37 thoughts on “SNARK WEEK: I Don’t Care If It’s Historically Accurate, I Just Want My Tits Out

  1. The Sophia Loren costume from El Cid might actually pass as a bliaud if not for the bullet bra. In fact the middle ages liked small, firm breasts. If anything a lady would try to minimize her endowment. Throughout history respectable women have shown only a hint of cleavage if that. The squashed boob look always makes me wince

  2. This was both fun and educational (and occasionally painful), but I grieve that you didn’t take the opportunity to poke fun at the movie title Twins of Evil.

  3. Ha! My very fave t-shirt is the tits-out one. As I like to say: sun’s out, guns out. I think if a film is claiming historical accuracy then historically inappropriate cleavage/boob exposure can ruin the illusion. Sometimes, if used as a visual assist to decoding a character’s personality or status etc, it can be effective. But it’s so often just shorthand for “slut” and it can be distracting when aaaallll you see is acres of bewb.

    1. My fave shirt too — I esp. love wearing it during setup for renfaire gigs, LOL ;)

      Most of the examples I used here aren’t even supposed to be the slutty characters! Like The White Princess – that’s just sexing up the story bec. Philipa Fucking Gregory, plus screwing around w/the period’s clothing design. And for all we call her Tits Out in North & South, she’s pretty faithful to her one true love, so why alllll the boooooobs?

  4. You ever notice the women with big tits get cleavage shots but the ones with small tits are cthe ones that go full nude? I think Hollywood discovered what we top-heavy girls have known all along: big boobs are not sexy when unleashed! They’re a pain in the ass!

  5. I notice that the only “tits out” historical portrait is of a gipsy; people had a tendency to erotize gipsies ( Esmeralda being an exemple), thinking of gipsy women as whores and easy preys, so that representation makes sense. It’s not fashion, it’s prejudice

    1. Yup, that painting is sometimes held up as an example of “historically accurate cleavage” of the period, but the subject matter was considered scandalous & not what was properly worn.

      1. I do wonder if the gypsy girl’s spilling-out tits are simply the result of her clothing poverty – that with puberty she has outgrown her support garment (which looks to me more like a justaucorps or similar unboned garment of strong fabric than a corset proper) and can’t afford a new one? Many years ago I commissioned a lovely pair of 1770s stays from a professional maker, which fitted me nicely. Then the menopause added another 5” to my bust measurement, and ever since then, when I wear them (and I really can’t justify the expense of a new pair), I really have to work to avoid that overspill look.

        That of course doesn’t in any way contradict Lexy’s point that this is a ‘Look, guys, sexy gypsy slut! Feast your eyes on those tits!’ picture: I’m only saying that it may be perfectly realistic.

    2. I suspect the title is a euphemism: as I was told in Art History, it’s more probably a study of a prostitute.
      Re: the (19C fictional) Esméralda – one of the (spoiler) points is that she isn’t a real gypsy… but she is the daughter of a prostitute.

    3. This is because this article didn’t really mention 1610-20s English aristocratic fashion, the only time in recent history where the fashionable neckline went lower than what would be acceptable in present times. That Frances Howard, Countess of Somerset’s 1615 portrait does show extremely low cleavage and that we have a sketches of court masque costumes of the time period that were fully tits out means that even in the past a low cleavage was not always a moral judgement.

      To be fair though, 1610-20 England is not a very popular time period and place to portray in film. And none wich have portrayed the time and place has ever used the opportunity to have this sort HA cleavage.

  6. As I went through the photos, I was singing “Mamm-ories! Mamm-ories!” some of these movies (written, produced, directed, designed by men) seem to think, no one is going to look at the female lead unless her jugs are front and center, out and proud! they would be WRONG of course.

  7. The whole tits out phenomenon just makes me tired. Not only is it distracting and wrong, it’s just like, “Do we have to put with one more example of male gaze BS in one more Frock Flick?#%$#” And also, it just looks sooo uncomfortable. Someone above used the phrase, “suns out, guns out” and that made me think of men’s arms–guns–and how much I’m distracted by non-period tank-top cuts on shirts to show off an actor’s well-muscled arms. It’s like, “we get it, this actor works out!” The worst offender for that was the chain mail tank top they made Tom Hooper wear in Merlin. I can’t unsee that! Just like I can’t unsee all those women’s breasts!!!

    1. “Ripped” muscles in period dramas are the male equivalent of “tits out.” I doubt that very many men outside of the lower classes would have had that kind of physique. Muscular legs, yes, since rich men danced and rode horses, but not super-muscular arms and torsos! Where’s the pictorial evidence for that?

  8. On the Amadeus director’s cut DVD, Elizabeth Berridge remembers shooting that scene, rolling around the carpet with Mozart, and she had a costume malfunction. The director yelled, “Keep going!” and Berridge said, “…Really?”

  9. I had a dormmate in college, a SCAdian, who loved to say “In Elizabethan times you could show half your nipple and still be considered modest,” and once added rouging said nipples was a trend. I still have no idea how she came to these conclusions.

    1. Late Elizabethan and definitely Jacobean – but this is court and (especially) court masque costumes only, not ordinary dress. Sometimes a very fine chemise was all that gave cover. Anne of Denmark’s funeral effigy has breasts and nipples painted to allow for it to be dressed in a fashionably low-cut dress.
      https://artsindustry.co.uk/images/WIP_110518/Anne-of-Denmark.jpg.sb-63fc1b56-3lap6x.jpg
      She wears a low cut dress here (in mourning!):
      https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/anne-of-denmark-156568/search/actor:gheeraerts-the-younger-marcus-1561156216351636/page/6/view_as/grid
      And we have this lovely portrait of an unknown lady in local art gallery:
      https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/portrait-of-a-lady-78543/search/actor:gheeraerts-the-younger-marcus-1561156216351636/page/2
      Here’s Frances Howard, Duchess of Richmond & Lennox:
      https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/frances-howard-15781639-duchess-of-richmond-and-lennox-54707/search/actor:gheeraerts-the-younger-marcus-1561156216351636/page/6/view_as/grid
      Gheeraerts is v good for aristocratic portraits of this era, and even shows us maternity dress!
      https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/portrait-of-an-unknown-lady-198900/search/actor:gheeraerts-the-younger-marcus-1561156216351636/page/6/view_as/grid

      1. Notice how in all those portraits, the cleavage is NOT emphasized. The neckline is low but the breasts aren’t bulbous & presented high, round, & as obvious “breasts.” It’s a very different aesthetic than what movies/TV shows do when they show tits out! In the 16th & 17th c., the decollate meant the neck & high chest area, the flat part above the actual breast flesh. A smooth, snowy expanse there was quite fashionable, but it wasn’t “yay boobs!” in the 20th/21st c. sense.

        1. Yes, a lot is on show, almost down to nipples in some cases, but it’s presented more flattened out/flattened down, not pushed together to make cleavage or ‘shelf’.

  10. I laughed so hard over this post.

    In defense of Daniel Deronda, I don’t remember it being that low-cut from straight on, but yeah, when she bends over you can see a lot. Also… Sense & Sensibility seems to be a ‘tits out’ offender no matter which production it is. I worried Emma Thompson was going to fall out of her dress, and Charity Wakefield is certainly busting out of hers in the promo shots!

    1. The 1995 S&S definitely–Thompson’s boobs are the worst offenders, but Winslet’s, Walter’s, and Staunton’s aren’t far behind. The 2008 one is actually much more demure than you’re implying, aside from the unrepresentative promo shots. Wakefield shows extreme cleavage in the Delaford library scene, and nowhere else. But let’s not forget that Ehle’s cleavage in P&P 1995 is super-prominent in the majority of her scenes. Sometimes she is covered up, but not often.

  11. “But [John Singer Sargent’s] ‘Madame X’ portrait was considered scandalous at the time because it shows so much of her skin and is so low-cut in the front.”

    To some extent. But really, the outcry against the painting was more because:

    1) Mme. Gautreau already had achieved a scandalous reputation; tabloids speculated about affairs she was said to be having, and Sargent portraying her boldly displaying herself in a low-cut black dress was putting her notoriety squarely in the public’s face.

    2) The painting originally showed her right jeweled shoulder strap dropped down, a first-step level of partial undress resulting in the published remark in Le Figaro, “One more struggle and the lady will be free.”

    Sargent repainted the strap in its present position, but the damage was already done.

  12. There is at least one more thing about the 19th century the filmmakers miss a lot – while ball or evening dresses could be low-cut, during the day ladies went around covered up to their necks (in late 19th century up to their chins). The only part a walking ensemble left uncovered was the face – and not even that, as they had hats with veils. Or at least a parasol.

  13. I’ll admit I make my bodices too low but as someone with tiny tits, man I need whatever I can get ;)

  14. I think that’s a good point about there sometimes being a lot of naked chest but very little of what we think of as cleavage. I’ve spent a lot of time looking at the neckline of extant 18th century dresses and a lot of them hit at exactly nipple level, so practically speaking I’m sure women spilled out a lot if they were moving or raising their arms, but of course there would be a chemise edge or fichu covering it. And for household tasks and stuff I’m sure they would wear something more practical anyway.

    1. Many movie/TV shows leave out all the little bits of linen that women wore in many periods to cover up the chest — chemises, fichus, neckerchiefs, tuckers, etc. They aren’t sexy, but they were extremely practical.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from Frock Flicks

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

Continue Reading