Time period
It's stated at the beginning that the period is the 1930s, but there is nothing in the clothes or hairdos that give any feeling of that era! This really rankled me all the way through. Was anyone else bothered by this?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Walk on the Wild Side (1962) Discussion > Time period
they didn't realize the difference in clothing,hairstyle at the time
after many years people also will notice the difference between now and nineties,
Yes I was bothered by it too. The production design team and costumers didn't really bother to get the period down. It actually looked like the 60's. Hollywood should try and remake it now.
shareA lot of films made in the 1960s but set in earlier decades didn't really try to get the period look right. Inside Daisy Clover (set in the 1930s) and In Harm's Way (a World War II story) both have clothes and hairstyles straight out of the mid-1960s.
Audiences probably weren't as picky back then.
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
They still aren't:
The Woods
A Knight's Tale
Moulin Rouge with Nicole Kidman
The Great Gatsby with Leo DiCaprio
Marie Antoinette with Kirsten Dunst
I could list many more that pay no heed to historical accuracy.
Add in all of the horrid "historical" series on cable. Their only reason for being is dressing up so that they can have explicit sex and violence in different ways. There's certainly very little history except for the revisionist kind.
Compare today's Robin Hood series with "Robin of Sherwood" for starts. *GAG*
Moviemakers aren't anymore accurate, especially dialogue! Audiences before just accepted what they watched. They didn't pick it apart and criticize every little thing. That's the result of being able to watch movies repeatedly and not allowing for the time period.
*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***
In one of the notes in the biography it said the director or whoever wanted Capuchine to be fitted with clothes by the designer Pierre Cardin thus the 1960s garb instead of the 30s !
shareI remember how refreshing it was to see They Shoot Horses, Don't They? in 1969 and have it look just like the period in which the story was set. That was one of the first movies I recall where they really started to make an effort in that direction. Even the classic Bonnie & Clyde suffers with Dunaway's sixties hair styles.
shareA lot of films made in the 1960s but set in earlier decades didn't really try to get the period look right. Inside Daisy Clover (set in the 1930s) and In Harm's Way (a World War II story) both have clothes and hairstyles straight out of the mid-1960s.
Audiences probably weren't as picky back then.
Yes, although the '60s was a good decade for motion pictures in many ways, they didn't do period detail almost at all.
I actually thought the 1980s did an even worse job, as the Hollywood of the self-obsessed '80s would try but everything always looked like 1986 regardless.
One '60s movie that always surprises me is HUSH... HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE in which the 1927's prologue has everyone dressed up like Mystery Date contestants circa 1964. Odd, since BABY JANE's prologue from 1917 saw much more effort made at period clothing. (And both movies were made by the same people!)
--
Non-sequiturs are delicious.
share
The interesting thing is that the director, Edward Dmytryk, made his first film in 1935. You would assume that a filmmaker with some knowledge of history, especially history he witnessed in part, would be more exacting of his production designer, art director, and set decorator. But Dmytryk was past his prime when this was made. He'd already made some big lumbering epics like "The Young Lions," one of Brando's worst, but after "The Caine Mutiny," he certainly would never get back to the mastery shown in "Crossfire" and earlier works. Sad.
shareThe clothes might have worked better if the hairstyles had been truer to the time period. Those long slinky clothes were in vogue in the late 30s. The style was slightly different, but close enough. The hair, though, is completely wrong
share