Support Frock Flicks with a small donation! During Snark Week and beyond, we’re grateful for your small, one-time contributions via PayPal or monthly pledges via Patreon to offset the costs of running this site. You can even buy our T-shirts and swag. Think of this like supporting public broadcasting, but you get more swearing and no tax deductions!
We try not to repeat ourselves too often here at Frock Flicks. But apparently, back during Snark Week #1, when we listed “The Invisible Chemise” as fifth in our list of nine Things Movies Get Wrong About 16th-Century Costume, we weren’t clear enough, and we have to explain it again. Maybe folks thought we only meant you needed a chemise / smock / undergarment with 16th-century garb? Was that the element of confusion? Because we’ve seen — and pointed out — a lot of corsetry of all historical periods worn over apparently bare skin, lacking proper under-smockage.
Costume designers, the principle applies to every historical era! It’s super uncomfortable to wear a tightly fitted garment directly on your skin for a long time, and that’s why every time period had some kind of lightweight, easily washable underwear that was worn first! Ladies don’t want our boobs and underarms — or back rolls — all pinched and chafed at the end of the day spent in costume. Give the gals a chemise, hell, let ’em wear a cotton tank top from Old Navy, at least, because that bare skin is making us hurt by proxy. No more chafing for the costume drama queens, please!
Note: This fucking Twilight movie can get this chemise / smock thing right, even though it can’t get anything else right about historical costume (or vampires; they don’t sparkle, FWIW). So c’mon, costume movies, throw us a bone!
Are your boobs sore just looking at these pix?