Author Archives: Laurie Bishop

“…No, I haven’t, but I’ve seen the movie.”

Updated on January 31, 2013 by Laurie Bishop

Now, in reality, the world have paid too great a compliment to critics,
and have imagined them to be men of much greater profundity then they really
are. –Henry Fielding

Thank you, Mr. Fielding. I hope to remember to be humble. I have finally seen the new Pride and Prejudice movie (I am not addressing this part to Mr. Fielding, as he is dead of course, and the book was written about 60 years or so after his time) and I am weighing in.

Firstly, I welcomed it with delight. As I sat in the theater during the opening scene–a marvelous, expansive scene of a country sunrise–I thought of how much I enjoy seeing a new adaptation of this old novel. And I asked myself not to expect it to be what I…er…expected. I know the novel, having read it several times, and I don’t mind seeing something that adds to it. In fact, I love being shown something more about the characters I love in a credible way. But I tend to be rather protective of the story, and hate to see it unnecessarily tweaked, and heavens–altered.

I attended the movie with four friends–all of whom are familiar with the story from previous film versions. One is currently reading the novel–she hadn’t finished it yet, but she does have a good grasp of the period.

This movie tries hard to put the long book into movie length. It did so by changing scenes in the novel, eliminating some and causing the necessary conversation to occur elsewhere. It eliminated Mrs. Phillips, a sister of Mrs. Bennett, and the Hursts, the married sister of Mr. Bingley and her husband. The latter did not do any real harm to the story, but being anal about P&P, I had to mention it.

I had made some critical remarks before about some movie photographs re: costuming, but now I am going to take them back–because I feel the movie did an excellent job with that. It illustrated very well the difference in dress between an ordinary young woman and a member of the nobility, and I also admired how Mrs. Bennett was dressed in the style of her own youth–something I feel is realistic for a woman of her time who did not have the time or money to spend in London keeping up with the latest style, and like many older women of today, chose to stay with what she was used to wearing. Even her shoes were of a Georgian style–shabby and soiled, but right. For that, I am (as Jane would say) all admiration.

I have mixed feelings about the relative poverty the Bennetts were shown to have. (If you haven’t seen the movie yet–although I believe I am one of the last to have seen it–the Bennett manor house seemed to be in the center of a barnyard). Possible–certainly. Intended by Jane–I tend to doubt. The Bennetts in this movie appeared to be more like a relatively well-to-do farm family than gentry. They were restricted financially, but I believe that they would not have lived so inimately with their livestock. Mrs. Bennett was conscious of appearances, and if they could afford expensive ball gowns for their daughters, I should think they could afford to have fences. Ahem….

Other story elements…I have to wonder if someone not familiar with the story could have followed it in the film very well. I can’t have that perspective, and neither could any of my friends. Has anyone heard anything in that respect? The scenes cut rapidly from one to the other, leaping across time without giving any indication of it. There was almost a feeling that the story took place in a few weeks’ time instead of several months. And I did miss the nuance that the eliminated scenes could have provided…as a better showing of Lydia’s character before her downfall, and more of an understanding of Elizabeth’s character.

Additionally, I think it did not give Lydia’s elopement the emphasis it deserves in the story. I may be mistaken, but her act, a shattering event in the book, did not seem to come across as the crisis it would have been. Perhaps in needed more real time in the movie? I am not sure.

Nitpicks: Some scenes bothered me, as the one in which Mr. Bingley looked in on Jane in her sickroom–I am sure this would not have happened. Darcy with his shirt unbuttoned! This was a great departure from propriety for a gentleman, and if it could not have been helped, he would have begged Elizabeth’s pardon for his state–even if he was in love.

I could have done without the very last scene. ::Sigh::. Something about it seemed… well…modern to me. I was glad to learn they were already married in that scene, but their being out of doors in what constituted their underwear (with servants about somewhere) seemed a bit wrong.

Not nitpicks: In many ways I loved this movie. The characterizations were wonderful and so was the acting. I loved Darcy’s shyness, once one of my friends pointed out that his discomfort was likely due to not knowing how to act when socializing with his inferiors–and I mentally kicked myself for not thinking of that. In short, I want to see the movie again. And I feel it will generate more interest in Jane Austen, and this is always good! And I did love that kiss in the proposal scene, in spite of Darcy’s shirt. Some things are just timeless.

Thank you for tolerating my reflections on this movie, since it is not a new topic here. I am going to go back and read previous opinions given in Risky Regencies now that I have a perspective.

Laurie

Posted in Jane Austen, TV and Film | Tagged Pride and Prejudice, Pride and Prejudice 2005 | 6 Replies

Tom and Jerry

Updated on January 31, 2013 by Laurie Bishop

In looking for material I discovered there have been

multiple “Tom and Jerrys” over time. Most of us know about the cat and mouse cartoon—probably the first in our awareness. I was looking for information on the Regency cartoonist who drew the “Tom and Jerry” young buck hellraisers. So far I have discovered yet another Tom and Jerry, published in 1932.“Tom and Jerry” was also the original stage name used by Simon and Garfunkel in 1957, and it is also a drink consisting of a beaten egg, Jamaican rum, brandy, powdered sugar, boiling water, and nutmeg. It has been used as the name of a folk/fiddle tune, restaurant(s), and likely many other things, it seems at least.

But the Tom and Jerry I was looking for were British cartoons published in London by R. Ackerman between 1815 and 1821. They were done by Pierce Egan, a chronicler of London low life during the Regency period, in a series called . Life in London, or Days and Nights of Jerry Hawthorne and his elegant friend Corinthian Tom. “Corinthian Tom and Jerry Hawthorn” were the characters he used to show the antics of certain rich young bucks causing mischief. They were two young men with a propensity for enjoying themselves and having “adventures.” I think I might call them “rakehells.”

Tom and Jerry and Corinthian Kate

As with fashion prints, you can find Tom and Jerry prints for sale. I first made their acquaintance on…where else…Ebay.

If you would like to see a nice collection of these prints, go to this site. Kauai Fine Prints is a reseller of old prints, and luckily has a selection of “Life in London” on display. Also, you can view Mr. Egan’s cartoons featuring his “Doctor Syntax” character as well.

http://www.brunias.com/tom-jerry.html

Laurie

Posted in Regency, Research | Tagged Life in London, Pierce Egan, Tom and Jerry | 4 Replies

The Right Fabric and Accessories

Updated on January 31, 2013 by Laurie Bishop

Continuing my sewing theme from last week, I am going to provide a few links for finding period fabrics and accessories.

Fabrics aren’t that hard if you know what you are looking for. If you know something about period fabrics, you are ahead of the game.

The best way of getting an idea what fabrics of the time were like is to look at real Regency gowns. There are sites on the internet—unfortunately, Cathy Decker’s Regency site is on the fritz again ( http://hal.ucr.edu/~cathy/reg3.html ) but there are others where pictures of real gowns can be found, as the Kent State University Museum:
http://dept.kent.edu/museum/costume/bonc/3timesearch/tsnineteenth/1800-1829/1800-1829.html

There are samples of fabrics also on Jessamyn’s Regency Costume Companion site, which also happens to be an invaluable resource when considering your first costume.
Jessamyn’s Regency Costume Companion on fabric:
http://www.songsmyth.com/fabric.html

You can look for vintage costume sellers on line, if not for clothing to buy, but to peruse for research.
http://www.meg-andrews.com/

Once you have an idea what type of fabric you need, you can find the right kind of cotton print, for instance, in a Joann’s Fabrics. Here are some sources that offer more specialized fabrics including vintage reproductions:

http://www.farmhousefabrics.com/

http://www.reproductionfabrics.com/index.php?

Now, for the trimmings: Accessories

Austentation—hats, reticules, and research too:
http://www.austentation.com/home.html

Ostrichs on Line—feathers, fans, Masks…
http://www.ostrichesonline.com/index.html

A site with a shop for various items including US Civil War and Victorian costume, but many items could be used for the Regency as well, including the ladies’ corsets. Click Victorian clothing, then Ladies (if you are a lady!) to see the choices.
http://www.ushist.com/index.html

Frederick’s of Hollywood for their renaissance corset, which creates the “right line” for a Regency lady (unless you are undressing in public, no one will know it isn’t fully ‘period’!)
http://www.fredericks.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=Holiday2002&category%5Fname=Corsets%2DIntimate+Fashion+Styles&product%5Fid=50640

Check wedding gown suppliers for things like flat shoes (dyeable) and long gloves. Certain flat dance shoes can double for Regency shoes as well. Lastly….you all know this…there is Ebay.

Ebay is where I have found the classic Javamar shawl (NOT in pure cashmere, but close enough, with the woven pattern and length that wealthy Regency Ladies used with their gowns), reproduction Georgian jewelry, vintage hats, vintage fans, long leather gloves and vintage style fabrics. I have also done searches for parasols and walking sticks.

I am stopping here…I am somewhat limited by being on a newer computer, and I have not yet found a way to copy my shortcuts from my old computer onto this one. (Somehow I can’t copy my old, huge favorites file to disk—sigh). But hopefully this helps you on your costume venture.

Laurie

Posted in Regency, Research | Tagged accessories, Regency clothing, Regency dress | 6 Replies

What will I wear to that Christmas Party?

Updated on January 30, 2013 by Laurie Bishop

In the mood to play dress-up? Do you have a Christmas party coming up and a hankering to attend as Elizabeth Bennett (or Darcy, for that matter)? It isn’t so very hard to put a costume together, even with the problem of obtaining period shoes, shawls, jewelry, and hats. You can do a lot by using a little ingenuity.

The easiest solution is to have your costume made. I made a quick list of costumers I am aware of. I know there are more, and a little internet searching would find them.

Seamstresses: The one I used for the beautiful gown I have and wore at a Beau Monde Function is Ute Forlano of Dragonfly Formals: http://www.dragonflyformals.com/
She still has a page showing the gown she made for me, by the way! Just click on the little purple button on the Welcome page that says “Laurie” on it.

Others are available, but of course, I have not tried them. Here are some:
http://www.regencygowns.com/index.html
http://www.earthlydelights.com.au/regency.htm
http://www.lauryllane.com/regalia/home.html
http://www.historyinthemaking.org/index.htm (includes gentlemen’s costumes)
http://stores.ebay.com/Period-Goods_W0QQssPageNameZstrkQ3amefsQ3amesstQQtZkm (An ebay store—this costumer has good feedback)

If you make the costume yourself, you will need the pattern and the supplies. If you are a novice sewer, as I am, you probably want to find a simple pattern that isn’t period authentic (i.e. regarding the cut of the garment, where the seams are, how it is finished inside, the exact style of closures, etc.). Being a dreamer (I dream that someday I will sew that gown!) I am a collector of patterns, material, trims, shawls, hat forms…you get the idea. So I thought that I would make a list of sources I have at hand.

For the pattern: the “big” pattern makers as McCalls and Simplicity have made Regency “costume” patterns, although I am not sure what ones are in print right now. It is worth a search for one. But there are other patterns available. The first that comes to mind is one which was designed by Jennie Chancey of Sense and Sensibility Patterns. http://www.sensibility.com/

The second place to identify a pattern to purchase is at The Great Pattern Review.
http://www.gbacg.org/Patterns/index.html
These pattern reviews are unfortunately not listed by period but by maker, so it takes a bit of looking to find the Regency pattern reviews. Folkware has an empire gown pattern that has been favorably reviewed, and be sure to look at La Mode Bagatelle Regency wardrobe pattern. There are many patterns in the GPR for the gentlemen, too.

You will want to do a lot of surfing to research styles if you aren’t already familiar or aren’t sure what you want, whether you plan on sewing your costume yourself or not. There are lots of sources of costume prints in the internet, and there are also period portraits—possibly the best resources of all.

Finding fabrics, shoes, hats, gloves, parasols…well, I’m afraid I’ll have to leave that for another time.

Enjoy!

Laurie

Posted in Regency, Research | Tagged Regency clothing | 5 Replies

Just What Was Regency Dress?

Updated on January 29, 2013 by Laurie Bishop

Having opened that nutshell, I don’t have the room for too many details. But as I was perusing two books this morning–one being REGENCY ETIQUETTE, The Mirror of Graces (1811) and THE FEMALE INSTRUCTOR (1831) it came home to me that there were prissy attitudes in dress and other attitudes in dress.

Regency affectionados sometimes believe there was just one way that things were–but most of us know that wasn’t so. Not to repeat myself (I may have said something along these lines before) but in the 60’s we did not wear Jackie Kennedy’s neat jacketed suits and pillbox hats, any more than we all wore mini-dresses in huge geometric prints. Or prairie dresses with flowers in our hair.

The lady (I assume both were ladies) author of REGENCY ETTIQUETTE had some amusing comments (not intending to be amusing, naturally). Here is one, regarding stays and corsets:

A vile taste in the contriver, and as stupid an approval by a large majority of women, have brought this monstrous distortion into a kind of fashion; and in consequence we see, in eight women out of ten, the hips squeezed into a circumference little more than the waist; and the bosom shoved up to the chin, making a sort of fleshy shelf, disgusting to the beholders, and certainly most incommodious to the bearer.

She has much to say on the subject of corsets, and also on the subject of a lady who, “of her own choice, ‘unveils her beauties to the sun and the moon.'” All of this suggests that there were ladies who wore stays and those who didn’t, and ladies who bared themselves in one way or the other–by means of low necklines or filmy material–and those who did not. Also, interestingly enough, the pictures published in this volume did not show examples of those you normally saw in women’s fashion publications in that year. The waistlines, for one, were almost at the normal waist and not high at all. (See the b & w scan above).

The authoress of the 1834 volume has a similar opinion as the first. Immodesty and excess of dress are to be avoided, in her opinion, and “…do not be fools in order to be belles. Above all things consider decency and ease; never expose nor torture nature.” She also reiterated the first authoress’ opinion that one should dress appropriately to one’s station. It seems that even in 1811 there were concerns about girls of “plebian classes” dressing above their station.