
Support Frock Flicks with a small donation! During Snark Week and beyond, we’re grateful for your monthly pledges for exclusive content via Patreon or your one-time contributions via Ko-fi or PayPal to offset the costs of running this site. You can even buy our T-shirts and merch. Think of this like supporting public broadcasting, but with swearing and no tax deductions!
One thing I personally adore about historical fashion is the trimming — sometimes we call it the “frosting” when we’re making costumes, because the construction of a gown can be boring but adding all the trims is like frosting a cake, it’s more fun, creative, exciting, whimsical, and there seems to be endless possibilities. Especially compared to current fashions of the late 20th and early 21st century, which are so stripped-down and bare, devoid of trims or embellishment.
There’s this whole “quiet luxury” thing going on where dull beige clothes are supposed to look like you’re a billionaire. Minimalism has been considered chic off and on for much of the past century, and wow, that bores me to tears. So I look to earlier fashions to float my boat.

This preference also makes me notice when frock flicks impose a too-modern minimalist aesthetic on historical costumes. Kendra calls this “jeans and T-shirt” costuming because it reduces historical fashion down to no-frills bare basics like a 20th-century jeans and T-shirt. The effect is most noticeable for movies and TV shows set in the 16th and 18th centuries, since the upper-class fashions of those periods were typically LOADED with embellishment. But upper-class clothing of most eras would have a distinctive amount or type of trimmings and/or the garments would be designed with elaborate collars, cuffs, puffs, slashes, frills, or pleats, and a person’s outfit wasn’t complete without fancy accessories like jewelry, hats, gloves, belts, etc.

Before mass production of clothing (which wasn’t really common until the early 20th century), clothes have been all about conspicuous consumption. What you wore showed your wealth and social status. Luxury was loud, bold, and ostentatious, although the specific way it was displayed (such as metal embroidery vs. lace) varied from over time and place.

I suspect there are several reasons why modern frock flicks leave off these embellishments. One is budget — it takes more time and money to add trims, embroidery (even by machine), beading, pleating, ruching, ruffles, and accessories. So lower budget productions will skimp. I get it, even if I still don’t like it. What annoys me more is when productions choose a stripped-down aesthetic because they think it’s “relatable” and this look will make their historical story more modern. Uh, yeah, that’s the problem! If viewers can’t relate to a character wearing lace cuffs, maybe the story and acting suck, not the costume.
I should note that there is also a problem with the far fewer movie/TV productions that go in the opposite direction and throw on WAY too much embellishment. I’m looking at you, The Spanish Princess and The Serpent Queen! Once Starz decided to spend some money on their frock flicks, they wasted it on all the upholstery fabric scraps they could find, usually in the same costume. Just because people in the past had different definitions of “good taste” than today didn’t mean they automatically had shitty taste!

Yeah, that’s overboard, but the answer isn’t for, say Catherine of Valois, to go fully drab grey in the 1420s like this:

The costume designer Jane Petrie actually told Fashionista : “We kept it to calm colors and calm shapes and not really any decoration on it at all.” We dare not get too exciting here.
Even though bright colors, pattern, and decorations did exist in the middle ages!

The War of the Roses didn’t have to be so drab, Starz…

Color! Layers! Jewelry! Buttons!

Why all the grey????

This fabric is the tiniest bit better, but still monochrome:

At least throw in some contrast!

Now let’s look at the 16th century, my fave, and where so many frock flicks fuck it up. Look, even gowns that seem simple have oodles of details. This next women’s gown is made of a rich damask fabric, and she’s wearing embroidered lace cuffs at her wrists and has matching lace showing at the top of her bodice (that’d be the edge of her smock, called a camicia). She’s also wearing a delicate netted partlet that fills in her neckline, and it’s edged in wide gold lace. She has two necklaces (a gold choker and a longer gold chain) and at least two gold rings with gems. There’s a fur stole over one shoulder, and some kind of jeweled hair decoration can be just barely glimpsed.

But movies show this plain old dress with just skimpy wrist ruffles and a wee necklace (not to mention hair hanging down).

This lady at least gets better fabric and a tiara, but she needs more!

Her gown seems inspired by later Italian styles that’d be worn with a ruff, cuffs, a partlet, and elaborate hair, like this:

Sorry about your low budget, but this little bit of pretty fabric only gets you so far…

There should be trim all along the top edge of her gown, plus lace (possibly embroidered) on the edge of her smock that shows above the bodice. And would it kill ya to wear a chain necklace?

I love velvet, but it’s SO BORING without any trim! That French hood needs some decoration or it’s just a misunderstood headband.

Look at all the layers and trims on this thing!

Now, this next production was super low budget and also filmed during lockdown shortages. But the costume designer Lynsey Moore also told Bustle:
“This is a fresh perspective, from a different angle, and design-wise a chance for us to present something new for a contemporary audience. But obviously, this is a time period. A lot of research went into it, but also, because we decided that it was going to be contemporary, it’s not shackled too much by historical accuracy.”
OH PLEASE.

That’s embarrassingly unhistorical in comparison.

Even the big-budget Hollywood flicks go for a basic prom-dress look.

She needs trim, jewelry, headgear!

Costume designer Alexandra Byrne not only used denim in a lot of this movie’s costumes, she purposefully went for a non-historical look, telling Women’s Wear Daily:
“I didn’t want it to be ‘here comes another queen in another frock.’ I wanted to try and limit the materials I was using so I could manipulate the materials to tell the story. It’s such a current story; I wanted it to have a real accessibility to the clothes. I think sometimes period costumes can become a bit distant and a bit historical.”
Accessible, yeah, because audiences can’t access and RELATE to characters in frocks.

That’s the least Elizabethan Queen Elizabeth I could look. She wasn’t known for appearing plain!

Stepping forward in time a bit, the 17th century doesn’t show up onscreen that much, but the series Versailles (2015-18) was supposed to have a huge budget of €27 million, which was twice Downton Abbey‘s budget at the time. Set decoration and costumes represented 12% of that budget, and the principal characters’ costumes cost thousands of Euros each, according to advance press. Um, I think they got a bad deal because what was in the show looks decidedly average!
It’s the men, especially King Louis XIV. It’s just OK.

I think he needs MORE. He was the SUN KING after all!

What’s really missing is the petticoat breeches with all those ribbons at the waist — you can see how they’re missing in this pic of Phillipe and Chevalier:

But they’re alllllll over this little image of the king and Phillipe!

I get it, they’re a weird fashion, but embrace the weird! Fly that freak flag! Go for the gold! Unlike these 18th-century frock flicks that also leave off frills and fripperies. sigh

Sure, these ladies were out on an isolated island, but they could have had a smidge of lace or something!

This next woman’s from a slightly later date, but she’s painting while wearing luscious satin trimmed in lace and ribbons, plus a hat with ribbons and feathers. Her two pupils are wearing delicate sheer ruffles, caps, and fichus. But no, the lady painting on fire couldn’t be arsed to add a ribbon!

I guess Roxanne and Cyrano’s love is so tortured, all the trimmings fell off her clothes?

This next flick has utterly anemic trims for otherwise upper-class characters.


According to the movie’s production notes, director Emmanuel Mouret and costume designer Pierre-Jean Larroque wanted a “relaxed style” that looks modern, “We wanted an image stripped of frills, and which didn’t look dusty or old. In fact, we wanted something new with clear lines.”
If we got a nickel every time a frock flick says they’re doing something “new” like this shit, we’d be rich!

She has sleeve ruffles, OK, but this is weak.

That little bow is it?

Y’know, the revolution was revolting against excesses personified by this kind of court fashion. If you don’t show all that excess, then what comes next doesn’t make as much sense!

I guess out in Cornwall, they just DGAF about anything, not hairpins, not fashion, not revolution.

It almost makes sense for Demelza’s rambling-around-the-cliffs everyday dress to be plain. But even her fancy party dress?

But Elizabeth is supposed to be fancy from the start, and this is the best she can do. I should be thrilled by that tiny bit of ruching, I guess.

Oh look, a feather on her hat. Huzzah (snore).

She gets some less plain fabric sometimes, but that’s about it.

Then we come to the most homespun version of Elizabeth Bennet ever. How many times do we have to say it? The Bennets are not poor! Mr. Bennet is a gentleman and owns land with a modest income. The family is not rich, particularly when it comes to providing dowries for five daughters, but there’s no reason why any of them would dress in the equivalent of thrift-shop rags like that. Lizzie can afford a bonnet and some lace, FFS!

The snobby bitch Caroline Bingley can even better afford some lace or embroidery or sleeves with puffs, pleating, or any kind of interesting detail. This is a sad-sack outfit for someone with £20,000 a year in 1813!

Bridgerton usually doesn’t skimp on the trims and embellishments, but season 2‘s costumes were a bit underwhelming. Maybe due to lockdown? IDK, but the Sharma sisters are given the most boring gowns seen in the entire series, and that’s a crying shame.

Nothing, however, is more of a shame than Netflix’s recent historical attempts. This is like lipstick on a pig — I mean, look at all that modern makeup someone bothered to slather on Anne Elliot, instead of giving her interesting clothes.

Let’s wrap this up with the travesty that is The Buccaneers, which is only set in the 1880s when that’s mildly convenient. As costume designer Giovanni Lipari told Fashionista about this wedding dress:
“It’s really modern fashion. We forgot the 1880s. It just all of a sudden did not make sense for us anymore.”

WELL OK THEN.
Are you a fan of trims and embellishment? Or do you prefer minimalism in your frock flicks?
I agree. If the period says fancy and frilly, go fancy and frilly! Stretch the budget to the limit! This would be where all the cheap ass trim and fabric would get used so it would look expensive!! Or at least pretty!
The white dress Roxane wears in Cyrano is from when she’s in the convent.
I love your snark!!! I can’t tell you how much I LOATHE the Netflix Persuasion. When I saw sneak preview stills I saw the costuming and thought WTF? It was a bad omen for a bad adaptation.
Looks like Cyrano moved the setting from the 17th to the 18th century? Shame, as much as I love 18th C clothing the 17th C feels very underrepresented in modern frock flicks.
Anyways, couldn’t agree more!! The 16th C particularly bugs me- just look at any portrait, the nobility were absolutely encrusted with jewels
See Disney’s attempts at historical costuming, Namely the Amazon Bridesmaid dress version of Belle’s Iconic yellow ball gown! Also, Ariel’s sad blue live action dress, I get that this is the Caribbean, but you could’ve gone for stripe patterns, at least! This is the wacky 1830s we’re talking about!
I normally apply a softly-softly attitude to the little misdemeanours of costume departments tackling historical persons whose clothing budget was almost literally the National Budget, but for once I intend to let my Frock Flag fly and NAIL THOSE COLOURS TO THE MAST.
EITHER GIVE US PUREST SARTORIAL SPLENDOUR OR STICK TO FILMING THE HISTORY OF FILTHY HERMITS, YOU COWARDS!
Oh gawd, don’t even get me started on Poldark (where the men who’ve been working all day in a mine are far too CLEAN!!!). They got a teeny bit better when they made the switch to raised waistlines on the leading ladies, but meh. I couldn’t even call it eye candy when so much of the plot was “sucks to be him.” “Persuasion” – I lasted ten minutes, but knew I was going to hate the costumes from the sneaky filming peeks in the UK press. I watch “Bridgerton” the way other people look at car wrecks – it’s horrible, but you can’t look away. WTF is up with Polly Walker’s costumes? And the saturated colors across the households of everyone but the Bridgerton family… This P&P – just say no. I just feel like stripped down to make it “relatable” or “modern” is just an excuse to go cheap. Do it right or don’t do it at all.
Why bother doing g a.perioed piece if you’re going to ignore the era for “modern ideas?!?” It just looks bland and dull.
I Despise it when the costumer says “I’m making it relatable ” to me it shows they don’t give a damn about accuracy, style, or truth because they don’t respect their audiance.
This recent trend of making everything #relatable is depressing, it just shows that they’re misunderstanding the audience. Many of us watch frock flicks for the historical costumes, the subtext, and historical values.
Also, I am deeply disappointed that a post has no shortfall of replies, yet nobody has yet had the courage to muster up a mildly-inappropriate joke about ‘stripped down costumes’ in the context of historical fiction and the famously-beloved ‘bodice ripper’ genre.
…
Why no, I’m not brave enough to actually make those jokes, but I can certainly allude to their existence and give some notion of their entertainment potential.😉
Wasn’t “THE BUCCANEERS” supposed to be set in the 1870s?
After watching Mary, Queen of Scots, I thought “well, that’s 2 hours of my life I’ll never get back again.”