 20 years, 18 period pieces have won the costume Oscar."
Tell ya what. When they put as much effort into making, designing, and researching modern clothing as they do for a period film, I might agree that it sould go to something not period.
Page 4
No argument
Page 5
No argument. I don't understand why, but no argument.
Page 6
"In contemporary film, you're much freer to work very hard on the character. If you think of the clothes as being a language, you couldn't be more fluent in your own time. In period film, you're learning the language as you go along."
And that's what you're paid for, sweetheart. I've been to the costume library at Western Costume, where they charge an outragous amount HOURLY to research. If you're not clever enough to make use of resources, than you have no argument. To say that there is no way to show a character's personality in period pieces not only shows lack of knowledge, but lack of drive. It's not hard to look at pictures of time periods and pick out who was the eccentric, who was the bum, who was poor, who was rich, who was shady. Come on, now. It's just that it's much easier to go and buy something modern. Or for that matter, have something modern made since seamstresses and tailors are familiar with modern cuts and fabrics.
Page 7
"In Dangerous Liaisons, though, costume design fetishizes period detail at the expense of character. Glenn Close's conniving Marquise de Merteuil is not at all like C?ɬ©cile, the naif played by Uma Thurman. But as Lowell Detweiler, who teaches costume history at New York University, noted: "At any moment, the ladies could exchange their costumes and it would look no different."'
Not true. There were several styles in the period. There were little things to distinguish who was of what age, of what class. But, yes, historically, most clothing was the same and stayed the same from the age of 12 on up! If it's more important to show "character" than historical accuracy, as is the case with many films targeting modern audiences, then change it. But don't expect our respect for it. The costumes that Uma wore showed her character. The ones that Glenn wore showed her. And it frightens me that a costume professor can't tell the difference.
Page 8
"She put him in classic business attire but made sure the details were a bit off. In this hunting scene, for example, his overly formal dress shirt marks him as "an outsider?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùa person who wouldn't have been included in that hunting party with Dick Cheney." He wears the clothes of someone who wants to fit in, but doesn't quite know the code."
And this can't be done in a period film? Again, it just shows ignorance on the side of the author.
Page 9
Makes me frightened of the board of directors. Maybe this isn't really my field if they all place a modern film which was done with stylist work with a period film where the pieces are made. Yes, stylist work can be hard, but it's still a heck of a lot easier than making everything from scratch and researching history (which up to this point, we have seen is not always the case).
Page 10
That's good that they get the recognition they deserve, but the film that won is one of the reasons I quit the costume program. I'm not going to sacrifice my principals for a career. Not ever.
Page 11
So bring back two awards, one for historical costume and one for modern costume. Then everyone will be happy.
Page 12
"The black-and-white Oscar in 1950 also went to Head, for the contemporary drama All About Eve, which featured Bette Davis in the trappings of a successful New York actress."
Here's the thing. Edith Head (or her cronies) DESIGNED and MADE the costumes. It deserves recognition. But I think we all know that pretty much the standard for modern films is to do stylist work. If these recieved an award, wouldn't you have to recongnize the designers who made the clothes? All the costume designer is doing is taking credit for the work of other people put together to show the personality of the character. I do that every day when I dress myself.
Page 13
"But the trashy, cleavage-baring get-ups he designed for Julia Roberts set up the class and gender tensions that underpin the film. They also brilliantly underscored the fearlessness of the paralegal she played: Any woman brave enough to pair leopard-print with tiger-skin couldn't be cowed by some corrupt CEO."
Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Making trashy lingerie IS on the same page as making the costumes from other films nominated that year. Silly me. And I don't know about you, but I see people dressing slutty nearly every day, and they don't need to be bright to put together their outfits.
Page 14
"In Saturday Night Fever, John Travolta's white suit deftly captured his character's oversized sense of himself, and it contrasted nicely with his working-class Brooklyn origins. But Patrizia von Brandenstein's costumes were denied a nomination in 1977."
Probably because they were cut along the line of a modern suit. How hard is it to have a suit made?
Page 15
Again, speaking of stylist work. I don't consider this a relevant argument.
Page 16
No argument. Seems they get it if it's the 50's and 60's.
Page 17
"The difference between it and their hostesses' helps illuminate the Bennets' financial woes as no earlier adaptation has done."
Adding to my previous arguments about Pride and Prejudice that are applicable here, even those with financial problems knew how to make over their clothing. It was important to keep up appearaces, even if you remade the same dress five times for five different siblings. The one redeeming thing I liked about this movie was the way the older women wore the styles of the 1700s still. That, in the country, would have likely been the case, but not all of them. The younger women would be trying to keep up with fashion. After all, they're not running around wildly in the countryside all day. If Mrs Bennett let her daughers run around wild, there would be no hope of her ever having financial security. Gosh people, study history.
