The Ornamented Being
Ornamented: -verb: Adorn; beautify
Be·ing: -noun: Fulfillment of possibilities; essential completeness
-
c. 1865
The Met says: This is a sophisticated walking dress with ties to pull the skirts up to ankle length, which allowed the wearer to walk comfortably. It was common in the 1860s for the length of the skirt to be adjusted for walking by being pulled up in ribbon loops. This would create puffiness at the back where more length generally had to be adjusted from the train. The puffing at the back eventually led to the back puff of the bustle silhouette which followed in the later 1860s. The typical 1860s pagoda sleeves represented here are particularly elegant with classy ruched inner bands, unlike the typical box pleating normally used for such decorative purposes. The female silhouette of the middle of the 19th century consisted of a fitted corseted bodice and wide full skirts. The conical skirts developed between the 1830s, when the high waist of the Empire silhouette was lowered and the skirts became more bell shaped, to the late 1860s, when the fullness of the skirts were pulled to the back and the bustle developed. The flared skirts of the period gradually increased in size throughout and were supported by a number of methods. Originally support came from multiple layers of petticoats which, due to weight and discomfort, were supplanted by underskirts comprised of graduated hoops made from materials such as baleen, cane and metal. The fashions during this time allowed the textiles to stand out because of the vast surface areas of the skirt and a relatively minimal amount of excess trim.
-
ca. 1862
The Met says: The female silhouette of the middle of the 19th century consisted of a fitted corseted bodice and wide full skirts. The conical skirts developed between the 1830s, when the high waist of the Empire silhouette was lowered and the skirts became more bell shaped, to the late 1860s, when the fullness of the skirts were pulled to the back and the bustle developed. The flared skirts of the period gradually increased in size throughout and were supported by a number of methods. Originally support came from multiple layers of petticoats which, due to weight and discomfort, were supplanted by underskirts comprised of graduated hoops made from materials such as baleen, cane and metal. The fashions during this time allowed the textiles to stand out because of the vast surface areas of the skirt and a relatively minimal amount of excess trim.
-
The Harry Ransom Center at The University of Texas at Austin made an appeal for donations so they could restore 5 iconic dresses worn by Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara in “Gone With the Wind.”
The dresses were kept in proper archival conditions, with controlled temperature and humidity, wrapped in acid-free paper. However, that wasn’t enough to reverse the years of damage. There were holes and frayed spots, tears, unseamed seams on all of the dresses. All the Ransom Center could do was keep them from getting any worse.
To celebrate the 75th anniversary of “Gone With the Wind” with a full exhibition of the Selznick Collection in 2014, the Center appealed to the public to raise the needed restoration funds. They raised $30,000 in a few weeks from generous donors.
The 5 dresses which they hoped to restore were the green velvet dress Scarlett made from curtains, the burgundy ball gown she wore to Ashley Wilkes’ birthday party, the wedding dress from her wedding to Charles Hamilton, and a blue velvet peignoir and a green velvet dressing gown.
Unfortunately, the green curtain dress could not be saved.
-
Another piece of history lost
-
Oh snap. I knew I had seen that dress before! It’s not exact but it’s quite similar. The drawing is a page from one of the issues of Godey’s Lady Book (I’ve forgotten which).
“The day dress is c.1855-1856 Day dress shows three flounces, an elongated bodice with a peplum, pagoda sleeves and full, embroidered under sleeves.”
-
This is another series of photos I saved from an auction site about a year and a half ago. I’m not sure who posted them but they are from 1850.
-
I lied.
I’m just going to post from all over the Victorian era.
French ca. 1868
-
c.1850–55
I’ve changed my mind on tomorrow’s theme!
It’s going to be brilliant!
-
For the first time in a very long time I watched a costume drama without actually caring about the costumes. I freely admit that when it comes to Civil War movies I am biased so when I pushed play I challenged myself to be neutral, be Sweden.
It worked until the end but never mind that. From the very first scene I was sucked in. Phone calls were distractedly silenced and sms’ went unanswered as I fully immersed myself into the film.
But how can you not be enthralled when there is dialogue such such as this: {A judge tells Surratt} “You are charged with having received, entertained, harbored, aided and assisted John Wilkes Booth, John Surratt, and their Confederates in traitorous and murderous conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson, and Secretary of State William Seward. How do you plead?”
Surratt says simply, “I am innocent.”After a little research the reason I was so taken by this movie became clear “The debut film from The American Film Company; their mission is to make historically accurate films about America’s past.” Except for a few tiny costume details (and the minor fact that Fort Pulaski is in Savannah, Georgia where the Capitol is most assuredly not located ;} )I felt the movie was as historically accurate as possible, which translates into pretty darn accurate!
If you know your history then there can be no spoilers to this story. I did spend the last fifteen minutes of the film crying my eyes out. The scene just before the end was so cruel and Anna’s reaction broke my heart. (When you watch the movie you’ll know the scene I speak of.)
A good movie is one that can transport the viewer into the scene. While watching this movie I was in the courtroom. I could hear the rustle of taffeta every time a lady shifted in her seat and the flap, flap noise of a fan cutting through the air in a vain attempt to create a breeze. But more importantly I felt the injustice of the court. This movie goes beyond good. I felt like I was one hundred and forty-six years in the past helplessly watching this play out.
In summary, the movie is amazing. Whether you watch it for the costumes or because you are a Civil War enthusiast or just because it’s on and you’re bored, watch it. You will not be disappointed.
After researching this case and watching the movie I firmly believe that Mary Suratt was innocent of all charges. That is just me, now I encourage you to form your own opinion!
