MovieChat Forums > The Shopworn Angel (1938) Discussion > Poor costume design!!!

Poor costume design!!!

posted 15 years ago by BelleCBelle
17 replies | jump to latest

Normally I don't post negative comments, but this movie, which could have been so good, I believe failed miserably and shouldn't have. A major studio, major stars, great supporting cast, talent everywhere, and yet Margaret Sullavan's character, who was supposed to be living in 1915, was wearing lots of lovely outfits that were much more appropriate for the 1930's.

I know that with the 1930's films, suspending reality in order to truly enjoy a film was often a necessity. How else could you enjoy a Busby Berkeley film - and I love them all! And we can all find errors in continuity if we try. I just find it difficult to ignore such a glaring example of laziness on the part of a designer the caliber of Adrian.

At least I think the error is the fault of Adrian. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this happened a lot more than I have realized, or paid attention to. I watch "old" films frequently and have learned about the happy endings and how "bad women" always pay in the end, and so on. Regarding this film and the dresses that Margerat Sullavan wore, any information out there? Thanks.

Human Rights: Know them, demand them, defend them.

[–] grooveyloop2004 14 years ago

I noticed this and it did bother me a bit, but it seems like some of the background people are wearing more appropriate attire, some of them are also in lovely thirties attire as well.

I'm thinking it was probably the wardrobe department more than it was the dress designer, or maybe it could have been both who are at fault for the lack of consideration put into actually making the costumes period.

[–] kingarthurup 14 years ago

yOU ARE A DOPE!

[–] BelleCBelle 14 years ago

If you would explain why you believe I am a "dope" for expressing my point of view, that would be beneficial. As it stands, your simple comment says nothing, except about the sort of person you are.

Human Rights: Know them, demand them, defend them.

[–] bijou-2 14 years ago

I agree that the costumes make this movie's time frame confusing and I have to believe it was intentional so that 1938 audiences could relate to it better.

I was also bothered by the fact that Stewart's military friends and superiors rightfully assumed he was a major a..hole. The character was written for the viewer without any consideration for the effect he was having on those around him in the movie.

This 'love story' is really the tale of a virgin soldier getting into a promiscuous, alcoholic and selfish actresses' pants before he goes off to war.
The hypocritical marriage talk is even sillier than the costumes.

[–] Popcorngal (4937) 2 years ago

I watched a little of the movie yesterday, what hints did the soldier state that he was a virgin? I agree that the actress was fickle.

[–] gribfritz2 14 years ago

So the movie "failed miserably" simply because of poor costume design? Are you an irate dressmaker or something? Ironically, while the movie was set in 1917, the story could have just as easily been set in 1942, slightly after it was filmed, with no alteration to the story at all. Perhaps they had a crystal ball and were making a statement ;-) If outfits of a different period irk you so much, you can just pretend the movie is taking place in 1942, sit back, and enjoy the ride.

[–] BelleCBelle 14 years ago

You have a good point and made me smile (btw I'm not an irate dressmaker!). The fact that the film failed at the box office is a fact, but the reason I stated is my opinion only. My boyfriend tells me I tend to "over-think," and perhaps this is a good example. Actually, some time ago, in response to a lengthy post of mine, a young man replied that I did over-think!

I do appreciate different points of view when they are coached in humor, or at least not a negative attack. Thanks for your post.
-
Human Rights: Know them, demand them, defend them.

[–] gribfritz2 13 years ago

Ahh. When you said it failed miserably, I didn't know you were referring to the box office. I thought you just meant it failed miserably on a quality level because the costumes were too jarring!

I'm glad you took my comments in the spirit they were intended :-) I don't pay much attention to hairstyles/costumes/scenery in movies (or real life, for that matter...lol) so that stuff never bugs me since I don't even notice it. Unless it's a desert conflict with people in parkas, a swashbuckler with a mohawk, or 1930's gangsters in space suits or something like that. Better yet, combine them all. Now there's something to over-think about: 1930's swashbuckling mohawked gangsters in the desert wearing parkas over their space suits.

[–] BelleCBelle 13 years ago

Now THAT would be fun! But didn't John Waters already do that film?

Human Rights: Know them, demand them, defend them.

[–] wolflair-1 12 years ago

This is not the only movie in the 30s that did this. A Jean Harlow movie called "Suzy" did the same thing. A period piece before and during WWI and here she was wearing 30s outfits. Like one person said above that they probably did that to make people then feel comfortable but it can be quite irritating!

[–] 8tangerines 12 years ago

I just found this on TCM, and I thought, based on the costumes the showgirls were wearing at the "show for the troops," that it was pre-WW11 maybe 1941... Then suddenly they showed the troops, and they were definitely wearing old-fashioned looking WW1 uniforms (I still have my grandpa's). Confusing! I don't think noticing the costuming is "over thinking" it; some people just notice and others don't. Certainly many films tried to be accurate in their costuming in the 1930s, so I think this anachronistic costuming is weird. Practically everything about Margaret Sullavan's costuming is 1938. Yet almost all the people who made this movie were alive in 1917 and they definitely would have noticed the difference in style between 1917 and 1938, much more than people do today. I wonder if Sullavan insisted on it; I know Liz Taylor did that sort of thing. Taylor's 1920s gowns in Giant are about as 1920s as... Liz Taylor. I don't know if Sullavan had that kind of pull, but either she or Adrian or both were determined to keep her looking fashionable.

[–] blondee661 12 years ago

One can't help but wonder why some movies back then had inaccurate costumes back then. Some think movie audiences wouldn't accept stars in historical fashions, but I have a hard time believing that because Adrian did the gowns for this film and Marie Antionette that same year and those were pretty accurate. I also heard that movie audiences didn't like 1910s and 1920s for some reason and studios tried to avoid it when possible. Someone mentioned on the Random Harvest board and wrote:

There was an unwritten rule in the 40's among movie makers: the 40's HATED the 20's. They avoided it like the plague. I think Lasky or some other producer (H. Cohn?) wrote about it.) The costumes were too close in time for nostalgia and too complicated (expensive) to reproduce.

That's why nostalgia films of the 40's tended to be of the "Gay '90's" or turn of the century brand. Think about it. To an audience of 1940, 1920 was the equivalent of 1991 today.

Other reasons I heard for inaccurate costumes is these movies were somewhat made to sell fashion of the time too. I also can help but wonder if certain stars didn't want to be filmed in certain fashions. Other movies from the time period that have inaccurate costumes are Random Harvest and Waterloo Bridge and both of these movies also take place during WWI.

[–] BelleCBelle 12 years ago

You make a good argument that I obviously didn't think of!

http://etsy.com/shop/MimiLovesCrochet#/

[–] Underdog_73 (770) 6 years ago

The fact that the film failed at the box office is a fact

Umm...no....it isn't, and it didn't. I realize I'm writing to someone who won't see this, but it always amazes me how people spew their ignorance as fact. These people who believe their opinions are fact, simply because they believe it to be so, are quite special.

[–] jobimfan3000 12 years ago

If you look at a lot of movies that are set in the recent past (relative to the movie) the costumes either don't look period authentic or like modern versions of period appropriate design. Aside from the doughboy unis those costumes do luck much too modern for this story.

Darling, I am trouble of the most spectacular kind!

[–] BelleCBelle 12 years ago

Well, I enjoy wrapping my mind around trouble and thinking! I have always enjoyed a good debate and points of views I hadn't thought of.

http://etsy.com/shop/MimiLovesCrochet#/

[–] Popcorngal (4937) 2 years ago

I noticed the actress's pajamas early in the film, I don't think women were wearing pants pajamas during that era, but I might be wrong. In addition the chorus girl's outfits felt out of place for that time period as well.