Inquiring Readers: I will be contributing four posts to Pride and Prejudice Without Zombies, Austenprose’s main event for June/July – or an in-depth reading of Pride and Prejudice. This post discusses the clothes that the characters would have worn in relation to the film adaptations and actual fashion plates of the time. Warning: this is a long post.
Netherfield Ball, Pride & Prejudice 2005
The Netherfield Ball. Ah! How much of Jane Austen’s plot for Pride and Prejudice was put on show in this chapter! Elizabeth Bennet – its star – enters the ball room hoping for a glimpse of a strangely absent Mr. Wickham, but is forced to dance two dances with bumblefooted Mr. Collins, whose presence she somehow can’t seem to shake. (From his actions the astute reader comes to understand that this irritating man will be proposing soon.)
Lizzie and Mr. Collins out of step, Pride & Prejudice 1980
Mr. Darcy then solicits Lizzie for a dance, and his aloofness and awkward silences during their set confirms in Lizzie’s mind that he suffers from a superiority complex.
Dancing a set with Mr. Darcy at the Netherfield Ball, Pride & Prejudice 1995
As the evening progresses her family’s behavior is so appalling (Mary hogs the pianoforte with her awful playing; Kitty and Lydia are boisterously flirtatious with the militia men; and Mrs. Bennet brazenly proclaims to all within earshot that Mr. Bingley and Jane are as good as engaged) that the only enjoyment Lizzie takes away from the event is in the knowledge that Mr. Bingley is as besotted with Jane as she is with him.
Jane and Bingley have eyes only for each other, while Lizzie cannot wait for her set with Mr. Collins to end, Pride & Prejudice 2005
In anticipation of furthering her acquaintance with Mr. Wickham, Lizzie dressed with extreme care, making sure both her dress and hair looked perfect. In the image below, Jennifer Ehle’s “wig” is adorned with silk flower accessories, and a string of pearls, which was the fashion of the time. She wears a simple garnet cross at her throat (Jane Austen owned one made of topaz) and her dress shows off her figure to perfection.
Elizabeth (Jennifer Ehle) in full dress, Pride and Prejudice 1995
Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice between 1797 and 1813, when the novel was accepted for publication. For continuity’s sake, I will discuss the style of dresses worn from 1811-1813.
Pride and Prejudice 1995
Pride and Prejudice 1980 and 1995 stayed fairly consistent in using costumes that were based on fashions from the early 19th century. Pride and Prejudice 2005 took great liberties in several ways, and I shall point out the most egregious deviations or obvious errors as they arise.
Assembly Hall dance, Meryton, Pride & Prejudice 2005
For a private ball, Lizzie and Jane would don their best ball gowns, also known as full dress gowns. They would have worn simpler dresses for a public assembly hall dance, such as the one in Meryton when Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy made their first appearance, and where anyone in town who could afford the price of a season ticket could attend. (This is one of the reasons that the Bingley sisters and Mr. Darcy did not comingle with the hoi poloi! Imagine Mr. Darcy dancing with an apothecary’s daughter!) The image above shows Lizzie in a dark green cotton gown and Charlotte in a brown dress. None of the ladies are wearing hair ornaments or gloves, nor holding fans.
Jane and Lizzie, 1980 Pride & Prejudice
For a private ball, in which the guest list could be controlled by the host, the guests went all out to show off their finery. Their best gowns were retrieved from storage and were accessorized with long gloves, fancy hair ornaments, a fan, dance card, delicate necklaces and earrings, and a beautiful Norwich or India shawl. The dresses were made of finer muslin or silk (an extremely expensive fabric worn largely by the rich). They had these qualities in common: bare necks and/or low necklines, short puffy sleeves, and long, columnar skirts embellished with lace, embroidery or ribbon. Under the dresses, the ladies wore bodiced petticoats and silk stockings and slippers. By 1813, trains on full dress gowns were beginning to go out of fashion or were reduced considerably in length, except for court gowns, which followed a different set of rules.
Mrs. Bennet, Elizabeth and Jane, Pride & Prejudice 1995
Balls were generally scheduled during a full moon so that carriages traveling over dark roads were guided by lunar light. As the revelers approached the house, brightly lit lanterns dangling from trees or torches planted alongside the road would light the way; and the rooms themselves would be emblazoned from the light of hundreds of beeswax candles, which tended not to drip and would give off a steady flame (but were horrifically expensive). Candlelight made large rooms look smaller, since so many dark corners remained unlit. The resulting low light was kind to aging skin and the badly complected.
Chandelier, Upper assembly room, Bath
The hundreds of blazing candles emitted no more light than that of a few 25 watt bulbs. The light was enhanced by the crystal pendants that acted as reflectors and by mirrors, that were often placed in back of wall sconces. Candlelit rooms became hot over time and ceilings were covered in soot from the smoke. With the number of people assembled in one space and the great number of burning candles, ball rooms required good ventilation. Most women carried fans. One can imagine how hot the men must have felt wearing long sleeved shirts and waistcoats under coats and cravats that covered the neck up to the chin. As an aside, if an overabundance of guest spilled over from room to room, the event was deemed to be a “crush,” (or a rousing success).
Cruikshank, Inconveniences of a Crowded Drawing Room shows what a "crush" looks like
One can suppose that the gathering at Netherfield was a more sedate affair than the one depicted above by Cruikshank, with only the cream of Meryton crop invited to partake in the festivities. Given the size of Netherfield Park, a crush would have looked more like this:
Crush at Netherfield, 1995 Pride & Prejudice
The golden glow emanating from chandeliers and wall sconces would alter the color of the gowns that the ladies wore. Colors that looked good in the yellow light would be chosen for greatest effect, colors that clashed would be avoided. I imagine that a blue gown could look green under yellow light, and that a strong puce could look black or that lavender would turn a sickly gray.
Mr. Darcy approaches Lizzie and Charlotte. The white dresses look beautiful in candlelight.
Young ladies of fashion preferred to wear white during the Regency era, but they would also wear soft pastel colors, as shown in the image below from P & P 1995. Notice the slight differences in the necklines and details of sashes and embellishments, but the gowns look as if they were designed for the same era.
A Lady of Distinction, author of The Mirror of Graces (1811), advised young maidens how to dress:
In the spring of youth, when all is lovely and gay, then, as the soft green, sparkling in freshness, bedecks the earth; so, light and transparent robes, of tender colours, should adorn the limbs of the young beauty…Her summer evening dress may be of a gossamer texture; but it must still preserve the same simplicity, though its gracefully-diverging folds may fall like the mantle of Juno…In this dress, her arms, and part of her neck and bosom may be unveiled: but only part. The eye of maternal decorum should draw the virgin zone to the limit where modesty would bid it rest.”
A Lady of Distinction advised married ladies like Mrs. Bennet to make more modest choices:
As the lovely of my sex advance towards the vale of years, I counsel them to assume a graver habit and a less vivacious air…At this period she lays aside the flowers of youth, and arrays herself in the majesty of sobriety, or in the grandeur of simple magnificence…Long is the reign of this commanding epoch of a woman’s age; for from thirty to fifty she may most respectably maintain her station on this throne of matron excellence.”
Mrs. Bennet and Lady Lucas in subdued colors, Pride & Prejudice 1980
Mrs. Bennet and other matrons are shown covering their hair with feathers or caps. At their age, they were allowed to wear deeper but more somber colors. If they chose to wear white, they were advised to add a striking color through accessories, such as a richly colored shawl. The costumes in Pride and Prejudice 2005 combine the fashionable dress of 1812-1813 (women at left below) with old-fashioned 18th century gowns that had natural waists (Brenda Blethyn and woman at right). Since Regency gowns kept their “value” longer, it makes sense that matrons would wear them beyond their fashionable hey day. It would not make sense for a young lady on the marriage mart to wear anything but the most up to date gown she could afford.
In Pride and Prejudice 2005, Mrs. Bennet wears an old-fashioned gown with a natural waistline.
All five Bennet girls were “out,” much to Lady Catherine de Bourgh’s surprise, and allowed to attend balls and parties en masse. This meant that all the girls would need their own party and ball dresses in addition to their regular gowns, a quite expensive proposition for Mr. Bennet, who, one suspects, would have preferred to spend his money on books . Handmade fabrics were still very costly before the age of mass production and ladies recycled their gowns as a matter of course. It was the tradition to remake their gowns, or to hand them down to younger or smaller members of the family to be recut in the latest fashion or refurbished with new trim and accessories, which were more affordable.
The Bennet family dressed for the Netherfield Ball, Pride & Prejudice 2005
Silks were quite expensive. Mr. Bennet could probably afford to dress Jane in silks since she was the eldest daughter and her dresses could be handed down to the younger girls, but the cost would be too prohibitive for him to outfit all his daughters in such a costly fabric.
Jane and Elizabeth, Pride & Prejudice 2005. Lizzie
The Bennet girls lived less than a day’s drive from Town and received the most recent fashion magazines within days of their city counterparts, but they did not have access to the latest textiles at the fabric warehouses in London. Whenever friends or relatives visited London, they came armed with orders to purchase fabrics and clothing items at the Draper’s.
Harding & Howell Drapers, Rudolph Ackermann. Print from Georgian Index
Traveling salesmen and local shops could offer only a limited supply of fabrics to choose from, and one imagines that quite a few ladies in a small community would be forced to make dresses (or have them made up by a dressmaker) from the same bolt of cloth. Local drapers, dressmaker shops, and millinary shops would have looked much like the shop below:
In 1828 the proprietor of this milinary shop in Sutton Valence, Miss Elizabeth Hayes, "went to London to purchase Bonnetts at Ludgate Hill".
Because fashion took longer to take hold in the “provinces”, most of the women in Meryton would have worn dresses that were popular several years back (1811 or 1812). They could update their gown with lace and ribbon, or embroidery, and make minor adjustments, which is what Jane Austen often wrote about in her letter to Cassandra. In that way they updated their gowns and introduced variety.
Miss Bingley and Mrs Hurst in their London finery. Pride & Prejudice 1995.
Miss Bingley and Mrs. Hurst, on the other hand, would be decked out in the latest and most elaborate finery that London fashion had to offer. The fabrics and trims on Miss Bingley’s gown are rich and costly and is made up of a color that was quite in vogue. Mrs. Hurst’s hairdo, which evokes a Roman matron, must have taken a while to fashion. Her decolete is more obvious; not only is she better endowed than her sister, but her neckline is lower and the sleeves are puffier. She, too, wears a more elaborate necklace than the Bennet girls, but is is matched with a simple pair of pearl drop earrings. Compare Mrs. Hurst’s hairstyle to that of the ancient Roman portrait below.
Roman fresco, Pompeii, Aphrodite, after a Greek painting
Pride and Prejudice 2005 shows most of the young women wearing pretty but simple muslin ball gowns, many of which would be embroidered in whitework. The young ladies of that era were adept seamstresses, and they learned to embroider at a young age. Whitework embroidery patterns were readily available in fashion magazines.
Whitework embroidered hem
Lizzie’s hair (below) is styled becomingly with pearls, but it has a more modern, contemporary flavor than Miss Bingley’s and Mrs. Hursts hairdos in the (3rd) image above.
Caroline Bingley (below) looks like she’s dressed for a 2005 wedding. There is nothing Regency about her outfit or her hair. While actress Kelly Riley looks beautiful, I wince every time I see her in this supposed Regency costume.
Miss Bingley, Pride and Prejudice 2005
Director Joe Wright wanted to play up Lizzie’s tomboyish side, but regardless of her affinity for plein air walks she would still have followed propriety and worn gloves. Her dress, too, has a modern feel. We know that Keira Knightely has a small bosom, but a corseted petticoat would have given this gown more structure. In addition, her waist is a tad too low. Compare this image with the one above, and you get virtually no sense of place or time in Pride and Prejudice 2005 via the gowns.
Elizabeth dancing with bare arms. Her hair is elaborately fashioned, but the gown's waist should be a little higher.
In the 1980 movie adaptation, Lizzie is shown wearing a more elaborate ballgown. She is also holding a fan, a handy instrument in a crowded and hot ballroom! My biggest complaint with her gown is that her bosom is showing entirely too much, and would have earned disapprobation from A Lady of Distinction.
Ornaments were woven through upswept hairdos. Small tight curls framed the face and tumbled in front of ears. The only ornamentation in Charlotte’s hair (image above) are thin braids that are twisted in such a way as to decorate the upswept “do.”
One note about the opera gloves used in these film adaptations. They should be worn over the elbow and they should be quite loose! In the image at right, below, the loose long gloves fall naturally below the elbow.
Up to now I’ve shown the fashions from movie adaptations. But the fashion plates from the Regency era are even more revealing. Let’s look at some sample plates from 1811 to 1813. Note that throughout these three years, the waists remained high, just under the bosom. Gown lengths seemed to vary, but the hems would creep up as the decade progressed to reveal neat ankles and lovely slippered feet. In 1811, such brazenness was frowned upon by A Lady of Distinction.
Evening dresses, Mirror of Graces, 1811
It is apparent from the above illustration that the bodice petticoat provided a “shelf” silhouette to the bosom. A Lady of Distinction found this new fashion abhorrent:
The bosom, which nature has formed with exquisite symmetry in itself … has been transformed into a shape, and transplanted to a place, which deprives it of its original beauty and harmony with the rest of the person. This hideous metamorphose has been effected by mean of invented stays or corsets…”
1812 evening gown, Ackermann
Jane Austen noted in one of her letters to Cassandra how long sleeves were becoming fashionable for evening. I imagine this dress was meant to be worn on a cold night, for such sleeves would have been stifling in summer. The sleeves are known as Mamaluke or Marie Sleeves.
1813, evening dress, Ackermann
In the illustration above, you can best see how the loose gloves bunched below the elbows. This dress comes with a short train, ribbon embellishments at the hem, and white lace ruffles around the neckline and on the sleeves. Pearls and flowers are woven throughout the hair.
Let’s not forget the gentlemen. Their attire included beautifully formed jackets and waistcoats, white pantaloons, silk stockings, leather slippers, and short gloves. Their cravats, it goes without saying, were tied with precision and made with the whitest starched linen. A cravat pin, a quizzing glass, snuff box, and fob watch completed their sartorial splendor.
Both Darcy and Lizzie are wearing gloves. Pride and Prejudice 1980
More on the topic:
- Pride and Prejudice 1995, Lizzie and Darcy dance to Mr. Beveridge’s Maggot
- Designing the costumes for P&P 1995
- Public Reaction to Rising Waists in the 18th Century
- Regency Dress Database
- Fashions During Cassandra Austen’s Lifetime
This post is copyrighted. You may link to it, and use excerpts with attribution, but you may not place it wholesale on your blog. Always, always attribute this post or material derived from it to Vic at Jane Austen’s World.
Jane Austen's World 
excellent article! I enjoyed it very much!
Thank for article.
Wow Vic, you do deliver. What excellent information.
Comparing the three P&P movie editions was very helpful. Of the three gowns worn to the Netherfield Ball by Lizzy, I like the style and detail of the 1980 (Elizabeth Garvie) version the best, even though as you mention, her decollete was much too revealing for a unmarried woman attending a Ball in the country. (Maybe in France, but England?) She also does not seem to be wearing the appropriate corset, don’t you think, as her bust has not been pushed up like Jennifer Ehle in the 1995 version?
The gowns in the 2005 version were always a disappointment for me. Totally out-of-sync and distracting (among other foibles on the production). Possibly putting Keira Knightley in a corset gave no improvement, and they lowered her waistline to try to compensate?
Thanks for all of your wonderful research. I will of course credit you and link to JAW. Thanks again, LA
Thanks, LA. As always, it is a pleasure to work with you.
[…] Continue reading at Jane Austen’s World […]
What an wonderful comparative article, and beautifully illustrated as well! =)
I still prefer the costumes from the 1995 production, especially Lizzie’s gown as the silk material really showed of JE’s silhouette and I love the details of pleats and tucks in the neckline and capped sleeves. Muslin never strikes me as a rich or hefty enough material to hold up well in a ball.
I do have a question about the men’s sideburns: all the three Darcy’s sport a different length, shape/angel, and thickness. What was the norm? Whose was more accurate to the era?
Sideburns are shown on the portraits of actual Regency men. I imagine the thickness of the sideburn had much in common with the ability of a man to grow a full beard. Colin Firth was said to be very involved with the details of his costume and dress for P&P. His sideburns as Mr. Darcy are magnificent, and resemble those of Beau Brummell in some of his images.
Having looked at the portraits of several Regency gentlemen, sideburns were generally thick and long, but they did have variations!
Just read your article on Beau Brummell and I agree, Colin Firth’s sideburns are very Brummell like… very Top-of-the-Trees! (Is that the correct expression?)
As to MacFadyen, though I adore this actor as well, his Darcy was cursed with the oddest looking sideburns… I think the haircut itself looks too modern… very boyband with unnatural sideburns slapped on.
Thanks, Vic! You are not only a plethora of Regency information, but you present the info in the most fun way, with wonderfully curated illustrations. =)
A stunning Article. Love it and I too think that 1980 hat to much bosom and 2005 had nothing to do with the time P&P plays.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and doing it with so much love and care.
You are an expert in this sort of things! I enjoyed the post immensely and I learned a lot. Fashion in the olden times interest me as much as the present.
Thank you very much Vic!
Lex
x
Vic, this post is pure eye candy!!! I lurve your attention to the DETAILS!!! Thank you.
This post was “Capital, Capital” and “extremely diverting”! It is always a joy to read all of your blogs. Thanks for all that you do to educate and enlighten us.
Actually now when I rewatch all the P&P adaptations, I will now think of the fashion aspects, too, thanks to you.
Love the details and information! Giving balls when there is a full moon and choosing a dress color that looks good in the yellow candlelight are both things I would never have thought of. Fascinating. And all the pictures just add another level to this post. Well done and thank you!
Excellent article. The gowns are indeed very revealing. Is there a difference with London fashion?
Really Angelic
What a lovely post! I really enjoyed reading it, and it definitely increased my own knowledge of Regency fashion. Great addition to P&P w/o Zombies!
From the backstory of the Keira Knightley production, the designer deliberately lowered the waist to show that the Bennets were not quite up to date, which contrasted with the elegantly attired Bingley sisters. I have a question re the gloves. Wouldn’t the lady be pulling them up all evening? Are they the Regency equivalent of early knee-high stockings that always seemed to roll down toyour ankles? Was there a reason that they were worn so loosely? Excellent article. This is an area I am very weak in, so I read it twice. Hopefully, some of it will stick!!
Thank you for that tidbit about the high waist on Keira Knightley’s gown, although I think that Pride and Prejudice 1995 demonstrated the contrast between the rich and fashionable Bingley sisters and the Bennet girls better.
I had read in one source that the loose gloves could be held above the elbow by a tie, and many fashion plates seem to corroborate this. There are fashion plates that show slim gloves, but in a dance gathering as large as at Netherfield, glove variations would be evident. Film adaptations by and large use modern and tight opera gloves. For accuracy’s sake, a variety should be used. Some gloves were tied at the side, some had a ribbon threaded through the glove at the top, and others were simply allowed to fall loose, as in the illustration I included.
Excellent article! Thank you so much for writing it. I, too, was very disappointed in the costuming choices (among other things) with the most recent P&P film, and I much prefer in every possible aspect the 1995 miniseries, from costumes, to actors, even to runtime.
I had never thought before about the need to choose a gown’s color based on the yellow light of candles! But of course, it makes perfect sense.
And there are much better ways to illustrate the social differences between the Bennets and the Darcys/Bingleys than lowering the waistlines as in the 2005 production. The gowns just aren’t right! These were not a poor family, after all!
Thanks again for this informative post!
Thanks for the wonderful post! Thanks for calling out the fashions in the 2005 P&P. While a beautiful movie, the fashions always drive me crazy–knowing that they aren’t quite ‘right.’ I, too, never thought about what candlelight would do to coloring. You are always so insightful and knowledgeable! Thanks much!
Thank you all for your generous praise, which is truly appreciated! Vic
The 2005 version was set a least a little over a decade earlier than the 1980 and 1995 versions – namely somewhere between the late 1790s and the early 1800s, which is why the waistlines were not as high as those featured in the two television miniseries.
Also, Talulah Riley did not portray Caroline Bingley in the 2005 version. She portrayed Mary Bennet. It was actress Kelly Reilly (shown in the photo) who portrayed Caroline Bingley.
How right you are. Kelly Reilly played beautiful Caroline Bingley. I have made the changes in the post. Thank you.
I will stand by my assessments of the P&P 2005 gowns. A while back I wrote a post in which I noted that this film adaptation chose to represent gowns from the period when Jane wrote First Impressions (the precursor to Pride and Prejudice.) Even if 1796 or 1797 gowns were the inspiration for this film, the costumer took great liberties. Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Mrs. Bennet were shown wearing waisted gowns during a time when such dresses were already outdated and considered old-fashioned. One can understand the need for recycling, but it was taken to the extreme in this production. Hope Greenberg wrote a lovely page about the silhouette of regency gowns in this link. http://www.uvm.edu/~hag/regency/tips/
Lizzie might well have worn a round gown (popular between 1795-1797) for a ball gown, and let’s say she did. Her formal full dress would have had rounded bosom; it would have had a train; and it would have been gathered in a soft fullness in the back. This link shows a typical 1797 gown. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BMw1HAt_Wh8/RkQjlmWC6XI/AAAAAAAAAPs/I6mlv64cMC8/s320/1797dress.jpg
The waist is high and, the train is long.. Here is another link that shows dress silhouettes of the period. In it the ball gowns have trains and all the waists are high. http://hal.ucr.edu/~cathy/jd2.html And no matter how you slice it, Caroline Bingley’s gown is still all wrong.
Dear Vic,
You’ve done very well and much research by writing this article, interesting to read.
But what makes me to write you are your critical claims about P&P 2005 costumes. I would like to quote a part of a book by some US film theorists and critics:
“Just as viewers often remember this or that bit of mise-en-scene from a film, so they often judge mise-en-scene by standards of realism. A car may seem to be realistic for the period the film depicts, or a gesture may not seem realistic because “real people don’t act that way.” Most important, to insist rigidly on
realism for all films can blind us to the vast range of mise-en-scene possibilities.
(Look, for instance, at the frame from The Cabinet of Dn Caligari. Such a depiction of rooftops certainly does not accord with our conception of normal reality. Yet to condemn the film for lacking realism would be inappropriate, because the film uses stylization to present a madman’s fantasy. The Cabinet of Dn Caligari borrows conventions of Expressionist painting and theater, and then assigns them the function of su-ggesting the madman’s delusion.)
It is best. then, to examine the functions of mise-en-scene in the films we see. While one film might use mise-en-scene to create an impression of realism, others might seek very different effects: comic exaggeration, supernatural terror, understated beauty, and any number of other functions.”
Film art : an introduction / David Bordwell, Kristin Thompson.-8th ed. P.113
Therefore we cannot just say like it’s couldn’t have been like that in JA time, P&P costumes are inaccurate. This judgement doesn’t embrace the director’s ideas and MOTIVATION, what did he aimed for by having them wear costumes like that. We mustn’t forget this is a film not just an adapt novel and it has some new points of view.
In addition.. Because of not too specific time, the film creators might have chosen it. And as Joe Wright says in film commentary: “We set the film in 1797 so we didn’t have to go with empire line dresses the whole time. ..because I think the empire line are quite unflattery.” …”So it’s 1797 so the waistlines are lower and, I think more flattering. And then Caroline comes wearing her empire line and that means she is the height of fashion, London fashion.”
I just wanted to point it out;)
Zuzana
Lovely post! I loved Jennifer Ehle’s costumes in 1995 much better than Kiera’s in 2005 and now I know why!
Thank you, Vidya. Zuzana, thank you also for your very considered comment. Yes I knew that Joe Wright was making a point with his costumes. I suppose strict historical accuracy in films can often conflict with a director’s vision, or not work visually or symbolically. However, many people think that the costumes in P&P 2005 are inspired by 1797 fashion simply because the film makers say so.
Fashion plates and paintings of the era say that Joe Wright is off by a few years. I included several links to 1797 gowns in my response above yours. Here is a link to 1796 gowns, when waists had already risen.
In P&P 2005, Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Mrs. Bennet are wearing waisted gowns from 1793-1794. Lizzie’s lower waistline would have been popular in 1794-95, but by 1796, the waists had definitely risen.
As early as 1794, doggerel’s were making fun of the high-waisted look.
Vic,
This was your BEST post yet! Thank you!!
I’m drooling over the details.
Pam
A little off topic here, but I have a question about protecting clothing. Would Jane Austen have worn sleeve protectors? Did such things exist at that time? With as much writing (and editing) as she did, it seems that she would have been covered in ink. I tried writing with a quill once, and it wasn’t pretty. Thanks. Mary
[…] event for June/July – or an in-depth reading of Pride and Prejudice. My first post discussed Dressing for the Netherfield Ball. This post discusses the dances and etiquette of balls in Jane Austen’s era. Warning: the […]
Great post Vic! I”ve been reading your blog for quite a while and it is every Jane Austen fan’s dream.=D I’m not one for fashion, but this all does sound quite fascinating, back in history with all these gowns and propriety.
I did read actually, that the 2005 Keira Knightley version was supposed to have taken place in 1797, when the waistlines must have been lower and the fashon different from the general year of 1813.
Speaking of which, do you know when women started donning on trousers and such? Or did the poorer classes dress like us already? Its hard to imagine digging out potatoes on a small piece of land wearing a gown such as the ones above.
Liana, thank you very much for your comment. As I noted in previous comments, while the film makers claim that the gowns are from 1797, they are not.
Peasant women did not wear gowns that in any way resembled the delicate fashions worn by the gentry and middle class. Click on these links to view peasant costumes from the Regency era. http://www.idgames.com/posters/index.php?item=1586236
and
https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/regency-servants-maid-of-all-work/
These women wore rough shoes and clothes made of rough cloth (rags, really). Churning butter: http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/202696/1/Churning-Butter-From-Costume-Of-Great-Britain.jpg
Two washer women: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44764000/jpg/_44764727_44761965.jpg
Eccentric Regency ladies, like Lady Caroline Lamb, wore trousers for shock effect. Georges Sand, who was born in 1804, wore trousers. Bloomers were worn by Victorians in mid-19th century England. In the American West, 19th-century pioneer women wore pants when riding horses.
[…] event for June/July – or an in-depth reading of Pride and Prejudice. My first post discussed Dressing for the Netherfield Ball and my second post talked about the dances.This post discusses the suppers served during Jane […]
Thanks for helping me understand why the dresses in the 2005 movie looked wrong.
For the worst ever, see the 1940 movie (with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier). I have heard that the costumes – dresses complete with hoop skirts – were left over from the filming of Gone With the Wind.
Elle, Thank you. Yes, those costumes were all wrong, but apparently they were chosen deliberately. Here is the link to my post about that film.
https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/pride-and-prejudice-1940-featurettes/
[…] in-depth reading of Pride and Prejudice, which is winding up this week.. My first post discussed Dressing for the Netherfield Ball, the second talked about the dances, and the third showcased the suppers that might have been […]
[…] from Jane Austen’s World for her impeccably researched and detailed articles on Austen era dress, dancing, music and food. Definite reads for any true Austen […]
These bulbs energy saving light candles also come in different shapes, sizes and colors in addition to providing better lighting. For this reason, people also use them in lamps and other purposes. Everyone in the world is aware that we are facing an energy crisis of those days. When it comes to benefits, energy saving lamp candle has a lot of it. It is known to be very strong and has a lifespan of nearly 15 times more compared to incandescent bulbs.
For the worst ever, see the 1940 movie (with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier). I have heard that the costumes – dresses complete with hoop skirts – were left over from the filming of Gone With the Wind
The costumes for the 1940 version WERE NOT leftovers from GONE WITH THE WIND. The 1940 version was set during the 1830s, and GWTW was set during 1861-1873. Both movies had “DIFFERENT” costume designers. David Selznick produced GWTW and shot it at his own studio. The 1940 version of “PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” was produced and shot on the MGM lot.
And there was no law that “PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” had to be set during the Regency Era. There is a version of this story set in modern-day India.
I would like to point out that in the 2005 version of P&P there is a bonus section at the end of the DVD I have where they discuss relationships in those days.
There was a lot made of the fact that young people could only use occasions like balls to touch a person of the opposite sex. They also made a point of filming Mr Darcy handing Elizabeth into a carriage while leaving Netherfield, after Jane’s cold, so that he touched her hand. The camera did pan to the hand touching to emphasise the action.
I would assume that the gloves were deliberately left off during the ball scene so that their hands touched as they danced, especially since most of the other dancers were actually wearing long gloves.
And Rosie.
Jane Asuten lived from 1775 to 1817 and she wrote about that period in time.
To be true to her book, the film should reflect that era in my opinion. :-)
I loved the version with Greer Garson but the costumes were wrong and it wasn’t all true to the story. There was no garden aprty and archery in P&P to being with, and Laurence Olivia wasn’t haughty enough for my liking.
Ollimae, thank you for your thoughtful comment. The gloves were left off for the sake of the film, yes. But in Regency times going bare armed would have been considered a faux pas in terms of etiquette.
Thank you Vic,
I realise it wasn’t as it would have been in those days to leave the gloves off.
I have the DVD and the bonus section with the director’s commentary explains everything about the film and why they adopted various actions.
It seems that it was set in 1797 when lower waists were still in vogue among the lesser mortals, but when Miss Bingley arrives she has the new fashion of the higher waist, which provides a contrast between the country folk and those from the town who have easier access to new fashions. The director also thought that the empire line dresses were less flattering so they decided on 1797 where they could use both styles.
I have the Greer Garson version, the Colin Firth and Elizabeth Garvey ones too and I love them all.
The Greer Garson film is a classic even though the costumes are so wrong and there never was a garden party with archery in the book :-)
Do you have comments on her other novels too?
It’s odd, but there have been many complaints about the costumes featured in this adaptation of “PRIDE AND PREJUDICE”. Many have complained that it was not faithful to the Regency period. What people don’t realize is that despite being published in 1813, “P&P” is not a Regency-era story. It was originally written in the late 1790s and the text reflects this. Especially Lydia’s trip to Brighton. And the costumes in this adaptation certainly reflect this . . . if not always accurately. None of the other adaptations do – not the 1940, 1980 or the 1995 versions.
Perhaps I should add that the one version that adheres closer to the novel’s setting than any other is the 2005 version with Keira Knightley.
Great Post!, Very informative. I like the costumes from all of the versions except the 1940’s, with the 1995 being my fave. As far as complaints I have, there are two that come to mind. Caroline Bingley’s ballgown for the Netherfield Ball was a bit scandalous looking to me. It looked like some illustrations I have seen of undergarments, just slightly fancier. She would never have revealed that much of her arms would she? Then there is Elizabeth’s hair when she walks to see Jane at Netherfield when she becomes ill. From what I understand it wasn’t common for ladies of her age to run around with their hair unbound in public. I think maybe that is part of what made it fascinating, if not arousing for a man to see his lady unbind her hair. And there Lizzy is arriving at Netherfield looking like she just rolled out of bed. It didn’t strike me as appropriate. Or am I wrong and have just never heard different?
THANK YOU! This post is beautiful and well informed… If the naysayers who watched the extras on the 2005 DVD would just read your above explanations, they would see you are right. It’s not so much that the movie doesn’t fit a definite year, or the year P&P was written in. But rather, the whole movie has a rather modern tinge mixed with attempts at being historically correct- no one can defend the Caroline Bingley gown and HAIR! I really love the costuming in the 1995 version and at least it’s consistent!
am confused by people being puzzled by somewhat lower waistlines being evident, or why “regency style” gowns not having much higher waists
Comparing many fashion plates for ball gowns, evening full dress and even walking dress, there did not seem to be a rule on very high waists even in the period this article was written for. Yes, the figure was well supported but the waistline often showed up as being not far above the waistline for English fashion, which was quite a bit out of sync with the very high waist Paris fashion. Though I have seen some higher waists, just that is was not necessarily the rule.
For the movie being set at a much earlier date, still does not explain many of the incongruities, it would almost make more sense if it were said to take place a bit later
Great article! I’m doing a creative project for a class at my college based on Jane Austen and the fashion of the time. Your information/research has given me so much insight! Definitely siting your article in my Work Cited. Thanks!
I was wondering if you could help me.
I am writing a book on Jane Austen and Dance which will be published by Frances Lincoln UK Ltd in Sept. I’d very much like to use the picture in your website of an Ackermans ball dress of 1812, the one that comments on the Mamaluke or Marie sleeves.
Can you tell me if copyright is required for this picture and is there any chance you could send me a Jpeg of the picture that is at least 300dpi?
I would be extremely grateful for your assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Susannah Fullerton
President, Jane Austen Society of Australia
Very interesting and informative. Another comment on the P&P 2005 DVD was that they deliberately had Lady Catherine and Mrs. Bennet wear older gowns with lower waists as they were older women. Even older women today often tend to wear styles that are older and not as high fashion as younger women. So this seems consistent.
I adore the 2005 version and I love the costuming. Whether it is entirely accurate for 1790s, I do not know. However it feels more natural, more real. The 1995 version is nice but it feels so “costumey” to me. Perhaps this is just my modern perceptions, however.
Vic,
Loved your article on the various modes of costumes from the different screen versions of P & P. Having seen them all numerous times (I’m your typical ardent Jane Austen fan), I agree with you about the inconsistencies and just erroneous renditions of dress in the 2005 movie.
The Director or Costume dept. apparently did little research because the gowns in the mid 1790s to early 1800s were all empire or high waisted.
There were many inaccuracies in this film; from the contemporary hair styles (especially with Elizabeth/Keira Knightly walking to Netherfield with her hair loose and wild to a bit scraggly style at the Assemby Hall Dance in Meryton), to the missing attire – such as gloves in many of the scenes.
Here’s my take on the whole costume controversy with the 2005 movie adaptation; Keira (a fine actress) has a lot of clout. She’s also very long waisted and may have felt that the more authentic waistline up under the bosum would have accentuated the length of her torso. I think she may have had an impact on the waistlines depicted in that movie. If you look at the other actresses, none of their dresses have waistlines as uncommonly low as Knightly’s.
Watching this film the 2nd and 3rd time, I noticed how many other things were not in sync with the time period. For instance, you can visibly see very dark mascara and even brown eye shadow on Keira in that last scene with Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen – who’s hair style is also very contemporary and barely acceptable as an authentic style between 1795 to 1810).
I sensed that Director, Joe Wright, wanted to present a movie to appeal to a younger audience and in doing so, made alterations to dress, hairstyles, and even social protocol to that era. From Lizzie Bennett not wearing gloves at the Netherfield dance; to Keira’s low set waistlines, contemporary hairstyles, and even her mannerisms. Then of course, (as you noted) there is Caroline Bingley’s totally “out there” dress that resembled either an under garment for that time, or a very bare evening dress for today’s standards!
Well, thank you for an enjoyable stroll through the dresses of Jane Austen’s time and such an interesting and well done article (loved all the various pictures that made it come to life).
In closing, I have to say that the 1995 version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth still remains my favorite in terms of entertainment and authenticity. The actors looked much more like the characters they were playing and details to costume, make-up (it was very natural so that the actors didn’t “appear” to be wearing any), set styling, outdoor scenery, and background were practically perfect. Even the actors’ mannerisms captured the details of Jane Austen’s characters!
As a long time health/wellness professional; having worked with many clients during my career who have eating disorders (from anorexia to obesity), I have to add that the weight and figures of the female characters in the 1995 version were much closer to being accurate. Indeed, in Jane Austen’s time and social circles; a woman as tall and extremely thin as Keira’s “Elizabeth”, would have been thought to be either 1) fairly unattractive 2) ill or, 3) very poor and a bit underfed/malnourished. [Of course, for today’s “standards” Knightly is very beautiful – albeit still a tad too thin for her tall frame.].
Other Austen heroines have been played by ultra thin actresses (E.g. Gywneth Paltrow and Kate Beckinsale; as “Emma” – although I loved the Paltrow version and Jeremy Northam’s “Mr. Knightly!”).
Emma Thompson’s “Sense & Sensibility” remains my 2nd (movie) favorite for the wonderful acting, authentic costumes & actors’ appearances.
Thank you for that response to Vic’s post Lacy, I couldn’t agree more with you when in comes to P & P 1995 v 2005.
There is one thing that I recall from the 1995 production; a 30 minute retrospective documentary on my DVD set in which Alison Steadman tells how she found it very odd and strange to be working without the aid of make-up.
Obviously there is use of makeup but she says she didn’t wear any. I shall have to watch the series again more closely and also the doco at the end to make sure I haven’t gone bonkers.
LordBoB,
I have to get that DVD set; and now especially interested in what Ms. Steadman said about her make-up!
I would think that she would have at least had to wear some shine diminishing powder and a little lip color so as not to be completely washed out by the set lighting.
Maybe she meant without the typical on camera make-up such as eye shadow, mascara, eye lashes, etc.?