[ SECRET POST #4164 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4164 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #596.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I agree, it does look cheap - especially compared to the beautiful Broadway version of the costume. Was it perhaps intended to be more historically accurate, I wonder?

[(Anonymous)]

Woo boy, not even close. It’s hard to pinpoint when the film is set, but with the facepaint and powdered wigs in the flashback to when the beast was cursed, somewhere around 1750-70ish, maybe? So...

https://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/79220?sortBy=Relevance&deptids=8&when=A.D.+1600-1800&ao=on&ft=Dress&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=1

It’s British, not French, but you get the idea.

[(Anonymous)]

Try the (internet-famous) costume redesigns by Shoomlah on DeviantArt if you want to see what a more historically accurate Belle might have looked like, while still... you know, looking like Belle.
https://shoomlah.deviantart.com/art/Just-a-little-change-600203869

[(Anonymous)]

the costuming for this gown in particular was an epic foobar, don't blame the costume designer. Blame the actress. She didn't want to wear a corset and threw a hissy. The rest of her outfits had soft corsets/stays which is honestly pretty historically accurate, but the ball gown would have had to have a corset and panniers and a hoop skirt to fit the period.

Emma Watson wasn't having it. It wasn't "Feminist." She insisted the design not include a corset. In fact, they let her, not the costume designer, do the gown.

Now, being a designer myself, I'm sure the costume designer was gritting her teeth and being very polite the whole time. And after the movie came out, she couldn't even really defend herself or the gown. Because not only is this gown the wrong color to match the movie or do good things for the actress' SKIN TONE, it's the wrong period, thus the wrong shape and doesn't have the under structure to really support the gown even as it is! Then there's the glitter. The glitter they had to enhance with CGI.

Disney costume enthusiasts were furious and dug to find out how it happened especially since all the other costumes were actually the correct period and historically accurate! It wasn't pretty.

[(Anonymous)]

Woah, damn. Source?

[(Anonymous)]

THIS ^^

The sad thing is that the costume designer (who is also responsible for the gorgeous work in Pride & Prejudice (2005) and several other films) probably would have created something gorgeous for Belle if only EW hadn’t gotten so involved ... but now we’ll never know. :(

[(Anonymous)]

Source please. If so, it's no wonder the damn thing looks like a yellow sack.

[(Anonymous)]

Because anything "feminist" must be ugly. Suuuure.

[lily_everhart]

Here's one article, but there was a better one around the time the movie came out but I don't have time to search for it.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/news/a21370/emma-watson-modern-belle-costume/