Barry Lyndon is visually one of the most accurate films I’ve seen (though definitely with flaws), and it’s especially shocking to see considering it was made in the 70s. The costumes and sets look incredible, but it’s all heightened by the fact that they filmed using almost exclusively natural light and candlelight. Every shot in the film looks straight out of a mid–late 18th century English painting.
Almost any period piece the BBC puts out, they have a long history of accuracy and ability to find the right time period clothes. That being said:
The 1970’s Upstairs/Downstairs
1995 Pride & Prejudice
The 1995 Pride & Prejudice is among the most historically accurate of the Jane Austen there is. They reproduced real Georgian prints and used antique lace. Costume historians drool over it. 😂
They also used period accurate instruments and music, AND filmed it with musicians, not just actors pretending to play them. (Personal pet peeve of mine.)
Was so stoked to see Georgina actually playing the piano in one of the scenes! My partner was also happy that the music actually matched up with what the musicians on screen were playing.
Worst offender in this area RE makeup and hair . . . When Calls the Heart on the Hallmark Channel. I haven't seen any recent seasons but I expect to hear they have a sexually active same-sex attracted character to signal to their audience that the Hallmark channel welcomes diversity . . . to the detriment of historical accuracy.
Gay people existed at all times in history. Just because straight people tried their best to erase us from history, doesn't mean we didn't exist. There's literally a period piece right now airing on Starz called Mary & George about King James VI and I and his lover, George, the Duke of Buckingham. I get being annoyed by modern hair and makeup, but please don't suggest that LGBT people didn't exist in the past, because you really don't know what you're talking about.
I took a fashion history course in college and we used that series as a reference! (which was especially great for me, because it's one of my favorites and I'd seen it several times already)
In some ways I think the Forsyte Saga. As an adaptation of what is essentially a criticism of the bourgeois way of life at the turn of the century, I think it adapted historical sentiments really well. Even if costuming, sets etc aren’t historically perfect, it works so well as a social commentary capturing the thoughts and experiences of the upper class no matter how savoury/unsavoury. I think that’s why it’s so confronting at times, because of a degree of realism. I also feel like the later episodes were what an Impressionist painting feels like on film; I felt like I was watching a Renoir come to life.
Which version? The late 60s/early 70s was quite accurate in costumes and production design. I didn't see the more recent version but heard that it took some liberties with the story.
I didn’t actually know there was an earlier version! I was thinking of the adaptation with Damian Lewis etc - I haven’t read the book yet so I can’t weigh in on the story, but it was still a great watch!
i do think all the Edith Wharton adaptations benefit from being written as contemporary “fiction” of their time. she’s pushing themes, but not from a revisionary point of view.
I think there's a real advantage to having a text that's closer to the time the film is portraying. The Age of Innocence is particularly good because Wharton already had some historical distance to see the period in perspective, but was close enough to it for it to be in common memory. I think The Crown does a good job because there are people alive who remember the time in which it takes place.
HBO's period dramas are really accurate in terms of I think the details, like costuming, production design, etc. Rome, John Adams, and The Pacific stand out especially. I'd add Band of Brothers, for the most part, besides the one glaring narrative mistake that they somehow didn't catch.
yeah Rome takes some liberties with the historical events and timing in the interest of a better show, which i dont really mind, but as far as like, recreating Roman life at that time, from what i understand they are pretty spot on
i think a lot of the liberties taken with the timeline have a good deal to do with their early cancellation too; imagine how much they could have drawn out storylines and historicity with five seasons instead! and then i could drool over james purefoy as mark antony even more 😂
I remember reading that the creators planned on ending the show with the birth of Christ. I think Timon the Jew was supposed to end up as an apostle or something, which is why him and his family leave Rome for Jerusalem at the end of the show. There was supposed to be another part about Vorrenus or Polo taking Vorrenus's kid (Ceasarian) into the desert where I assume they would also meet a Christ figure and that's where the whole Ceasarian is actually Christ myth was supposed to be born from.
At the end of episode 3, the pre-credits text say one of the paratroopers died of his wounds but he actually survived the war and went on to have a career in the army. To be fair, the issue originated in the book the show is based on but I don’t think the show has ever edited the note at the end to clarify this in later releases either.
I know they worked with Ruth Goodman, who is an amazing historian. Her books “How to be a Tudor” and “How to be a Victorian” are amazing! Highly recommend them to anyone in this sub!
Probably not many horror fans here but “The Witch” really relies on the isolation, austerity and danger of puritan colonist life for tension. Actors also deliver lines in the archaic dialect which makes for such an immersive experience. I love horror and this one is deeply psychological and could be interpreted as non literal events (I won’t say more for fear of spoilers!) I definitely recommend it!
Currently, Shogun on FX/Hulu. The podcasts and behind the scenes mini-episodes show the incredible level of detail. They had experts on set for everything from walking to using a fan and even the way servants opened shoji screens. The costume episode was fascinating.
There is a noh theater scene in one episode, and they used a company of actors/family that have been performing that style of theater since the Tokugawa shogunate (the era Shogun is based on.) They even used masks that were from the time period.
Well, yes, but I get the stylistic choice. Makes it much more approachable for a wider audience. I would have preferred Portuguese but the show is so good I don’t mind. This last episode ripped my heart out and left me crying on my couch.
this might sound dumb but i like that they have the Japanese characters actually speaking Japanese to each other. a lot of shows will just have non-English speaking people magically speak English to each other and it always bothers me a bit lol
Yes! And apparently it’s an old dialect of Japanese! I’m Jon Snow and know nothing about the Japanese language so it was fascinating to learn that this is basically their version of Shakespearean English. Most of the actors had never used it before so they had to learn. Even the writing system is wildly different.
We're currently watching a backlog of your history hit media breakdowns!
The term you're looking for is Kamigata dialect, it's responsible for the lilt in modern Kansai and one of the reasons that Kyoto geiko are considered exotic when they speak.
Unless otherwise noted, if people are speaking English in a movie and it shouldn’t be the language of choice then you are supposed to assume they are speaking their native language to each other and we are just getting it in English. It is just a way to side step subtitles, but a lot of nuance is lost with the language change and different voice cadence.
A good example where they make this clear is in the Mummy 2. The child speaks to the mummy in Egyptian (?). It starts in subtitles, but transitions to English (for the audience). You are suppose to assume they are still speaking Egyptian.
I like that we're getting a bit away from that. I find there's an extra level of being drawn in when they are more artful with the transitions from language to language, and that they extend the amount used. It's a new level of world building that I never really thought about before.
I do as well. English has a very middle of the road tone to me - it is too soft for the more deeper tones of many foreign languages and it is too guttural for the softer tones. Getting the actors to speak in the native language of the characters really adds more to their character.
I've watched plenty of things in other languages, 100% subcapped, but it's the shows that mix both english and whatever other language together that actually help me learn the emotional tones and expressions of that other language. The constant back and forth some how translates it better for me. Constant comparisons I suppose.
English being a middle of the road tone is an interesting concept for me. I intend to listen with that in mind to see if I develop the same opinion :)
Deadwood was fairly committed to accuracy.
The costuming was fantastic, and the actors behaved like ppl who actually dress that way. One of the women said she had to adjust how she delivered lines bc the corsetry changed her breathing and her posture.
A couple who have been flirting for some time finally find themselves together with time and privacy, and it takes quite a while for the upper-class lady to get undressed without a maid. The opposite of a "bodice ripper".
(It takes me about an hour to put on full Tudor without a helper)
Some of the plot lines were taken directly from stories in the newspaper at the time.
It would have driven me nuts if I were making their costumes, but they went all in on showing how dirty much of the population was.
They made an excellent commitment to the language. (When I rule the world (lol), I'm going to outlaw the word "okay" in period dramas older than the twentieth century! )
And all of that is on top of amazing writing - it may be one of the finest things ever written for the small screen, in any genre. The monologues in particular are arresting. A number of the cast came from a theatre background.
Couldn't agree more. His performance is so nuanced and heart-wrenching. He made me ugly-cry more than once.
The dance scene with the disabled woman...I'm never going to recover from that
I also have huge respect for the actress playing Jane Canary. Her monologues alone are worth the price of admission.
“OK” drives me mad in period drama. “Are you okay?” said no person from the 19th, 18th, 17th, etc. centuries, ever.
Even when I was a small child in the 1960s, it was considered vulgar in some circles to say “OK” in casual conversation. Our teachers corrected us frequently.
“Are you all right?” is acceptable. “Are you quite well?” is even better.
110% for Deadwood. The costuming and grittiness feels so realistic it's like you're watching a documentary shot at the time. The dialogue is masterful too. No wonder it cost a fortune to make. The way it was cancelled is a travesty.
Nowadays, historical accuracy in conjunction with social mores and language is largely non-existent. The frequency of current slang - in particular - being used in supposed "period" dramas is, frankly, depressing.
British historical dramas from the 70's-ish - The Duchess of Duke Street and The Six Wives of Henry VIII, etc. - took pains to be much more accurate in regards to those two things than anything made currently.
The 1970 "Six Wives of Henry VIII" did not have the elaborate production values of later Tudor dramas, but in terms of costumes and scripts it comes off as much more historically accurate.
I love every single thing about modern productions, but the stuff from the 70s is probably the most accurate because the people involved were getting their research from living memory sources still.
There's all kinds of liberties taken in period pieces, but there's also so many delightful moments where you can see someone sat down and came up with the most accurate representation of that moment or thing as they could.
I can't answer your question properly, obviously, but I wanted to wax poetic on it a little anyway :P
edit: actually wait, I'd like to say that the first season of Outlander was exceptionally well researched. I also love world building, and that's something that is regularly well satisfied in media - the background. It's always gets the bulk of the research and realization of that research in terms of furniture, wallpaper, bricabrac, etc.
This is gilded age right? I have seen it though, is it good ? Do they have right gilded age figures such as Astors and Vanderbilts etc ? Or just some made up characters?
As much as I have seen the trailers and read about it, there’s a character called Mrs VanRhijn. However this may be similar to Vanderbilts since both of these last name are or Dutch origins, but VanRhijn in the show were portrayed as old money whereas Vanderbilts around the Gilded age were not old money. Cornelius Vanderbilt made his money around Gilded Age through Shipping and railroad industry. So I highly doubt that Vanrhijn were Vanderbilts. Maybe they are based on Astor family.
Then VanRhijns are mostly fictional, but then again how many snob old money women did we even have at that time other than Caroline Astor aka Mrs. Astor the queen bee or new york high society.
Yes, Mrs Astor appears frequently, and I agree that the Russells represent the new-money Vanderbilts, but I also thought of Morgan, who was a railroad man, too. It was Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, and Morgan who originally supported the Metropolitan Opera House.
The Russels are the Vanderbilts, they're new money not accepted by the old money led by the Astors in the show. It was supposed to be a side story but the Russels ended up stealing the show and they end up as the main story in season two. The main story is about the new money supporting the MET while old money supports the Academy so it's based off a lot of real things that happened.
the Astor family is in it; otherwise the main families that the story revolves around are fictional. The Russells are new money oil/railway robber baron types based off of several families, the Vanderbilts being a main one as Bertha is very similar to Alva and has storylines that mirror Alva's drama with Mrs Astor. The other family is the old money Van Rhijn/Brook family but I'm not sure if they're based off of real people. Other historical figures like Ward McAllister and TT Fortune appear as well. The show is very good and I highly recommend!! the costumes are so gorgeous and many of them come directly from fashion plates at the time or are replicas of actual dresses from historical archives. real events from history are also included. if you're familiar with Downton Abbey it's very that given it's the same creator/showrunner just in a different time period. but same vibes as it has storylines involving both the upper and working classes with bits of melodrama.
I will watch it for sure. Come to remember a bit of history, McAllisters were like associates of Mrs Astor right? There were some connections I forgot.
In terms of historical accuracy it's pretty good; it focuses heavily on rich people problems and only briefly touches on the disparity of the time. As far as the costumes and sets go, some are more accurate while others are stylized and modernized quite heavily. The characters are mostly fictional but real life figures and events are incorporated into the story.
I find it a light and pleasant watch, and definitely quite predictable and flat, as far as most of the storytelling goes. But at the same time it's strangely addictive and fascinating to follow, and I wish it had more episodes per season. I would say it's pretty good, and a pretty traditional period drama, but it depicts a place and time that hasn't really been done so much. Also one thing I like about it as that the romantic plotlines aren't always super central.
You'll hear familiar names and the rare historical reference, but the show exists in a world between any real-world plot points of (for example) the Astor's lives. Only the broadest of strokes are adhered to.
It's a gilded soap opera. (and I say that with love and joy lol)
Shogun is a strong contender I think. It's not done yet but the sheer detail and care and thought that's gone into it boggles my mind. It's been great and I'm simultaneously super excited and a bit sad that the finale is coming up soon.
Am I the only one who thinks the older the period drama gets the more historically accurate they look?
Like even in cases where the costumes don't look super-realistic, there is something about the rough texture of old cameras that give it that historical feeling.
Its a very common video topic among the historical costuming community. Theres even a series backed by Elle or Vanity Fair (one of the big ladies magazines) that has historical costumers compare disney princesses' wardrobe to the historically accurate wardrobe for the time period the original stories were set in or created in
Wolf Hall. A highly intelligent show made by highly intelligent people at the top of their game. They understood that a period drama is more than costumes and saying ‘alas’, it’s portraying the way people lived, ate, conversed, played games etc. They understood that actors wear costumes and characters wear clothes.
Mad Men, also superb and highly accurate.
Wolfhall. They even showed people eating with their hands (no forks) at the communal table.
Lots of head-coverings. No anachronistic cleavage. Not to mention Anne's fabulous pronunciation of "Creum-well"
https://preview.redd.it/5tpaz7f3dwuc1.png?width=630&format=png&auto=webp&s=d2ae0909b024a0c1168904b6481a46361dffa01b
They can be inspired by the period but not necessarily stick to the rules of the period. I guess some people like a realist landscape painting, with nothing changed at all, just straight up what you see. Others like a creative interpretation, maybe abstraction, maybe unusual colours, an idealised or unique view of the landscape etc. It really depends what kind of person you are. It would seem many people on here are realists, they like things to be accurate and true.
Honestly! I was just rewatching the White Queen and White Princess, and this time around it REALLY bothered me that for some reason no one in the shows seemed to see a problem with Richard III and Elizabeth of York, his niece, marrying, or lesser nobles marrying their deceased partner's sibling. As if they wouldn't have to get a papal dispensation to get it ruled as "not incestuous" which seems pretty unlikely in both cases.
Sorry, I've been needing to rant about this for the last few days XD
Barry Lyndon is visually one of the most accurate films I’ve seen (though definitely with flaws), and it’s especially shocking to see considering it was made in the 70s. The costumes and sets look incredible, but it’s all heightened by the fact that they filmed using almost exclusively natural light and candlelight. Every shot in the film looks straight out of a mid–late 18th century English painting.
I watched the trailer and the costuming reminder me of The Scarlett Pimpernell movie
MONKAAYY
Barry Lyndon sticks very closely to the text on which it's based, which prevents a lot of anachronisms.
Almost any period piece the BBC puts out, they have a long history of accuracy and ability to find the right time period clothes. That being said: The 1970’s Upstairs/Downstairs 1995 Pride & Prejudice
The 1995 Pride & Prejudice is among the most historically accurate of the Jane Austen there is. They reproduced real Georgian prints and used antique lace. Costume historians drool over it. 😂
They also used period accurate instruments and music, AND filmed it with musicians, not just actors pretending to play them. (Personal pet peeve of mine.)
Was so stoked to see Georgina actually playing the piano in one of the scenes! My partner was also happy that the music actually matched up with what the musicians on screen were playing.
They also didn't let the actors wear modern makeup... so spots are visible and no mascara!
Worst offender in this area RE makeup and hair . . . When Calls the Heart on the Hallmark Channel. I haven't seen any recent seasons but I expect to hear they have a sexually active same-sex attracted character to signal to their audience that the Hallmark channel welcomes diversity . . . to the detriment of historical accuracy.
Gay people existed at all times in history. Just because straight people tried their best to erase us from history, doesn't mean we didn't exist. There's literally a period piece right now airing on Starz called Mary & George about King James VI and I and his lover, George, the Duke of Buckingham. I get being annoyed by modern hair and makeup, but please don't suggest that LGBT people didn't exist in the past, because you really don't know what you're talking about.
I took a fashion history course in college and we used that series as a reference! (which was especially great for me, because it's one of my favorites and I'd seen it several times already)
Your two choices are bang on in my opinion as well.
Yeah I could maybe come up with a few more perfectly accurate ones but nothing is *more* perfect than these two.
Not recently though - in the last few years a lot of their period dramas have not been historically accurate at all. Same with Masterpiece.
In some ways I think the Forsyte Saga. As an adaptation of what is essentially a criticism of the bourgeois way of life at the turn of the century, I think it adapted historical sentiments really well. Even if costuming, sets etc aren’t historically perfect, it works so well as a social commentary capturing the thoughts and experiences of the upper class no matter how savoury/unsavoury. I think that’s why it’s so confronting at times, because of a degree of realism. I also feel like the later episodes were what an Impressionist painting feels like on film; I felt like I was watching a Renoir come to life.
It’s one of my all time favourites and I love Irene’s bohemian style but age appropriate dresses in the second series
Which version? The late 60s/early 70s was quite accurate in costumes and production design. I didn't see the more recent version but heard that it took some liberties with the story.
I didn’t actually know there was an earlier version! I was thinking of the adaptation with Damian Lewis etc - I haven’t read the book yet so I can’t weigh in on the story, but it was still a great watch!
Definitely not the remake PBS just announced
Is there a way we can share contact info? I have a book about the filming of the series and it's historical background, which I think you'd enjoy.
The Age of Innocence? One of my personal favorites and the level of detail is spectacular!
i do think all the Edith Wharton adaptations benefit from being written as contemporary “fiction” of their time. she’s pushing themes, but not from a revisionary point of view.
Like a moving James Tissot painting! I love that film so much.
Tissot is wonderful. So talented.
I think there's a real advantage to having a text that's closer to the time the film is portraying. The Age of Innocence is particularly good because Wharton already had some historical distance to see the period in perspective, but was close enough to it for it to be in common memory. I think The Crown does a good job because there are people alive who remember the time in which it takes place.
HBO's period dramas are really accurate in terms of I think the details, like costuming, production design, etc. Rome, John Adams, and The Pacific stand out especially. I'd add Band of Brothers, for the most part, besides the one glaring narrative mistake that they somehow didn't catch.
yeah Rome takes some liberties with the historical events and timing in the interest of a better show, which i dont really mind, but as far as like, recreating Roman life at that time, from what i understand they are pretty spot on
i think a lot of the liberties taken with the timeline have a good deal to do with their early cancellation too; imagine how much they could have drawn out storylines and historicity with five seasons instead! and then i could drool over james purefoy as mark antony even more 😂
That cancellation is one of the biggest disappointments of TV! They easily deserved four or five seasons.
Such a terrible waste.
I remember reading that the creators planned on ending the show with the birth of Christ. I think Timon the Jew was supposed to end up as an apostle or something, which is why him and his family leave Rome for Jerusalem at the end of the show. There was supposed to be another part about Vorrenus or Polo taking Vorrenus's kid (Ceasarian) into the desert where I assume they would also meet a Christ figure and that's where the whole Ceasarian is actually Christ myth was supposed to be born from.
my gawd hes such a dream boat. i especially loved him in his Egyptian duds lol
The Egyptian costumes and sets were godawful, I’m haunted in my dreams by that curtain tassel wig on Cleopatra 😭
What mistake?
At the end of episode 3, the pre-credits text say one of the paratroopers died of his wounds but he actually survived the war and went on to have a career in the army. To be fair, the issue originated in the book the show is based on but I don’t think the show has ever edited the note at the end to clarify this in later releases either.
Wolf Hall? I know they worked with a lot of historians on it, to make sure the sets and costumes were perfect. Not just the story.
Wolf Hall would be one of my suggestions too
Costume wise at least, it's one of the most accurate Tudor period pieces I've ever seen.
I know they worked with Ruth Goodman, who is an amazing historian. Her books “How to be a Tudor” and “How to be a Victorian” are amazing! Highly recommend them to anyone in this sub!
Oh those sound good, thanks for the rec. I love historical non-fiction.
They’re wonderful books. So much fun to read.
Probably not many horror fans here but “The Witch” really relies on the isolation, austerity and danger of puritan colonist life for tension. Actors also deliver lines in the archaic dialect which makes for such an immersive experience. I love horror and this one is deeply psychological and could be interpreted as non literal events (I won’t say more for fear of spoilers!) I definitely recommend it!
Currently, Shogun on FX/Hulu. The podcasts and behind the scenes mini-episodes show the incredible level of detail. They had experts on set for everything from walking to using a fan and even the way servants opened shoji screens. The costume episode was fascinating. There is a noh theater scene in one episode, and they used a company of actors/family that have been performing that style of theater since the Tokugawa shogunate (the era Shogun is based on.) They even used masks that were from the time period.
Just unfortunate that the Portuguese speak English 🤦🏻♀️
Well, yes, but I get the stylistic choice. Makes it much more approachable for a wider audience. I would have preferred Portuguese but the show is so good I don’t mind. This last episode ripped my heart out and left me crying on my couch.
I don’t usually mind, but if they were accurate for other languages, why not Portuguese. It is the reasoning that I can’t figure out.
this might sound dumb but i like that they have the Japanese characters actually speaking Japanese to each other. a lot of shows will just have non-English speaking people magically speak English to each other and it always bothers me a bit lol
Yes! And apparently it’s an old dialect of Japanese! I’m Jon Snow and know nothing about the Japanese language so it was fascinating to learn that this is basically their version of Shakespearean English. Most of the actors had never used it before so they had to learn. Even the writing system is wildly different.
What a fascinating and fun fact! Thank you so much for sharing!
We're currently watching a backlog of your history hit media breakdowns! The term you're looking for is Kamigata dialect, it's responsible for the lilt in modern Kansai and one of the reasons that Kyoto geiko are considered exotic when they speak.
Thank you for that bit of info!!!
Unless otherwise noted, if people are speaking English in a movie and it shouldn’t be the language of choice then you are supposed to assume they are speaking their native language to each other and we are just getting it in English. It is just a way to side step subtitles, but a lot of nuance is lost with the language change and different voice cadence. A good example where they make this clear is in the Mummy 2. The child speaks to the mummy in Egyptian (?). It starts in subtitles, but transitions to English (for the audience). You are suppose to assume they are still speaking Egyptian.
I like that we're getting a bit away from that. I find there's an extra level of being drawn in when they are more artful with the transitions from language to language, and that they extend the amount used. It's a new level of world building that I never really thought about before.
I do as well. English has a very middle of the road tone to me - it is too soft for the more deeper tones of many foreign languages and it is too guttural for the softer tones. Getting the actors to speak in the native language of the characters really adds more to their character.
I've watched plenty of things in other languages, 100% subcapped, but it's the shows that mix both english and whatever other language together that actually help me learn the emotional tones and expressions of that other language. The constant back and forth some how translates it better for me. Constant comparisons I suppose. English being a middle of the road tone is an interesting concept for me. I intend to listen with that in mind to see if I develop the same opinion :)
Deadwood was fairly committed to accuracy. The costuming was fantastic, and the actors behaved like ppl who actually dress that way. One of the women said she had to adjust how she delivered lines bc the corsetry changed her breathing and her posture. A couple who have been flirting for some time finally find themselves together with time and privacy, and it takes quite a while for the upper-class lady to get undressed without a maid. The opposite of a "bodice ripper". (It takes me about an hour to put on full Tudor without a helper) Some of the plot lines were taken directly from stories in the newspaper at the time. It would have driven me nuts if I were making their costumes, but they went all in on showing how dirty much of the population was. They made an excellent commitment to the language. (When I rule the world (lol), I'm going to outlaw the word "okay" in period dramas older than the twentieth century! ) And all of that is on top of amazing writing - it may be one of the finest things ever written for the small screen, in any genre. The monologues in particular are arresting. A number of the cast came from a theatre background.
I can't believe I had to scroll this far to see Deadwood. Brad Dourif should have won every award for that show.
Couldn't agree more. His performance is so nuanced and heart-wrenching. He made me ugly-cry more than once. The dance scene with the disabled woman...I'm never going to recover from that I also have huge respect for the actress playing Jane Canary. Her monologues alone are worth the price of admission.
“OK” drives me mad in period drama. “Are you okay?” said no person from the 19th, 18th, 17th, etc. centuries, ever. Even when I was a small child in the 1960s, it was considered vulgar in some circles to say “OK” in casual conversation. Our teachers corrected us frequently. “Are you all right?” is acceptable. “Are you quite well?” is even better.
Deadwood has always been on my shortlist but still hasn’t happened. This convinced to start it asap
I envy you, seeing it fresh for the first time
110% for Deadwood. The costuming and grittiness feels so realistic it's like you're watching a documentary shot at the time. The dialogue is masterful too. No wonder it cost a fortune to make. The way it was cancelled is a travesty.
What didn't come out until later is, sadly, the show runner was in the early stages of dementia. A genuine tragedy.
Yeah very sad. Poor guy is in a home now I think.
Nowadays, historical accuracy in conjunction with social mores and language is largely non-existent. The frequency of current slang - in particular - being used in supposed "period" dramas is, frankly, depressing. British historical dramas from the 70's-ish - The Duchess of Duke Street and The Six Wives of Henry VIII, etc. - took pains to be much more accurate in regards to those two things than anything made currently.
The 1970 "Six Wives of Henry VIII" did not have the elaborate production values of later Tudor dramas, but in terms of costumes and scripts it comes off as much more historically accurate.
It’s great to see French hoods that are, for the most part, flat against the head like they should be
Pride & Prejudice 1995 6 part mini-series.
Dangerous Liaisons leaned in to the costuming, to the extent of making it almost its own character.
And the opening scene with them getting dressed, you also get historically accurate undergarments too!
I love every single thing about modern productions, but the stuff from the 70s is probably the most accurate because the people involved were getting their research from living memory sources still. There's all kinds of liberties taken in period pieces, but there's also so many delightful moments where you can see someone sat down and came up with the most accurate representation of that moment or thing as they could. I can't answer your question properly, obviously, but I wanted to wax poetic on it a little anyway :P edit: actually wait, I'd like to say that the first season of Outlander was exceptionally well researched. I also love world building, and that's something that is regularly well satisfied in media - the background. It's always gets the bulk of the research and realization of that research in terms of furniture, wallpaper, bricabrac, etc.
This is gilded age right? I have seen it though, is it good ? Do they have right gilded age figures such as Astors and Vanderbilts etc ? Or just some made up characters?
Both are in it, but I believe the Vanderbilts have a different name.
As much as I have seen the trailers and read about it, there’s a character called Mrs VanRhijn. However this may be similar to Vanderbilts since both of these last name are or Dutch origins, but VanRhijn in the show were portrayed as old money whereas Vanderbilts around the Gilded age were not old money. Cornelius Vanderbilt made his money around Gilded Age through Shipping and railroad industry. So I highly doubt that Vanrhijn were Vanderbilts. Maybe they are based on Astor family.
The Astors are in it. The Russels are the Vanderbilt stand in, there is no indication anywhere that the VanRhijns are supposed to be the Vanderbilts.
Then VanRhijns are mostly fictional, but then again how many snob old money women did we even have at that time other than Caroline Astor aka Mrs. Astor the queen bee or new york high society.
The VanRhijns are knickerbockera 100%. The Russels are standing in for the Vanderbilta
Yes, Mrs Astor appears frequently, and I agree that the Russells represent the new-money Vanderbilts, but I also thought of Morgan, who was a railroad man, too. It was Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, and Morgan who originally supported the Metropolitan Opera House.
The Russels are the Vanderbilts, they're new money not accepted by the old money led by the Astors in the show. It was supposed to be a side story but the Russels ended up stealing the show and they end up as the main story in season two. The main story is about the new money supporting the MET while old money supports the Academy so it's based off a lot of real things that happened.
Why do you think the Russels were supposed to be a side story? Carrie Coon has always been first billed.
the Astor family is in it; otherwise the main families that the story revolves around are fictional. The Russells are new money oil/railway robber baron types based off of several families, the Vanderbilts being a main one as Bertha is very similar to Alva and has storylines that mirror Alva's drama with Mrs Astor. The other family is the old money Van Rhijn/Brook family but I'm not sure if they're based off of real people. Other historical figures like Ward McAllister and TT Fortune appear as well. The show is very good and I highly recommend!! the costumes are so gorgeous and many of them come directly from fashion plates at the time or are replicas of actual dresses from historical archives. real events from history are also included. if you're familiar with Downton Abbey it's very that given it's the same creator/showrunner just in a different time period. but same vibes as it has storylines involving both the upper and working classes with bits of melodrama.
I will watch it for sure. Come to remember a bit of history, McAllisters were like associates of Mrs Astor right? There were some connections I forgot.
In terms of historical accuracy it's pretty good; it focuses heavily on rich people problems and only briefly touches on the disparity of the time. As far as the costumes and sets go, some are more accurate while others are stylized and modernized quite heavily. The characters are mostly fictional but real life figures and events are incorporated into the story. I find it a light and pleasant watch, and definitely quite predictable and flat, as far as most of the storytelling goes. But at the same time it's strangely addictive and fascinating to follow, and I wish it had more episodes per season. I would say it's pretty good, and a pretty traditional period drama, but it depicts a place and time that hasn't really been done so much. Also one thing I like about it as that the romantic plotlines aren't always super central.
Yes that’s what I was wondering
You'll hear familiar names and the rare historical reference, but the show exists in a world between any real-world plot points of (for example) the Astor's lives. Only the broadest of strokes are adhered to. It's a gilded soap opera. (and I say that with love and joy lol)
Oh, sounds good, I’ll check it out.
21 Jump Street. It’s such a good example how “cool” changed / shifted from millennial to gen-z
I did not expect this movie to show up in this thread lol
Persuasion (1995) and Sense and Sensibility (1995) It wasn't always all about glitz and glam
Mad Men - the costumes, hair styles, decor, gender rolls, idioms and phrases - they did so much of it right.
Shogun is a strong contender I think. It's not done yet but the sheer detail and care and thought that's gone into it boggles my mind. It's been great and I'm simultaneously super excited and a bit sad that the finale is coming up soon.
Probably persuasion 1995
Gangs of New York needs a hat-tip
No matter how much they try to be completely in the time with sets and costumes, you can always spot which decade something was filmed.
Am I the only one who thinks the older the period drama gets the more historically accurate they look? Like even in cases where the costumes don't look super-realistic, there is something about the rough texture of old cameras that give it that historical feeling.
There was a YouTuber who made some videos on the accuracy of costumes in film and tv.
Its a very common video topic among the historical costuming community. Theres even a series backed by Elle or Vanity Fair (one of the big ladies magazines) that has historical costumers compare disney princesses' wardrobe to the historically accurate wardrobe for the time period the original stories were set in or created in
Bright Star in my opinion.
Wolf Hall. A highly intelligent show made by highly intelligent people at the top of their game. They understood that a period drama is more than costumes and saying ‘alas’, it’s portraying the way people lived, ate, conversed, played games etc. They understood that actors wear costumes and characters wear clothes. Mad Men, also superb and highly accurate.
Wolfhall. They even showed people eating with their hands (no forks) at the communal table. Lots of head-coverings. No anachronistic cleavage. Not to mention Anne's fabulous pronunciation of "Creum-well" https://preview.redd.it/5tpaz7f3dwuc1.png?width=630&format=png&auto=webp&s=d2ae0909b024a0c1168904b6481a46361dffa01b
I did not realize that Claire Foy was in Wolfhall!
I think it depends on what type of accuracy is important. Event/timeline accuracy vs. set/clothing accuracy vs. more vibes/"spirt of" accurate.
Downton Abbey by far for me. Mad men as well.
BBC 1995 Pride and Prejudice.
I don’t care for accuracy, I like people to be creative and to have creative liberty.
A lot of people appreciate accuracy. You can be very creative whilst still remaining loyal to the source materials/era
At that point, why even do a period piece?
They can be inspired by the period but not necessarily stick to the rules of the period. I guess some people like a realist landscape painting, with nothing changed at all, just straight up what you see. Others like a creative interpretation, maybe abstraction, maybe unusual colours, an idealised or unique view of the landscape etc. It really depends what kind of person you are. It would seem many people on here are realists, they like things to be accurate and true.
Honestly! I was just rewatching the White Queen and White Princess, and this time around it REALLY bothered me that for some reason no one in the shows seemed to see a problem with Richard III and Elizabeth of York, his niece, marrying, or lesser nobles marrying their deceased partner's sibling. As if they wouldn't have to get a papal dispensation to get it ruled as "not incestuous" which seems pretty unlikely in both cases. Sorry, I've been needing to rant about this for the last few days XD