Log in

Hand · Sewn · Garb

s pangly sparkly elizabehtan embroidered coif

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · Profile

* * *
* * *
* * *
[User Picture]
On August 13th, 2013 11:02 pm (UTC), virginiadear commented:
It doesn't look frilly to me, either.

I think we sometimes have a problem getting our Twenty-First century selves out of the way when we view works such as these.
The Elizabethans got into a "if it doesn't move [under its own steam], embellish it!" mindset by a certain point in Good Queen Bess's reign.
And I think to modern eyes, it tends to look a bit overdone.

But a professional theatrical and film costumer of my acquaintance said they've had this problem with actors/actresses: they have to portray a character looking a certain way---say, unemployed working class in the Gorbals in 1900---and they'll complain, "This doesn't look like ME!"
Well, no, it doesn't. Of course it doesn't. It's not supposed to look "like you." You are supposed to look like this other personality, this other character whose life is, presumably different and perhaps that's contributed to him or her looking different, too.

I know that some re-enactors do occasionally have trouble with clothes or accessories from the, "I'd never have such a thing in my personal warcrobe!" standpoint, and whatever it is, they wear it very self-consciously, not unlike you saying, "I don't really do frilly." No, but your Elizabethan self almost certainly would have been delighted to have the most be-spangled, embroidered coif she could afford to sew and to maintain.
[User Picture]
On August 14th, 2013 03:45 pm (UTC), zafania replied:
I know what you mean, but there is a difference. if you're acting you do what you're told, but you can have a degree of personal taste in your re-enactment wardrobe, esp as you go up the social scale.

mostly with this I'm uncomfortable with the scale of f rilliness as the original had no lace and I think that what i've done is a little out of scale - I maybe should have made it smaller. also I'm not likeing how it sticks out, which makes it look more early c19th to my eye - bit like something from gaskell
[User Picture]
On August 14th, 2013 03:58 pm (UTC), virginiadear replied:
"I know what you mean, but there is a difference. if you're acting you do what you're told,"

Theoretically, yes, but I recall that in one of her books on Costuming for Stage and Screen---and it might have been the volume covering the Elizabethan years---Jean Hunisett observed that the artiste might indulge his or her own inclination to leave off some of the foundation pieces (sausage pads, farthingales, biscuit pads, even corsets/stays/"pairs of bodies" depending, if "...there is no one to chivvy them into wearing it."

The costumer of my acquaintance complained of having to deal with actors/actresses (especially actresses) who didn't like this color, didn't like the make-up, didn't like the wig (not because it was excessively warm to wear, but because it looked weird or didn't flatter them), this fashion of dress, e.g., 18thC court attire, made her hips look big; a bustle era bustle makes her entire butt look big (yes, dear heart, but in that period, that was the idea), and so on.
And some actors or actresses can get away with kicking up enough fuss to get their way.

But as to your coif, you do have the option of removing the lace (which looks awesome, all on its own! I wish I could say I'd done that!), yes?
Or, would you, at some point, make another, less frilly, more "you?"
* * *

Previous Entry · Leave a comment · Share · Next Entry