On making a period piece

Nlazars

Member
Hello, directors. My name is Naomi Lazarus, and I'm a costume designer. Actually, I started out as a fashion historian.

I wanted to talk to all of you about making a period piece.

Since the very beginning of filmmaking, filmmakers have been fascinated with making period pieces. They're beautiful to watch, they bring fascinating historical characters into life, and they're a lot of fun to make.

However, Hollywood's commitment to historical accuracy has waxed and waned, over the years. Some pieces (Gone With The Wind, A&E's Pride and Prejudice, Dangerous Liasons) are evidence of a passion for the period, and a desire to bring the audience into a real time and place, to envelop them in the look and feel of the period, to re-create it realistically and celebrate its beauty. Others (Braveheart, First Knight, The Tudors) both insult the intelligence of and promote the ignorance of the audience. They don't care about creating the world these characters inhabit, they don't make accuracy a priority, and they fail to introduce the context and the environment of the story. They don't do their homework.

Sometimes, this is the failing of the production designer, or the costume designer, or both; it's our job to research the period, and to re-create it accurately. Sometimes, however, it's the director who puts historical accuracy on a shelf.

Why is accuracy important? Because it's part of the story. It's part of the history. We have an opportunity to present our story in its context, but we can't do that if the visuals aren't doing the job. Every period has its own feel, and its own beauty, and it is part of the context of the story.

If you're doing a fantasy piece, or a stylized piece, then the sky's the limit. Go crazy, have fun. But if you're doing a film about a particular event or person in history, then do it right. Let us see them in their proper context. Don't dismiss the importance of historical accuracy.

Yes, I'm a snob, and a fashion history geek, and most people don't care nearly as much as I do (I'm a terrible person to go see a period piece with), but even the most ignorant audience member is affected by the quality of the production design, and they can tell when something's done right.

So, I beseech you, hire production designers and costume designers who know what they're doing, and strive to create your historical pieces with detail and accuracy.

Thank you!
 
It's great to feel the passion and dedication you have for your craft. Most of us don't put as much thought into costume design or set design for our films like we do the technical pieces, but you are so correct. I need a kick in the rear on all aspects of filmmaking, but with me shooting low to no-budget films and doing most everything myself I know the costume and set design parts don't receive much attention. I do have two period piece scripts I'm writing so this is a good reminder to pay close attention to the details. Thanks.
 
I love the idea of historical accuracy too. I never heard Braveheart as an example of a botched job, but thanks & I guess you're right it was very biased.

The trouble I have here is that.. romanticizing the past isn't very accurate either. How many victorian era films feature people speaking like they're all college professors and abundant with manners?

We romantize pirates, the 1920's, knights, 1940's cosa nostra, WWII.... basically everything. We sort of have to in order to build empathy because we disagree with almost everything in the past: slavery, violent takeovers, treatment of women, hunting for sport, gladiator games, racism, armpit hair etc. etc.

The past will always be displayed inaccurately to some degree, even historians have their own personal biases. Personally, I want to see a Victorian times movie where everyone spits and sputters in basic english really abhorrent desires. The protagonist is always just like us but "back then".


I guess what I'm saying is - I support your desire to seek your ideals of historical accuracy.
 
Thanks for this Nlazars, you make some great points and I agree with you that in many (most?) cases where films fail in this regard, it's due to laziness or apathy, and you are right to call those out.

However, as a director (and to a lesser extent even producer and writer), my job isn't to get the most accurate details - even for a historical piece, my job is to tell the story in the most compelling way possible. If enhancing the story means taking license with the costumes, then so be it. Same goes for language/accents, settings, and even characters may be cut, added, or have multiple people combined into one if it helps the story.

That said, I think you're right in that in most cases getting those details right helps the story, or at least does not detract from it. There should be a clear reason you are deviating from the history, or else you are again just being lazy or apathetic. And I think we all (well, at least me) can use your reminder to take extra care on this issue, it certainly is an easy thing to let slip through the cracks. Thanks again.
 
Note: In the future historical accuracy will be intriguing since so much will based on youtube for source.
 
I would add that one should remember that a film can be many things - one film might benefit from accuracy while another one not. So as always the context is very important.
 
Being historically accurate by no means requires everything being pretty. In fact, a healthy amount of dirt and pig **** and swearing and whoring and slavery and disease contributes greatly to the feel of a period piece. ;)
 
I would add that one should remember that a film can be many things - one film might benefit from accuracy while another one not. So as always the context is very important.

I'm not saying every film should be a period piece. I just think, if you _are_ doing a period piece, you should go all the way. Actually, I think that's true about production design, in general. Take the Loncraine Richard III, which he set in Germany during WWII. He took Shakespeare, and put it in a whole new context, but he committed to it, all the way.

Dangerous Liasons came out in '88, and the year after, Milos Forman released Valmont, based on the same story. It's a much better film. Better script, better casting, better pacing... just better in every particular, except the costume design. It's... alright. It's ok. It's not offensive to the eye. But Dangerous Liasons went all the way and Valmont didn't bother. And, if you think it's not important, DL got an oscar nom for best picture and Valmont didnt. And Valmont's the better film.

If you're going to make a choice, make the choice, be bold, go all the way. If you're going to go period, go period. If you're going to go with a style (Lurman's Moulin Rouge, for example) then take that style to the limit.

Being low budget makes it harder, but not impossible. The key is to hire people who are passionate, and who are willing to go the extra mile.

Anyway, thanks for listening, guys!

N.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top