Podcast: Poldark (2015)

15

The BBC (and Masterpiece PBS) brings back Ross Poldark and his lady-loves Elizabeth and Demelza in this reboot of the 1970s historical romance fave set in 18th-century Cornwall. While the costuming and hairstyles are a bit lackluster, Aidan Turner’s broody manliness might just make up for the lack of historical accuracy.

You can listen to us critique Poldark 2015 TV costumes online below or on iTunes.

Tags

About the author

The Frock Flicks Team

Twitter Facebook Website

Three historical costumers who decided the world needed a podcast and blog dedicated to historical costume movies and everything right and wrong with them.

15 Responses

  1. Cece

    First, I love your site and the podcast. I found both b/c i was looking for reviews on Poldark. I’ve spent the last two days going through your archives.

    I never saw the original Poldark and I didn’t have much expectations for the new versions but I really love it. It’s the perfect summer escapism.

    I have to agree about the costumes being lackluster. Nothing stood out. It was especially noticeable during scenes were the costumes were supposed to indicate more about the characters situation. They needed more grandeur for the gentry. I looked up some images from the 1975 production and their costumes were much more interesting. I don’t want to spoil anything but 2015 Demelza could use a couple of those 1975 dresses. Right now all her dresses look unfinished and plain.

    I how the success of season 1, encourages the production team to put more money into the costumes.

    Reply
  2. bauhausfrau

    I can forgive a lot of boring/lackluster costumes if I get Aidan Turner as Ross Poldark and lots of sweeping vistas of Cornwall. ;)

    Reply
  3. Pear

    Your review was interesting, but why do you have to get down on ladies with smaller busts? I know you say bitchy is your brand, but that was just unkind and unnecessary. Couldn’t you just have left it as ‘Verity’s looks more in line with what was considered beautiful?’

    Reply
    • Trystan L. Bass

      Yeah, actually that is what we said, around 18:45 re: Verity – ‘her shape is a bit more conducive to that period’s style because she has a rounder face & she’s clearly curvier than the main girl playing Elizabeth.”

      And I don’t think we ‘got down ladies with small busts’ at all. There is exactly one other reference to bustlines, & that’s in reference to the prostitute character & how the show is / could differentiate her from the other women (instead of the totally modern magenta hair streak). I joked (around 32:46) that maybe she could show some cleavage, since she has some, & the other women are “flat as a board.” So one off-hand comment & you’re taking that as some giant body-shaming thing? Sorry, no. It was flippant, yes, but also a valid comparison.

      Reply
      • Pear

        Didn’t mean it as a “giant” body-shaming thing, and I don’t think that’s how the comment was worded. However perhaps I did notice the comment more given that I’d just read an article on here about Keira Knightly that made similar comments about her body type.

        Reply
        • Trystan L. Bass

          Saying we were ‘unkind & unnecessary”? What was that about then? I found your comment an exaggerated reaction, esp. when we did say something you asked us to.

          And re: Keira, all we’ve said is she’s not the same body type as the historical characters she’s too frequently tapped to play (also, some us find her a weak actress in general). It’s as legit a comment as saying someone should wear a red wig to play Queen Elizabeth I.

          Reply
          • Pear

            I was just saying that particular section in the commentary wasn’t very nice, and it was unnecessary because while you did point out what was considered ideal for women at the time, your comments on the other actresses didn’t seem to be about that but rather just comments about their body types in general. I’m really not saying it’s a huge thing, I was just pointing out that those further comments were kind of beyond ‘they aren’t the ideals of beauty at the time’. I don’t think it was an exaggeration because I wasn’t commenting on your tone on the site in general, just those comments in particular. Even something said flippantly can be unkind and, when it’s beyond the scope of commenting on the looks of the time, unnecessary. So it wasn’t that you weren’t measured in your comment about Verity, it was that you weren’t in comments after that. [1/2]

            Reply
          • Pear

            [2/2] Look, I am very sorry if my comment touched a nerve. It really was meant only to point out what I said above, not to be a crusade. It’s easy to wander from commenting on ideals of a time to disparaging a body type, and I was just pointing out that in this instance (and, in a later comment, with Knightly) you kinda did that. I think Sarah summed it up well by saying “Which, yeah, was shitty. But, in our collective defense, it was ONE TIME.” That’s all I was saying, it was one (or a couple of) not nice things. Pointing out that those specific instances were unkind isn’t wrong, and it isn’t a generalization about you or your general tone on this site. I think saying my response was exaggerated was itself an exaggeration.
            You guyses’ larger post on body type was well written, I guess I just didn’t realize my comment would be blown up so much.

            Reply
            • Trystan L. Bass

              Frankly, you’re the one who got huffy over a minor 4-word reference that wasn’t particularly harsh or negative in tone (& being a podcast, you can hear the tone, so you should know it wasn’t said hurtfully). I think that says a lot about you & your issues that you have repeatedly misconstrued such a tiny thing as a terrible barb aimed at you, & I’m sorry you feel that way.

              As the editor-in-chief here, sometimes I have to stand up for our integrity & the right to say whatever the fuck we feel, shitty or no (esp. when it wasn’t).

              Reply
              • Pear

                I really don’t feel I’ve done that. I made a comment pointing something out, than then all three of you commented (though the others, I feel, commented more respectfully) and a whole post about body issues where you specifically single out my comment. I think you’re overblowing my criticism, but don’t feel there’s any more point in me explaining since you seem intent on attacking me instead of actually just talking.

                Reply
        • Sarah Lorraine

          Can you point us to the article where we said “similar things” about Keira’s body type? I’ve just done a pretty exhaustive search of the website archives and come up with no instance of body-snarking Keira, other than one off-hand reference to her being “bony”. Which, yeah, was shitty. But, in our collective defense, it was ONE TIME.

          I will say, as a thin person, that I get double-standard that you’re upset about. It’s just that we try REALLY HARD to not succumb to attacking or taking cheap shots at actress’ bodies. There have been times that commenters on the site have left shitty comments attacking an actress’ body, but we try to shut those down as quickly as they come up, whether they’re attacking someone for being large or small.

          Reply

Feel the love