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 media, but with swearing and no tax deductions!
For Snark Week, I thought I’d bang out some of the wacky versions of classic 18th-century novels/films by tackling, among others, 1965’s The Amorous Adventures of Moll Flanders — the adaptation of the 1722 Daniel Defoe novel in which an orphan girl rises, falls, and rises again several times (check our review of the Alex Kingston version if you need more plot details). The problem is this prime example of a “period romp” (the poster declares: “The Rollicking Story of a Ribald Century That Really Should Have Been Ashamed of Itself!”) clocks in at two hours, and one can only watch so much bawdy romping! So I may have skimmed the second half of the film once official boredom set in.
But the costumes are worth discussing, if for no other reason than 1) I did my time, and 2) they are like Disney versions of historical dress. Apparently the filmmakers moved the timeline up to the “18th century” (the novel itself spans the late 17th through the early 18th centuries) because they had difficulties finding buildings of the appropriate era. No such care was given to making sure the costumes were period appropriate, as they’re a mish-mash of 17th and 18th and 20th centuries with zippers (or at least unnecessarily back-closing) in Easter egg colors. Designers Joan Bridge (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Fiddler on the Roof, Great Expectations, Conduct Unbecoming) and Elizabeth Haffenden (The Young Mr. Pitt, The Wicked Lady, Quentin Durward) frequently worked together beginning in the late 1950s, having major success with Ben Hur (1959), A Man for All Seasons (1966), and Fiddler on the Roof (1971), among many others.
Excitingly, star Kim Novak gives us an early edition of corset whining, with the film’s pressbook quoting her as (allegedly) saying,
“I love the costume — but this corset, oh dear! It’s complete with hip pads for the desired hour-glass effect, which is great, but it takes me 20 minutes to get into my dress because of all these petticoats and, even worse, all the laces on the corset… The corset gets uncomfortable after a while, and I always have to run off to the dressing room to loosen it.”
The film hits MANY of our favorite Frock Flicks tropes, so let’s run ’em down:
Shiny White Wigs
It’s totally unclear WHEN in the 18th century this is supposed to be — just when I would start thinking I had a sense, something would totally jar me. But you will be happy to know that Ultimate Love Interest Jemmy (Richard Johnson)’s floozy tells him he’ll need a “powdered wig,” and in the next scene this is what’s produced:
Weird Civil War Hoops
In the 18th century, hoops had a decidedly side-focused effect. Nonetheless, when Moll impersonates her employer, she borrows a sort-of 17th-century-style gown (are they trying for a French court gown??) with a massive, round hoop of the kind that should be seen in North & South:
Zippers/Sewn-In Stomachers
Okay, so technically I’m pretty sure they’re hooks and eyes:
But this film is RIFE with unnecessary zipper-y plackets in back on front-opening (design-wise) gowns (see my rant about back lacing for an explanation of why you don’t need TWO gown openings):
Princess Seams
I’ve already given you the long version about why princess seams — the long, side-front seams used to shape bodices over a bust curve — mostly didn’t exist pre-mid-19th century. So read that over, then check out:
Skirt Hiking
NO female in this production can walk ANYWHERE without lifting up GIANT SWATHES OF SKIRT so their knees show.
Unfortunate Bigginses
There’s only one, on Moll as a young girl, but I’m being a completionist!
There’s more unfortunateness in the hat department, even if they’re not bigginses:
Contemporary Hair/Hair Everywhere/Bouffants
This film is the POSTER CHILD for “contemporary hairstyle trends are much more important than any attempt at a historical look”:
Smokey Eye Makeup
EVERYONE embraces the modern makeup. And I mean EVERYONE.
But There’s Some Things I Liked!
I know, right?
If you’ve managed to make it all the way through The Amorous Adventures of Moll Flanders, please let us all know if I’ve missed a masterpiece by not sitting through the second half!
Find this frock flick at:
The clothes are looking so funny. Some of them show that they had no idea that the story is in the early 18th century. But most is just looking like carnival costumes.
I can’t get past the decision to put blue eyeshadow on a child character. What was the point of that?? So funny!
Such a waste of a good cast; all that polyester and eye shadow was so unworthy of them.
Good grief, that green velvet number caused my shirt to pop more buttons than an above-average Mills & Boon cover model.
Having had a similar reaction to quite a similar outfit in BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF, I may have discovered a new kink.
Also, Ms Kim Novak is very clearly transcendently attractive because she actually manages to win out against some of the Halloween costumes depicted above.
Not going to lie, the screenshot of Moll with the bouffant with the tacked on bow and matching dress made me think someone watched this before designing Amy Adams’ costume in Enchanted.
Authentic or non-existent cosmetics seem to have been anathema for makeup artists in the 60s. I’ve just re-watched “The Forsyte Saga”, in which Irene (1890s) and Fleur (1920s) both sport false eyelashes and frosted lipstick.
In all seriousness, I wonder if makeup is something of a psychological buffer against insecurity for an actress? (In somewhat the same way professional clowns think of their make-up as their ‘face’).
Heaven knows, it’s more than a little intimidating to think of Multitudes staring at you from behind the unblinking, relentless blank glare of the camera, even if we make no mention of the cruel judgements, sly remarks and other unpleasantness an actress will have to deal with in the course of her career.
I sort of think that after the success of Tom Jones, someone was thinking “let’s find another bawdy 18th Century novel and see if we hit paydirt again!”