28 thoughts on “Outlander: Finally, We Can Talk Geillis!

  1. Me, me, call on me!!!!!! hehe

    Okay, so I can explain the thinking on every point you make.

    The arisaid, is not supposed to be worn the way a women actually wore them, in Geillis world, it is meant to be worn the way many men wore it, in solidarity. It is a Geilis dress up costume, her revolutionary kilt.
    I grew up in Berkeley during the student uprisings and demonstrations, and I can remember how young political “revolutionaries” dressed in supposed solidarity with the Black Power movements, Cuban revolutionaries, Chinese and Vietnamese revolutionaries, etc. The “costumes” of various revolutionary movements, and of third world peoples in general. It was always a bit like watching kids play dress up, since most of these “kids” came from white, middle class homes, and eventually became the lawyers and stockbrokers, that their world of privilege expected them to be.
    Anyway, Geillis is one of those “kids”. She is not a hippie. She is a revolutionary of the 60s counter culture, and she has adapted a costume.
    Sometimes one can wear a historical costume that is done exceedingly well, with great historical accuracy, and sometimes it can miss the mark completely. Often, it is done with strange or unusual fabrics. But it is a costume, not a historical reproduction, so different rules can apply.
    So Geillis makes her costume in an ivory linen, with a sheer arisaid, because it is a costume, not “real” clothing. She is playing a part.
    And no, the eye is not Dougal’s. And yes, it is too big, because it is part of a very strange woman’s costume.
    I am trying to remember when I when to my First Renaissance Faire. I am pretty sure it was THE FIRST Ren Faire. I think it was in 66, maybe 67, but I was a little kid. You parked your car a zillion miles away, were bused in on someone’s old school bus. No one was allowed in without a “costume”, and if you rode a horse, you got in free. It really was hippies dropping acid in the woods. And “costume” was a VERY loose definition. (Lots of back laced dresses, gypsy costumes, kimonos, everything under the sun)
    Once again, Geillis’s generation. Anything goes.
    But FYI, we did find a back laced gown in Nancy Bradfield’s Costume In Detail. Given, it is later period than our story, but sometimes we do have to fudge those lines (Claire’s cloak!).
    But even if we hadn’t found that reference, we still would have done it.Sometimes you do those things in theater.

    Geliis’s choice of black fabric for her mourning gown, had absolutely nothing to do with historical accuracy and if anyone wore black when someone died, and everything to do with what people did in the 1960’s. Not sure how much access Geillis had to 18th century costume research, in the 60’s. I know she couldn’t do much in the way of Google searches, or looking on Pinterest Boards. She might have done bit, if she really gave a shit. Given her somewhat impetuous nature, and the impetuous nature of her counter culture brethren, I kind of doubt she did much. To Geillis, when someone dies, you wear black. Another dress up dress.

    But at the end of the day none of this mattes, because it is a very immature, probably emotionally unbalanced woman dressing up in costumes of her own making. Rules and accuracy mean nothing…unless we give her velcro. She couldn’t have even brought that in her backpack.
    (We did really cheat on what is no doubt a synthetic blend fabric, but mea culpa, I just couldn’t help myself!)
    Glad you liked the little faery coat. That is one of my favorite pieces in the show.
    I’m starting to enjoy Frock Flicks!
    Hang onto your hats (wigs), we will continue to push buttons, I promise. Wait till you see what we do with Season Two!!!!

    1. Cool! Thank you so much for weighing in, Terry! It’s been very fun to try to guess where Geillis is going, and I’ve been sitting on my hands so that I don’t spill the reasons WHY she’s so weird.

      Re: the lover’s eye — damn, not Dougal! I liked my theory! ;)

      I can’t WAIT to see what you do with season 2, although I admit I’m also nervous for you — there’s no way they gave you enough budget to do the French court right. I promise to cut you some slack for the things you need to fudge!

      Okay, and since you’re reading — WHY the back-laced bodice? Is it a character decision? An easier-for-the-actress-to-wear decision?

      1. You are right Kendra, there is no way we get enough money to do it right, according to Frock Flick standards. But I think it is going to be very, very difficult for most people to tell where he’ve had to cut corners. Yes, you, and many of your readers will be able to find the holes, but the vast majority will not, I hope! And we have done it with the goal, as always, of making it look and feel as authentic and accurate as possible.

        Back lacing. Well, first of all it is Geillis, so no rules. She doesn’t worry about such things. Keep that one in mind going forward. Most of us would not necessarily worry about being super precise, and would take liberties where we could, if they wouldn’t get us burned at the stake.
        OOOOOPS!!!!!!!
        Anyway. To my eye, it is the dress that cheats in a way I am the most uncomfortable with, because it uses synthetic fabric. I can argue for felting, I can argue for knits, but I can argue for man made fabrics. So lacings, help keep the period feel alive, for an audience who is not made up entirely of costume historians;)
        On top of that, this dress gets torn off of her, and we needed to be able to rig it. Having the back laces helped us to manage that.

        It is a complicated thing, costume design for screen, never just about accuracy. But I firmly believe that if you keep that as your goal, the audience will engage in a way they will not, if you figure that accuracy and authenticity don’t matter to them.
        If you can get ALMOST there, with all the money and crew shortages, time limitations, and story demands, it’s a damned fine feeling.

        1. “this dress gets torn off of her, and we needed to be able to rig it. Having the back laces helped us to manage that.”

          THIS. I can totally see this working! If you need it to be ripped off the front, yeah, back lacing makes perfect sense. Tho’ ripping off the back (say, if a character is getting dragged along by a horse rider; it could happen!), then a front-pinning gown would be useful (& bonus, historically accurate).

    2. Since the only reason my dress knowledge goes as far back as the 1740s is the ’45 uprising, I am on the edge of my seat waiting to see season two!!

    1. I’ve done some research on Mourning Jewelry and the eye was very symbolic of the lost of a loved one and the pearls around the brooch represented tears

  2. Ok, I haven’t watched the series yet because I don’t have cable, it’s not on Netflix, I’m in Canada, blah blah blah. And I only read the first book (so I know about Geillis’ secret – and honestly, it gave me shivers when I read how Claire discovered it). I will watch this series when I am actually able to and have no doubt I’ll enjoy it – costumes and all. I can give costume designers for film, TV and theatre A LOT of slack. Ironically, the deeper I’ve gone into formal dress history scholarship the easier I’ve gotten on costume designers, rather than the reverse.

    Anyway, so this preamble is just to preface that I can’t help being facetious on two points – totally just for fun. One – in the book, if I remember correctly (it *has* been several years) the date 1968 is given no context. We don’t know if that’s the year Geillis “travelled” or the year she was born, or what. So making it the year she travelled from is taking a stand rather than maintaining the mystery. Two – where and when did Geillis learn to handsew whole garments? Did she apprentice with a mantuamaker? Most women in the eighteenth century did not make their own clothing – regardless of their social status. Garment textiles were too significant an investment to trust cutting it yourself at home. Those farther down the social ladder also relied heavily on the second-hand trade (Beverly Lemire was my MA supervisor *wink*). So just how did Geillis obtain such crazy clothes – and crazy fabrics?

    Again, being just totally facetious here. From the visuals I’ve seen I really love how Terry Dresbach has dressed her character!

    I do just wish the back lacing wasn’t needed. It hurts a little, 18th century dressmaking was so much cooler than that.

    1. My totally tipsy theory (WHAT, TRYSTAN AND I HAD A STAFF MEETING) is that Geillis is actually a Wiccan costumer from the 1990s. That’s how she knows how to sew.

      SHUT UP YOU KNOW I’M TOTALLY RIGHT.

      1. She can’t hire a local seamstress? She has money. Though I do think she does the felting herself.
        I have read the books a lot, and do know the context. Actually, I probably did a big ‘ol spoiler in my earlier post. oooops

        1. Well, if there was spoiler in there it was lost on me, lol. I guess I took your statements about Geillis “making” her clothes, to mean you had the idea that she, personally, literally made them herself. I’d find it highly entertaining to see the look on a mantuamaker’s face when Geillis told her what she wanted made and how she wanted it to look, lol.

          1. I highly doubt there was a mantua maker in the village of Craensmuir. I kind of figured there might be a local woman who earned a bit of money now and then, making clothes for those who could afford it. I am sure she looked askance at Geillis’s unconventional choices, but probably not enough to turn down the money.
            We also felt that Geillis’s strange behavior, odd clothing, and suspected sexual liaisons, probably didn’t help much at the trial.
            Not a beloved member of the community. No one coming to HER rescue, as they all suspected she was a whore and a witch, anyway.
            I certainly understand the perspective of historical costume afficianados, but we do not share the same goals at all.
            Once again, achieving historical accuracy and authenticity are a huge part of my goal as a costume designer, but my primary goal is to serve the STORY. The onscreen story, not even the book story, which pisses off a lot of fans. No doubt there are British Army fans somewhere annoyed at the metal used in our uniform buttons.
            Win some, lose some.

        2. Just like there are no spoilers in history, I firmly believe that there are no spoilers in anything based on literature! (Being a HUGE Tolkien fan, I had so many arguments about this w/ppl when the Lord of the Rings movies came out ;-) ).

  3. You folks are so damn entertaining. I love reading these posts and the comments.
    I have read the first Outlander book (and boy was that emotionally draining; so much so that I haven’t been able to plunge into the next one yet), but I haven’t watched any of the series yet. It’s in my Amazon queue, so I will eventually. Really looking forward to watching it with all the commentary on the costuming in mind.
    From what I’ve seen of TV stills and previews online, the look and feel created by the costuming, despite its HA shortcomings–and this is after all theater, not a historical re-enactment–really achieves the goal of immersing the average viewer in the time period and creating a sense of the characters’ personalities, backgrounds, loyalties, stations in life, etc.
    Really enjoying all the back and forth! Keep it up!

    1. Thank you Stephani. You have very eloquently stated the job of a costume designer!

      “really achieves the goal of immersing the average viewer in the time period and creating a sense of the characters’ personalities, backgrounds, loyalties, stations in life, etc.”

      1. Well, as much as I appreciate and agree with concerns about historical accuracy in purportedly “historical” film and TV–because it’s important to represent history as realistically and truthfully as possible–I also think it is important to remember that a theatrical costumer has a very different set of goals from a costumer for historical re-enactment. And also that this is a work of historical FICTION.
        A glaringly wrong element really can damage the illusion for those in the know. But when a costumer has made intelligent and thoughtful choices in all other aspects of a production, even a glaringly wrong element–however jarring to see–if it serves the story and characterization, should be given a pass. In those circumstances, it’s pretty fair to assume that the thing was probably not perpetrated as an act of ignorance, but was intentional and possibly even necessary.
        For myself, whenever I watch a film or show, I find it easy to suspend my disbelief of pretty much anything, as long as my willingness to do so isn’t being abused by bad acting. Or stupid directorial decisions.

      2. Off-topic, Terry, but I just wanted to say Claire’s wedding dress was the most exquisite thing I’ve ever seen on screen. I was ready to chuck the whole rest of the story and just have the camera pan around and zoom in for the next half hour. Thank you!

      3. I admit, I’m not a fan of the books, and I haven’t watched too much of the show, but your costumes are really beautiful. There’s so much thought and care put into them. Claire’s wedding dress was especially gorgeous. My hat’s off to you, Terry!

  4. Even though I’ve only seen one episode (and only ready the first book) I’ve been enjoying seeing all the costume pictures here and on Terry’s blog. I have to say, I really love fantasy-tinged historical costumes, so I’m really digging Geillis’s costumes. The black feathery fabric on the mourning one is so cool and odd, but the lover’s eye one is my favorite, it’s ethereal and pretty and eerie all at once.

  5. I have not read any of the books, but I binge-watched the entire Season 1 a month or so ago. As an historical costumer and historical re-enactor who portrayed a Jacobite woman for about 15 years, I did my research into 18th century Highland clothing. By the time I finished the binge-watch, I wanted to throw rocks. First of all, no Highlander would have ridden a horse in a kilt! Not if he wanted to procreate. If a Highlander was rich enough to own a horse, he would have worn trews (tight tartan trousers that look like leggings). And no boots unless he wore them with said trews. If Highlanders wore hard shoes, they wore typical 18th century buckle shoes. If not (probably couldn’t afford them), they wore (deer)hide shoes that they shaped and tied around their feet.

    And don’t get me started on the women! There was nothing right about the women. If the story was taking place in 1743, why were Clare and Geillis wearing 17th (not 18th) century clothing? Bumrolls? Detachable sleeves? And what’s with that woolen shrug? And shawls? Most women wore airsaids, which like the kilt, wrapped around the body, was held on with a belt or tie of some kind, and could be drawn over the head or pinned/tied on the shoulder to make a big for carrying things or children. 18th century English accounts describe Highland women and wearing a shift and an airsaid (not even a petticoat) and no shoes — and this was in the city. A woman of certain status, like a chieftain’s wife, might wear French clothing on formal occasions, but not all the time. If the costume crew was aiming for historical accuracy, they failed. If they were aiming for fantasy, then….

  6. I cannot access the link at the
    “However, it is unclear whether these “white” arisaids are actually to a solid white color, or a tartan woven in a white ground (which would still be quite colorful; here’s an example).”
    What picture is provided?

  7. I watched the serie but haven’t read the books (yet)… when I saw her performing a ritual I was like “whoever wrote the story is an idiot this is clearly a wiccan thing and there was no wicca in 18th century Scotland they probably think wicca is the Old Religion etc …” until I found out she is from the 20th century :D I was relived .

  8. Just dropping by to say I love, love love! that lover’s eye brooch. So ethereal! So creepy! I also love it in combination with that gauzy fabric.

    Question: In the books do they ever mention how Gellis wound up in 1740s Scotland? It’s been a long time since I’ve seen this episode so I don’t remember if they mentioned it.

    Love this blog, btw! Long time lurker.

Comments are closed.