[ 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)]

Foundation garments were common, but they looked like this

https://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/90458?sortBy=Relevance&deptids=8&when=A.D.+1600-1800&ao=on&ft=Corset&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=4

They weren’t meant to force an hourglass shape or take inches off the waist, they just kind of made a cone shape. Hollywood likes to do the “lace her tighter to show her restrictive life” symbolism before it was really a thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, thanks for the link. I think I’ve seen those foundation garments before. Yeah, they didn’t look like actual corsets but they provided support (the way a bra would today).

The thing is ... I highly doubt Emma wore something like that. She probably wore a regular bra under that gown. And yes, Hollywood definitely likes to exaggerate and overuse the symbolism of the corset. I guess I just find Emma’s reasoning for not wearing any kind of historically accurate garments to be annoying and a little offensive. Mainly because 1) women shouldn’t be defined by the clothes or undergarments that they wear and 2) plenty of women from history wore clothing that was appropriate for their time and that didn’t make them any less feminist imo.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT—I agree with you and wonder how much of the “no corsets” thing was inspired by the negative coverage of/rumors aboutthe live-action Cinderella—the actress was quoted as saying she couldn’t eat in the ballgown, iirc.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but I thought for SURE it was related. The Cinderella's waist was tiny and I remember that the actress said something to that affect, too. It might have been exaggerated a little, but with issues of body image in a movie targeted toward girls, I think some criticism is understandable.

Of course, Emma Watson is still very thin even without a corset. I'm not really sure "corset" is the underlying issue here, but oh well.

[(Anonymous)]

like, as a costume designer, my actors aren't allowed to eat in costume unless called for in the script, so hopefully that was a quote taken out of context?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but to be fair, movie actors are often in their costumes all day.. they have to eat sometime, right?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt — good point but what if they accidentally ruin the costume while eating on their break?

[analise]

This is where I want to suggest that it's what aprons are made for...

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT — it’s certainly possible that Disney didn’t want to deal with that kind of controversy again after Cinderella. Still, I think EW would have still insisted on not wearing one even if that had never happened. Personally, I feel like the drama over Cinderella being too skinny was a bit overboard. I mean, like a previous commenter mentioned, actors aren’t really supposed to eat while in costume unless the scene calls for it. Seems to me that the dress was designed in a certain way to make it look like she (Lily James) had an hourglass shape.

Kinda OT but Emma made some rather unnecessary comments (around the time of BatB’s release) in regards to Cinderella that were imo trying make “her Belle” seem better and more ~progressive than Ella. It was also her idea to make Belle an inventor (why not a writer instead??) and of all the things she could of invented, what does she create? A washing machine. Ugh. I just feel like EW was trying so hard to make it seem like she had improved Belle when the truth is the character was fine already.

[(Anonymous)]

I’m one of the anons bitching about Watson’s influence on the costume and tbh I had no problem with Belle being an inventor. I’ve read/watched so many iterations of BatB that I was happy to not have her only be a bookworm (which Disney absolutely stole from Robin McKinley’s Beauty, because while original Beauty was a well-read young lady, she wasn’t a bluestocking or a scholar.)

And yeah of course Ella’s gown was meant to give her an hourglass shape. But, hmm. I guess, put me in a heavy-duty corset and I can be hourglass shaped too. What I could never be is that skinny, and I think promoting “fairy tale princess=impossibly perfect with an 18” waist” was kind of regressive and creepy. I think if Lily James had been laced into a normal corset rather than tightlaced it wouldn’t have been made into such a big deal.

Lily James’ comments were not about not being allowed to eat, but rather, unable, as her corset was laced so tightly she had no room for food. I think it was something like a smoothie or milkshake that had a straw so it minimized the chance of spillage.

Where Watson went wrong, I guess, was her unthinking assumption that “corsets=torture device tools of the patriarchy” rather than, you know, underwear so your boobs don’t jounce around, your back doesn’t strain, and your clothes lay smoothly. She was obviously wearing support garments of some kind under her dress; there was no reason not to wear corded stays rather than a padded bra, except that Watson’s feminist scholarship was no such thing. Corsets=PATRIARCHY is Hollywood shorthand.

And on top of everything else, the dress looked cheap except when in motion. Oh well, the 2014 French film and even some of Once Upon a Time’s Belle costumes looked good.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT but most of the impact of the Cinderella dress is visual trickery without needing (much) modification of the body underneath? It's pulling the same techniques that were used recurrently in the 19th century to get a tiny-seeming waist -- very fitted waist-portion of the bodice, banded by very wide shoulders and skirt, so that proportionately the waist looks even smaller. The corset gives additional illusion, even under minimal compression, by redistributing flesh (torsos are usually wider than they are deep, and the corset rounds them into a circle instead, so the view from the front is narrower without losing anything).

That's not to say I doubt that she felt she couldn't eat/couldn't eat much. Usual advice while wearing a corset for extended periods of time is to eat small portions and avoid certain things like carbonation. But I've found wearing Spanx or control-top tights are just as likely (or more likely, in some situations) to Do Things as a corset.

[analise]

Yeeeah...when I've worn a (corset-y) bodice for renaissance festivals (and I don't go out of my way to Lace Super Tightly So I Can't Breathe) I find myself without much of an appetite for most of the day. (I snack but I don't feel the urge to have a 'meal')

Then I unlace at the end of the day and suddenly realize I'm hungry, lol.

[(Anonymous)]

Anon bitching about never being that skinny in a corset—I’ve never had trouble eating in one, but the one I wear most often is an 1800s-ish spoon busk corset that kind of curves out over my (substantial, I’m naturally a sort of fat apple shape) lower belly.