MovieChat Forums > Rio Bravo (1959) Discussion > Feathers' underwear was anachronistic

Feathers' underwear was anachronistic

posted 11 years ago by jeffyoung1
10 replies | jump to latest

I just viewed some photos of Angie Dickinson's character, Feathers, in Rio Bravo. In the scene where she undresses to her foundation garments, I believe those are anachronistic, that is, not matching the time period. She's wearing a bustier that's more in fashion with the 1950s and early 60s. Feathers is also wearing what must be black, sheer-to-waist pantyhose. Pantyhose were not invented until 1964. Sheer-to-waist variants arrived years later. Still, if you don't think about this time period underwear mismatch, Feathers presents a sexy picture. After all, it is Angie Dickinson at the height and prime of her beauty.

[–] jeffyoung1 11 years ago

I have to change my opinion somewhat after watching the movie.

Angie Dickinson's character, Feathers was not wearing a bustier although it essentially was one. Feathers was wearing a French 'can-can' costume reputedly adopted by saloon girls in the American Old West to entertain the male customers by dancing on stage. Despite the conservative, long-skirt fashions of the day, the remarkable late 20th century-like outfit, the frontier saloon was an opportunity for female entertainers to don more revealing garb.

I can't explain the black, sheer-to-waist pantyhose. If such a garment existed in the 1870s and 1880s - the golden age of the frontier west - it must have been manufactured from fine, stretchy wool. From history we know that wool was versatile and could be milled into a variety of textures, thickness, and weaves. I wouuldn't be surprised that tights could be manufactured from a fine, thin, weave of wool.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

No, you're right to begin with, her costume is anachronistic. No need to worry about when some fabric was developed or what substitutes might have been used in the 1870s. And not just the materials, but the basic design of the costume, completely revealing Feathers's legs, low-cut and skin-tight, was pretty much unheard-of at that time.

Even French Can-Can dancers (and I don't believe the Can-Can came about until the 1890s, well after Rio Bravo was obviously set) wore much more clothing than Feathers had on. Hell, even prostitutes wore more clothing...at least in the introductory stages! And remember, what we saw constituted the entirety of Feathers's costume -- it wasn't as though she still had something to put on over it. A woman's legs were simply never shown like that back then. No way would any woman appear in public in such an outfit, especially in a small-town hotel saloon -- even if such a costume existed, which it wouldn't have.

Under the mores of the time, Chance would have been duty-bound to arrest Feathers and throw her in the jug. Perfect for a honeymoon.

[–] jeffyoung1 11 years ago

One way or another, Feathers still looked pretty darn hot in her bustier and black, sheer-to-waist pantyhose. If you watch the scene carefully, it's a wonder that Feathers actually spoke much about her tights and how alluring it could be to the Duke. This surprised me, being a 1959 movie. It's as if the screenwriter or director was thirty or forty years ahead of his time when pantyhose came out into the open as an erotic semi-undergarment. Feathers hands her black pantyhose tights to the Duke who in turn tosses it out the window. The black tights land fortuitously next to the strolling Dean Martin and Stimpy. Stimpy picks up the tights, makes a funny comment about the couple upstairs, and hangs Feather's worn tights around his neck before continuing on with Dean Martin. This much time spent on promoting tights (proto-pantyhose) was highly surprising for a 1959 movie, long before pantyhose was even known. I think the screenwriter or director had a thing for tights, just five years before the ivention of pantyhose. By 1968, pantyhose had 99% replaced thigh hi nylons and garter belts. On a side note, older persons, like Hugh Hefner, who grew up as young men knowing only thigh-hi nylons and garter belts, would never adopt to the pantyhose as the sexy nylons undergarment. Hugh Hefner would continue to feature thigh-hi nylons and garter belts in Playboy magazine to the present day. Had pantyhose existed in Hefner's young-man days, no doubt Playboy models would be wearing pantyhose instead of anachronistic garter belts and thigh-hi nylons in today's Playboy magazine.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Well, of course, Feathers looked incredibly alluring in her costume. But it was more 1959 than 1879. Nothing resembling it was around in the time period portrayed in Rio Bravo. But it was that final sequence that clinched Angie Dickinson's stardom, after several empty years in Hollywood going nowhere. This is the film that made her.

I think you're really underestimating the public's and especially Hollywood's tastes and what they'd accept on screen in 1959. If anything, Hollywood was running behind public tastes. From what you've written about Feathers's garment, and your preoccupation with pantyhose and so forth, plus erroneously calling Walter Brennan's character "Stimpy" (as in Ren and) instead of the correct "Stumpy", I suspect you weren't around back then, because it's obvious you don't really know much about what was being filmed and becoming acceptable on the screen by the late 50s. The screenwriters and director weren't 30 or 40 years ahead of their time because what they had in the film was contemporary already. On the contrary, 30 or 40 years later they could have nudity, swearing, much more graphic violence and the like. Angie's costume caused a stir because it was completely unexpected in a film of this sort, and because she looked so great in it. But by 1959 it wasn't some breakthrough, erotic milestone. Lots of films had broken into that territory by then.

I also think you're conflating your preference for pantyhose with some imaginary public fascination with the same. Not everyone gets so worked up over a pair of stockings.

I also doubt Hugh Hefner would have depicted women in your favorite pantyhose had he been born 30 years later. Showing women in what you call thigh-high nylons and garter belts has always been considered sexy by many more men than pantyhose, which has other uses, like pulling over your head to stage a hold-up. The belts seem to have a kinky, bondage-like aspect to them that many find erotic. Then there are others who prefer a sexy swimsuit or revealing dress to underwear. I think you're way too preoccupied with the supposed place and effects of pantyhose in our society.

[–] jeffyoung1 11 years ago

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Don't you mean, Ho-ho-ho-ho-ho!? It's Christmas!

Seriously, I meant no offense, but you do seem to know a lot about the subject and really like a woman in pantyhose, which is fine, I like the look too, but I think you're investing this movie, or that scene, with way too much significance...especially given the fact that her underwear was, as you said, anachronistic.

[–] parisel 11 years ago

If pantyhose wasn't invented until 1964, how could she be wearing them in 1959?

Dancer's tights were around long before that.

I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.

[–] ndenton-1 8 years ago

Silk tights were very popular in those days.- See any period pictures of dancers or acrobats of the time. Most tights had seams up the backs. Can Can dancers did not wear ANYTHING under their petticoats. 100% commando style! That's way why the dance was banned in Paris. In the true story of "The King and I" the Royal princeses' also had nothing on under their fancy Paris style dresses, Anna did indeed mess up on that point in real life. Only in the musical stage and movie performances do the Can Can women wear undies, Spilling out of the top of their dresses was also a major part of the Can Can. Knee length stockings were traditionally worn by women, and bare calves were considered vulgar. The term "show a leg!" Dates from the Royal Navy regulation that women living on ships could stay in bed longer than the men if they showed that they were wearing stockings. (Women served in small numbers on Navy ships and the armies alongside the men as equals - something that is often ignored in modern stories). 3 women per 100 men plus officer's wives, mistresses, maids and children.

Lord Nelson hated women on ships but that didn't stop him from having Lady Hamilton and the Queen of Naples as his romantic companions on board while at sea!

As an aside many European women in the countryside did not wear underwear bottoms until well into the 20th century. Even Queen Victoria usually wore two piece leggings that tied at the waist leaving a wide open drafty space in between (on display at the Royal Museums)! Ask any old Allied WW2 soldier and they will tell you some wild stories of the lack of what we would call modesty back then.

[–] action_on_deck 8 years ago

Pantyhose 1964
Rio Bravo 1959

Something seems amiss...

[–] Satan2016 (25525) 5 years ago

Rayon and Viscose were available in the late 19th century. It was considered artificial silk.

Nylon dates to 1930s, but for clothing after 1940.

ALso: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stocking#History