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 for exclusive content 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 with tons of swearing and no tax deductions!
We snark, you snark, but the philosophical question of this week is why? Maybe we’ll never know, but we can take this ridiculous poll in the meantime!
Share more of your reasons why in the comments!
We snark to protect History and Frocks from error out of love.
Thank you FrockFlicks.
Because I have a degree in history – and because I have no life.
We needed an “all of the above” choice.
I’m sad I could only choose one.
Because I strongly dislike ignorance, laziness, and self indulgence in all areas of life including film.
Because we need to and it is mean to do it to private individuals on social media but totally acceptable to do it for movie costumes!
Because, while I think that media are primarily entertainment, as a reenactor, I think the public have a right to see what history actually looked like, rather than see some “relatable” BS from idiotic producers. How people dressed how they moved, how they went about their daily tasks, and reflected how they thought and felt. As an example: Puritans are often shown wearing nothing but black. In fact, they did NOT wear black because a) they would consider it presumptuous, and b) black was a very expensive colour to produce.
It is true that they wore lace? Because, as far as I know, it was very expensive too (plus, difficult to wash and iron), unless you mde it yourself.
Because it’s fun, we need to get the truth out there and because we are nitpicky clothing nazis who can’t NOT see glaring inaccuracies
When a movie doesn’t pretend to be an accurate depiction of history, like A Knight’s Tale, I’m cool with that. But when it claims to show history as it was, like Braveheart, then it deserves to be called out. People see something like that and really believe it happened like that.
I agree with you. Obvious historical fantasies can be given a pass but something that claims to be true to the history? No!
Yes, exactly. I also don’t care as much in live performances—like, we all know it’s not real! But I think films have such verisimilitude in creating a complete vision of a world that going half-in is a whole problem. Make it unrealistic, make it obviously anachronistic, etc., and I might wish they’d gone more historical, but I am much more accepting. But it’s like everyone wants to simultaneously get credit for bringing centuries old fashion to life and moan about how awful it is and how they had to fix it for modern audiences. Newsflash: your stuff looks weird, too, and people are fine with it—they can handle the historic stuff.
Because it’s fun, and because some might actually think that Phillipa Fucking Gregory’s stuff is what actually happened, for example.
Even supposedly sober histories can get pretty sensational about this period but at least they don’t make the Woodville ladies witches!
RELATABLE is a word that is starting to bring me out in hives. I was watching Bernadette Banner’s latest video where she is interviewing the actress that interprets Mrs Crocombe in the famous videos of Audley End House’s living history programme on YouTube and they are all about getting it right or as close as they can. Living History and historic interpretation are becoming ever more a part of visiting historic places, so why is screen work so goddam sloppy???!!!
All of the above: they’re each relatable to the snark that is my life.
Because the real story is usually much more interesting than the “interpretations” presented as history (ahem “Elizabeth” ahem – I started yelling at the screen).
People consume so much more media than actual historical books or paintings, and so the snarking is necessary to show the difference. Plus, it’s fun to ‘catch’ the bad costuming/hair especially if the show/movie isn’t all that good to begin with.
Because some of my colleagues at the Smithsonian were snookered into advising on material culture for that excrescence “The Patriot” and ended up being cruelly used as proof that entire crapfest was “historical.” Snark is needed to protect history and historians.
I do it because I have a history degree and love historical fashion. I am sick of shoddy film production errors and don’t even get me started on trailing hair on all actresses and no hats etc etc!