96 thoughts on “Outlander Costume Recap & Podcast: Season 2, Episode 2

  1. As a Scot, and historical costumer with a business that has always prided itself on accuracy, and also a purveyor of quality Scottish goods I can only breathe a sigh of relief that season two is butchering French history and fashion this year and gives me from a break of the over 100 emails and messages every other day asking for anything Outlander.

  2. Love the hilarious recap! :)

    I’m with Sarah on kilts. I don’t hate them, but they just don’t really do anything for me.

    I also preferred the original neckline on her red dress. I don’t know much about 18th century fashion, so I couldn’t judge accuracy, but I thought it was pretty when I saw the promotional pictures. But the neckline that made it on the show looks like Claire is about five seconds away from a Janet Jackson Super Bowl look.

      1. My total-guess is that maybe the promo dept. chose shots of the dress that didn’t TOTALLY show how low cut it was in order to keep the element of surprise?

      2. Oh okay! I went back and looked at it, and I guess the downward camera angle is what makes it look different.

      3. Terry, I have looked at a few of the promotional shots. Did you make several different red dresses? because I noticed a vast difference in the bodice and sleeves between the red court dress and the red promo shots dress.

        1. If Terry says it was the same dress then It was most likely the same dress. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen what goes on during a ‘fashion’ photo session (which is very much what the promo shots would have been like) They most likely took the time to fold curl down the points in on the bust line and possibly used clamps or something in the back to draw the dress in tighter. Wish they could have found a way to carry that off during the filming as I think it definitely gives the neckline a softer more appropriate look. But probably hard to maintain during filming.

  3. Commenting while listening

    Supposedly Dior’s New Look were based on 1700s styles according to an article with Terry.

    Claire goes back in 1945/46 depending on which book you read Brit or American version.

    Claire wouldn’t have been a fashion maven. She was raised in remote areas around the world by her archaeologist uncle. Fashion wouldn’t have been a big deal to her.

    One of Claire’s problems in the first book or two is she doesn’t try to fit in.

    The actress was asked to pierce her nipples.

    The red dress wasn’t suppose to be that short. Apparently Terry was upset when she saw it on the show.

    Claire is fine with waxing/shaving. She gets her legs and arms done, not her “honeypot” and Jamie is horrified by all of it in the book.

    1. Claire is fine with waxing/shaving. She gets her legs and arms done, not her “honeypot” and Jamie is horrified by all of it in the book.


    2. Dior’s New Look didn’t have to reach that far back — it was just a reinterpretation of Victorian styles before the turn of the 19th century. Tiny waists, big full skirts, they’d gone out of fashion after WWI. Dior just brought ’em back :)

    3. Supposedly Dior’s New Look were based on 1700s styles according to an article with Terry.

      I hadn’t heard that one. The costume history lesson I remember getting was that Dior was reaching back to the 1860s, trying to bring back the hyper-feminine silhouette of the hourglass — corseted waist, big bell skirts.

      Of course, looking for that reference now is turning up nothing. :P

      1. I could see the 1700s, it looks a bit like a pet on l’air jacket ans skirt, just streamlined.

    4. Do you have a source verifying that the actress was asked to pierce her nipples? Inquiring minds want to know! (I actually had a lengthy conversation about this with my friend after watching the show…)

      1. I can’t remember exactly which article it was but it was within the last week. It could have been the one with Terry about this seasons costumes, but I’m not going to stake my life on it.

          1. Don’t know that she pierced them, just that she was asked. Yeah I could never be that dedicated to a role. Not for someone on screen such a short time.

      1. Because DG got the end date for WWII wrong in the American version and it was corrected in the Brit version.

      2. Look at Diana Gabaldon’s site — I think it had to do with how she had written the story. Wherever it was first published (I think the UK?) had the earlier date, then before the other edition (US?) someone told her that the date she had chosen didn’t suit Claire & Frank’s moveability, the amount of rationing, etc.

        1. The US version has the wrong date. It was the first edition published. DG got not only the end date wrong but she has the post war prosperity wrong too. They had rationing in England until 1952. England was was more prosperous during the war because the US was sending them supplies, food, etc. Once the war ended the US cut off aid, so they were worse off. My info comes from a biography of the Queen Mother that has quotes from her diaries and letters.

          1. Also highly unlikely she and Frank would have both been demobilized by the initial date she picked.

          2. Actually isn’t there supposed to be a six month gap between their discharges and the second honeymoon or am I imagining that? If so, I’d argue it would be unlikely they’d both have been discharged for that length of time, according to the show timeline or the British edition ‘ s date either.

  4. I didn’t like the dior jacket, tbh. Partly because it messes with the timeline (Claire knowing about 1947 fashion) and partly because I dislike the direction in which this costuming pushes the characterization. WHY is Claire suddenly all about the fashion to the extent she’s designing her own stuff? The Claire I know cares more about setting bones than choosing a fancy dress. Not that she doesn’t like nice clothes, but it’s not her primary interest, the way practising medicine is. Most of it is to blame on the writing of the episode of course, I don’t like the focus they chose for the character at all, but of course the costuming reinforces that. Taken on it’s own I think it’s a lovely costume, taken in the context of this episode, I hate what they’re doing here.

    But I understand I’m very much in a tiny minority here.

    I really like the riding habit though. Shirts and cravats. Mmmmmmmh <3

    1. I haven’t read the books, so I’m kind of in the dark about certain aspects of Claire’s personality in the show vs. the books, but with that said… I agree. It’s weirdly out of character for someone who is very no-nonsense to the point of being obnoxious. Suddenly being a fashion whore really seems like a 90-degree turn from what’s been established as Claire’s personality.

      The other side of the coin is that showing a lot of fabulous costumes in the show is obviously what is going to grab viewers’ attentions (worked with us!) so there’s presumably more of a necessity to make fashion a bigger part of the narrative than it was in the books.

      1. So, I’m just listening to the Podcast (I had only read the post earlier) and Kendra was right. Claire goes to 1743 on the 1st of May 1746 – so there’s no way for her to know about the New Look of 1947. As you say in the podcast, it’s a fantasy, so from that point of view, I absolutely agree that this is a point where believability can be stretched.

        On the other hand, one of the main reasons I love the books, is because they try to create an illusion that Claire really is in History As It Really Happened – the research, especially when it comes to clothes – is a bit shaky in the first books, but it is thorough and it becomes increasingly better and better with further volumes. And this focus on social history, on daily life history, is a big part of why I enjoy them so much. So the show choosing a different direction simply isn’t what I would have liked to get of an Outlander show. Different focuses and all. At least so far in the second season, I did kind of get that in the first season!

        As for Claire, I’d say the big thing that drives her, her passion, her calling as Frank will call it at some point, is being a doctor, a healer. And not just one who knows things (can identify some herb mixture, or diagnose smallpox), but one who actively lays hands on patients and uses her skill and knowledge to heal them. She is, as you say, utterly non-nonsense and practical, and this translate to almost ruthlessness when it comes to healing. And I’d say she struggles with the public display and representative nature of a prominent wealthy person’s life, both in the 20th century and the 18th – it’s a chore and an obligation, not something she enjoys.

        And well, all this seems to be taking a backseat in this season? I hope I’m wrong and this episode was just a fluke, but that shifted focus on being a clothes’ horse and designing her own wardrobe (that brown dress is yet to come…). And not trying to blend in. As you guys pointed out in the podcast, after the witch trial she should know better! Well. Again, this adaptation interprets things very differently from me and that dampens my enjoyment a lot.

        From a doylist perspective, it makes sense for the production… I just don’t like it personally. I’ll be glad when they’re done with Paris!

      2. Interesting. I have read the books many times. In Paris, Claire becomes a fashion whore (or just very fashionable) to help secure a place in the Kings inner circle.
        It is a 90 degree turn, and she is bored senseless by it.

        1. Claire and Jamie are also representing Jared’s business interests and have Clientele to impress.

    2. You are not the only one! I agree with you word for word: “Taken on it’s own I think it’s a lovely costume, taken in the context of this episode, I hate what they’re doing here.”

      I feel like the mix of 18th-c. with 1940s high fashion is done to make it relatable for a modern audience more than anything else. Look, there’s a 1940s woman in the 18th century! Let’s mix the two. Get it? Maybe this is fine when 75% of the show’s audience has no clue about either 18th century fashion or 1940s fashion. *shrug*

      1. No, that was not our motivation. If I wanted to make it relatable for the audience, who generally knows about as much about Dior’s New Look as they do about any other period of fashion history, I would go down to the mall and buy clothes that look vaguely period-ish.
        Not to be snarky or anything…;)

    3. I don’t think that Claire has suddenly become a fashion maven, so much as Claire must wear clothing appropriate to the circumstances she’s currently in. She’s the wife of someone who’s running a very prosperous wine merchant and Lady Broch Tuararch. She and Jamie are running in the highest circles of French society in there attempt to stop the Rising. They have to both look the part or they won’t be taken seriously.

      While I don’t personally like all the costuming decisions for Claire, it makes sense that she would want to put her own stamp on her clothes and make them a little less fussy. Clothes weren’t bought off the rack and most women of means would had some hand in ‘designing’ their clothes.

    4. Claire is not COPYING clothing she has seen in the 40s. That was not at all what I have said. I said she comes from the same, generation, time and post war world that Dior does. That she would look at the 18th century riding suit from a similar view that Dior might,and end up in the same place. It is an HOMAGE, and a nod to fashion and time travel. It does not mean that she SAW the Dior Bar suit.

      1. I am living for the fact that you are here to respond directly instead of all this, “Terry said this. Terry said that. I think what Terry was trying to say is….” It is absolutely invaluable and I appreciate it immensely. Also, Frock Flicks gals, I love that you state your truth when you know Ms. Dresbach is reading what you write. No mealy mouthed yes people in these parts. Everyone speaking their truth and respecting the soul of these books.

  5. I’m still in partial shock and awe Re the Swan Nipple dress but I loved both Claire’s dress and Louise’s.
    I will listen to podcast after work and comment more.

  6. Liked the Bar Suit – thought it worked really well on the levels the costumer intended. Hated the red dress – agree the pre-release stills with a different neckline was better. Thought the court looked quite good, had some of the same complaints about back-lacing etc, but for an overall “look” thought more worked than not. I haven’t really loved any of Jaimie’s outfits, but I think characterizing him as the anti-fop leads to some dull choices.

  7. Shouldn’t there be back-lacing here? If they’re at court, they should be wearing the grande habite, non?

    My suspicions about the red dress’s neckline in the promo shots are that it’s all in the angle. Judging by the one at the top of the post, they held the camera juuuuust so in order to give the effect of a flat dip, rather than the dress splaying out.

    1. Which is to say that my issue is that they’re wearing back-lacing anglaises instead of court dress, rather than sacques.

      1. They’re actually not anglaises, which in this era would still have center back pleats and cut-through skirt (ie “en fourreau”). And actually, surprisingly, aside from Claire’s red dress, the dresses don’t lace in back! They’re just fitted backs, like 1780s anglaises.

      2. And I had the same question about robes de cour vs. fashionable robes, but this was a party, not a formal event, so I think fashionable wear makes sense.

        1. Oh, right, they’re not really anglaises! I was just calling them that because it seems like the intention was for that.

          I was under the impression that it was All Robes de Cour All the Time until Louis XVI/Marie Antoinette changed the rules so they were just for ceremonial court events, leaving the robe parée for evening parties, but I’m not sure why I thought that now.

    2. It lacks some essential features to be a grand habit (fully boned bodice, train, sleeves, palatine), Without these it would not be considered a grand habit and if the occasion had required wearing one, Claire would have not passed muster.

  8. I got a shout-out! Oh, I can die happy now.

    I was very skeptical when I first read of the 1740s-1940s fashion mashup philosophy, but after watching this episode I’m much more favorably disposed. I agree with everything you said in the podcast: it’s interesting, and it works visually to separate Claire from everyone else. While Claire isn’t a fashion maven in the book, her Paris dresses are going to be bespoke since she lives in an era where the ready-made clothing industry doesn’t exist (or is in the fledgling state), so it makes sense to me that she would voice her opinion–after all, when does Claire not voice her opinion?– and her clothes would come out looking not quite like everyone else’s. The bar dress was exquisite! I’m more ambivalent about the red dress. I can’t quite decide how I feel about it. I noticed that the neckline looked very different from the promotional photos that came out earlier, but I just assumed it was a camera trick. I read that Terry said they took Caitriona out of a corset for this dress, which is an interesting and bold move. As was mentioned in the podcast, Claire’s cleavage is not eighteenth-century… I don’t think that’s even 1940s cleavage. It reads to me like 2016 cleavage, especially with that neckline and lack of support. Tossing aside issues of historically accuracy, can I say it kind of worked for me? Again, it sets Claire apart from all the other women in the room that are corseted. But the length is a weird choice. I assumed it was historical to Versailles in the 1740s, but if that length only comes around in the 1780s I’m not sure what the thought process behind it was… It has to be to show off the shoes? (Which, I’m really sorry, but I found those to be fugly and obnoxiously modern. I know Terry loves them because she did a special blogpost about them. Sorry, sorry!) I read somewhere that Terry didn’t intend for the dress to be shot full length and was upset about how short it looks but I have not been able to locate that tweet. Also, it just doesn’t make sense. She didn’t think the dress would be shot full length? Surely she had to know about the staircase shot.

    I’m sad about the lack of robe à la françaises, but I’m assuming it was either an issue of cost or complaints that the silhouette would make the women appear fat. (That may be why Analise’s dress is a Robe a la Piemontaise, because you still have the very defined waist.)

    Jamie’s clothes are very meh. I’d like to see him in some more daring, adventurous looks. I’ve read all the interviews where Terry has talked about how it just isn’t in Jamie’s character to wear lavender suits, but from my memories of the book he dresses as would be expected of a courtier at Versailles… there aren’t any passages about him throwing fits about the finery from what I recall. (Actually, I think he wears formal Highland dress, complete with kilt, most of the time… Maybe that was just my own fantasy.) In fact, I think it’s an anachronistic understanding of gender in the 18th-c that supposes Jamie would refuse to wear ornate clothing in an appropriate setting just because he’s also comfortable roughing it in the Highlands.

    Thank you so much for recapping and podcasting!

    1. Had no idea about the shot on the stairs. They don’t tell us every shot. Wish they did.

      The red dress. Total pain. Boxed in on all sides. If it wasn’t the number one dress that I have been asked to do since before we started shooting Outlander, I would have never done it.
      How could anyone see down to the belly button (not a literal translation, obviously) in an 18th century gown? The book description would have been impossible to create. But it was a BELOVED moment in the book, and we decided to honor it. We broke every Bruce, and opened up the center seam on the bodice to make it as low cut as possible (per the book description). Other than that I just tried to make it as dramatic and sensational as I could.
      Period correct? Not even remotely.

      1. I can imagine it was a challenge! Yeah, how anyone could see down the belly button in an 18th century gown is beyond me, too. :)

      2. You know, I wrote that comment and then immediately after posting thought to myself, I bet they didn’t know about the specific shots. I think I routinely watch thinking the costuming department has more power than you really do; it’s easy to forget how incredibly complicated filming a show is and how many different voices are in the room.

        In any case, speaking for myself, I thought it worked! It looks weird, but “fashion weird” if that makes sense. And I think you did a marvelous job considering the source description, just like you did with that fabulous white dress in the premiere that had to look vaguely like an 18th-c chemise.

        Anyway, I have to say I couldn’t think of anything else after the fabulous bar suit walked onto the screen. That suit is beautiful and forever enshrined in my heart, maybe **maybe** even topping the wedding dress. In the post above Sarah predicts this will become a cosplay favorite and I wholeheartedly concur!

        I hope we get to see more of Claire’s “back at home” dress with the puffy organza sleeves.

        1. Thank you. Interesting that you made the connection between the red dress and the white dress of S1. I am constantly muttering that the red dress was the S2 version of the white 40s dress that transformers into an18th century chemise.
          Oy. Glad they are both in the rear view mirror.
          I think those are the last beloved book descriptions we have to wrestle with.

          That said, I am very proud of what we pulled off in S2. We made 10,000 garments. Dayumm. Very proud.

          I will leave you all to it now…

          1. I loved the 1940s dress-chemise in the first episode. Probably one of my favorite costumes from a design standpoint, because it has to hit all of these complex marks laid out by the book, while essentially remaining simple and elegant. Thought you struck the balance perfectly, for what it’s worth.

          2. I agree with Sarah. The “chemise” gown was brilliant. I really enjoy seeing how these iconic outfits from the book get adapted to the screen, but I don’t envy Terry the task of making the magic happen (especially when book descriptions sometimes just don’t make an iota of sense… **cough cough Demelza’s blue silk “I need you to undo the hooks in the back, Ross”**).

          3. Somebody asked me about Demelza’s blue dress on Tumblr one time! I had to explain that the author just didn’t know enough about 18th century clothing …

          4. YES! It is totally from the book… Also, Demelza starts crying right before they have sex and says, “I lied about the hooks. Oh Ross, don’t take me if you hate me.” (Literally. I just got out my copy to double-check.) So it answers the question of “how did she get the dress on if she can’t take it off without help” but it ignores the broader question of where she found a robe a la francaise that closes in the back with hooks… **face palm**

            1. Okay, I think I can handle the hooks more than the crying and “don’t take me if you hate me.” UGH. DOORMAT ALERT.

          5. Amen, sister. This is one of the rare cases when I like the tv series better than the books. And there are some strange domestic violence issues, too. At one point Demelza tells Ross (speaking about Verity’s relationship with Blamey) that it doesn’t matter if your partner hits you once or twice as long as they love you. Glad they cut that part, too…

  9. OMG. It looks like they are doing to mid-18th century French clothing in S2 what they did to mid-18th century Highland clothing in S1. I binge-watched the entire S1 with a friend who had read the books and I wanted to throw rocks at the costumers. I still do, and I won’t be watching any more of this. I realize it’s a fantasy series, but when your reference real dates, people, and events, I feel you owe it to the audience to make an effort for authenticity.

    Oh, and the soft hats the Highlanders wear (especially in S1) are “bonnets,” not “tams.” The term “tam” came from Robert Burns’ poem “Tam O’ Shanter,” which was written in 1790 .

    Just sayin’.

      1. As a long time fan of the books (without any historical fashion knowledge) I would just like to say how appreciative I am for all of the wonderful costumes, wigs and jewelry that we the audience see each week. Sure it may not be 100% accurate but we are swooning nevertheless.

        Thank you (Outlander craft service and crew) for all your hard work!

        Also Kendra & Sarah thanks for your very interesting blog. I look forward to reading your remarks for the remainder of Season 2.

    1. Why the hate? I know that not everything is exactly perfect but that is just mean. I am a historian, reenactor and live on Long Island, in the Port Jefferson/Setauket area. I have no ill will towards the series Turn, even thought they have gotten so much wrong I needed to stop watching. They are trying to distill the story into a digestible and exciting form because it would be boring as heck to portray the actual story. Terry is doing her best to represent the time and place in her costumes, though she did fall into the trap many people trying to present the common people do, which is called the burlap syndrome.

    1. Right, but it’s part of the overall look. Do you coordinate with them in terms of design? Or do the makeup and hair designers work totally independently?

  10. This episode made me go all confused! A little weak story. Mourning the lack of watteau pleats-enabled francaises. Trying to melt the idea of 1940s mash up (liking the black and white outfit better) disliked the red dress, went wtf about the swan dress but started to like it in its craziness, after all the majority of the dress feels more authentic, it is like the woman wearing it is like “the woman of evening” wearing it with purpose of causing spectacle.

    Loved the brothel scenes!! sillinesses to be had!

    After I watched the episode I felt like “what happened?!” hahaa

      1. Probably will never get the answer to this question,but HOW did Claire wear such massive panniers without stays?Panniers themselves might not be heavy,but they support the skirt which certainly is heavy with all those cartridge pleats.If a conventional pannier was worn without the support of stays,I can’t imagine the discomfort it would cause at the waist,unless the panniers(or whatever skirt support was used)had support from shoulders like a bodied tudor farthingale.But that is too fanciful of me to assume.
        I do think that if the designers went for a front lacing robe volante sans stays and stomacher (albeit with a very narrow slit in the bodice)the result would have been better from the story and historical perspective.

  11. Ok, first the “swan dress”. In the book Madame Du Berry is wearing a daring gown cut low to show of her breasts. Her nipples were pierced and the swan jewel were ornamented with large pearls is to hide a pair of inverted nipples. Also except for the royal mistress, the women of the court would cover their cleavage with fine silk or fine linen but still display their nipples under the fabric.
    I adore the Riding Gown and the Black at home gown that Claire was wearing. The Red Dress, not my favorite, the fabric is beautiful, the shoes are lovely and a small call back to Gillis Duncan, but the actual cut of the gown is meh. If people were not so invested in “Sang De Cris” Gown, I’m sure that Terry would have scrapped it and made something more fabulous for the first time in court.
    I loved the men’s costumes, especially The Prince with his orange frock coat and teal embroidered waistcoat. I would love for Terry to issue a line of patterns for a few of the gowns created IE the Dior New Look gown, the Brown Floral gown, and the Riding Habit. Why show Yaya Han make all the cosplay bank?

    1. Lauren Stowell of American Duchess has made a pattern for Simplicity, actually! It’s just come out. I’m sure there will be more to come.

  12. Because I place Outlander in the “History that never was” file typical of historical fantasy my inner authenticity police is a bit more mellow. So the only piece so far I have issue with is the red dress and just the neckline. Mostly because it looks like the bodice is flapping open half the time. Maybe if some jewels or something straddled the center front points, it would have been more naughty teasing and less Hollywood red carpet desperate. Oh well live and learn.
    Terry the whole lot of you are doing pretty damn well bringing a rather cracked out source material to life despite it’s problems. There are some other pieces the promo materials are making me look forward to.

  13. The red dress was not very flattering but I guess the costume designer was in a really awkward position here.

    As for the non-powdered hair, I am not sure you would be able to tell the difference. Since it hair powder does work as dry shampoo and it could be colored to match the wearer’s original hair color, you can use it and still look pretty normal. I have photos of me with powdered hair using 18th century-recipe pomade and powder and it is pretty much invisible. What it changes about your hair is the smell (especially after the aromatic oils in the pomade disappear lol!) and the way it adds mass and malleability to your hair.

    Of course, it does depend on how much powder your add and how much you brush it out. (It doesn’t completely brush out by the way. In fact, using colored powder shows how much remains and how tightly the powder clings to your hair.)

  14. Wow, while I am no fashion historian nor a connoisseur of current haute couture, I am an intelligent TV viewer who appreciates how the costumes impact the drama of the sorytelling and realize the limitations of the wardrobe department and can imagine the challenges they must face. Can we please remember this original series- based on fiction – is not trying to pass itself off as the Metroplitan Museum of Art , National Geographic, Smithsonian or some other reputable organization with a 100% focus on historical or archival accuracy. I see the facilitators of this blog and podcast are critiquing certain aspects of fashion and that is a passion of theirs– I get that. But gosh please give Ms. Dresbach a break – I empathize with her situation of having to explain and justify ( and in some cases defend) her work. She seems to be accomplishing her link in the chain of Poe’s “Unity of Effect,” and the costumes are pleasing aesthetically and work for helping viewers believe and know the characters. Thank you

    1. That rather seems to be the point of Frock Flicks- to discuss historical accuracy and historical references in costuming. It’s why I love this blog. I learn a lot and get to the nitty gritty historical movie costumes.

      I don’t think not liking a costume or questioning a direction in costuming is giving the designer a hard time. Everyone has opinions on everything and as long as they’re polite I don’t see an issue.

      1. Thanks, Kay. It seems like we invariably get a comment or two on our more popular posts from people who feel they need to point out to us that “it’s just a movie” or “it’s just fantasy” or “it’s just [insert the obvious here].”

        For those just tuning in, this is what we do. We comment on historical accuracy in film and television costuming. Why? Because we like discussing historical accuracy in film and television costuming. Are we doing it to be mean? No. We are doing it because we think it’s an interesting topic. We just don’t sugar coat our opinions when we see something that doesn’t work, or is egregiously wrong.

        I think we’ve been overwhelmingly praiseful of Terry’s work on “Outlander” from the very start. The quibbles we have are relatively minor compared to the stuff we do like (and which, if the above person had cared to read the article or listen to the podcast, we spend a great deal of time pointing out). The red dress has been the exception, honestly, and so what if we didn’t like it? Terry won’t be out of a job if we say we don’t like one out of literally thousands of outfits she’s designed for the show.

  15. Wasn’t Madame du Pompadour the royal mistress in 1746? Or wasn’t that the year she became it? I don’t recall ever reading about her wearing such a revealing dress, at all. And she was a very fashionable woman, considered at the time to have perfect taste.

    1. She was! Louise’s dress is a near copy of those made famous by her. But the episode is 1744 (despite the incorrect date of 45 on screen 2 episodes running, a mistake confirmed by Maril Davis, one of the producers).

  16. I loved everything about this episode! Especially the nipple swans!! I haven’t read the books (think I will now!), but I love the designer’s take on things! A feast for the eyes, especially the brothel and court scenes! Thank you for discussing it in such detail Frock Flicks!

  17. I listened to this podcast while playing a sci-fi video game-it’s actually a good combination.

  18. I read in one of Terry’s interviews that the nipples are actually silicone casts of the actress’s nipples, so that they could get the look without the pain. Although having them glued on couldn’t ha been too comfortable!

  19. I am in LOVE with the swan nipple dress! It’s sooooo 18th century crazy court decadance and if I had a set of girlies that pretty and pierced, you can be darn sure I would wear that dress in a heartbeat! I think the red dress would have looked fabulous with the same bodice cut, just with the sheer gauzy covering over her breasts like in the book and period portraits. Thank you for the excellent overview of the episodes. You guys catch details I often miss.

  20. The most common way nipples are pierced these days is horizontally. It is much more rare for them to be pierced vertically as they are in Outlander. The nipple swans just don’t look like they would work on any level as executed. You’d need some glue or something.

  21. The actress’s nipples may not be pierced. The swans could be glued on, with the beaks judiciously placed to give a pierced effect. That would explain why they aren’t swinging from pearled chains the way they were in the book.

  22. I know I’m late to the party but I HAVE to rant (a bit) about that swan “dress”.
    I happen to be a history buff, and French to boot on top of that.
    Recently, I decided to go back to an old passion of mine, costuming, and went to scour the net for documentation.
    Saw that atrocity and shot straight to the ceiling in fury… It was very Exorcist like without the pea soup.
    I listened to the podcast and glad one of you pointed out that while illustrations of that kind do exist, they were PORN and not actual fashion plates.
    Now, I get the costume designers had to follow the book, and the author took the usual route of bashing the French, as per usual.
    Now, this is getting tiresome. Louis XV may not have been the monarch his grandfather was, but he had at least two things in common with him:
    1-He liked women ( a lot!)
    2- He had taste.

    That Kardashianesque display of sexual vulgarity was out of period (try the Minoans for size), out of place (my nation court was NOT a brothel!), and out of order (honestly, I didn’t know I could be insulted by a dress, but here goes…)
    Historical accuracy? my sweet bum!

    And my country was NOT decadent, thankyouverymuch. In fact, the reign of Louis XV was the peak in France for arts, fashion, architecture and so much more… The last years before, yes, all the misery that supported that beauty erupted. But in the meantime, France had a few beautiful decades, so much that centuries later, people are still obsessed with it… Aren’t we ladies?
    So I would appreciate if foreign authors would stop to shit on my country, and for it to be presented as “historically accurate” when it goes on TV.
    No, it isn’t.

    The French Court was governed by two things: Etiquette, and the catholic Church. Even the king could not easily change this, and being a king’s mistress, even a “favorite” was a quite precarious and uneasy position. I can’t even begin to list how many lines that “dress” is crossing!
    If Madame de Tourvel had turned out like that, she would have been stoned out of Court, maybe literally: The Catholic faction at Court was not beating around the bush.

    The one consolation I have is that the leading lady, in that ridiculous red dress, would have faced the same fate (or more likely been shown the servant entrance…)

    Okay, rant over, thanks for listening, I feel better now. And I love your podcast!

Comments are closed.

Discover more from Frock Flicks

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue Reading