FYC Emma.'s Costumes (or lack thereof)
Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:45PM by Elisa Giudici
The Academy Awards love period dramas and historical adaptations, at least in the Best Costume Design category. They love movies in which actors and actresses sport garments from the past so much that it's always unlikely that movies set in the present will be nominated, no matter how great the work is. Contemporary outfits? Not for us! Historically accurate costumes? Oscar worthy! Even in the realm of sci-fi they have an aversion to the contemporary (via the future), fantasy movies which are more likely to recall the past with their medieval vibes, are more likely.
That said, sometimes period costume design can be really stunning. Such is the case with the latest movie adaptation of Jane Austen’s classic Emma might gain. The first feature from director Autumn de Wilde is working against an early release, but 2020's lack of gorgeous actors dressed in lavish costumes might help Alexandra Byrne gain her sixth nomination anyway. And she'll deserve it...
Anya Taylor-Joy, Mia Goth, and Johnny Flynn are covered in brightly colored dresses and accessories. Their outfits pop up on the screen and match perfectly with the pastel palette of the movie. Woodhouse and Knightley’s families are incredibly wealthy, so the wardrobe of the protagonists Emma and George is impressive in variety, intricacy, and luxury. Usually, the richness of the costumes is crucial to get the Academy's attention. They love outfits worthy of a princess or a queen, showing less enthusiasm for movies settled in the past but with indigent protagonists in worn-out clothes.
Byrne’s work deserves the nomination, but not for the luxurious style of the designs. Her best, boldest choices hides from the eyes of the audience with little knowledge of the history of fashion as portrayed in period dramas.
Yes, I want to address the infamous “bare ass scene.” In the second part of the movie Emma, played by Anya Taylor-Joy, warms her naked ass in front of a fireplace. She hikes her skirts up, revealing the absence of undergraments, and expose for a moment her bare back to the fire. It is winter, it is cold outside, and she is waiting to be dressed up by her maid. Her behavior is not only reasonable: it is so historically accurate that there are satirical illustrations from the Regency period showing ladies doing exactly this. Some commenters thought the scene was gratuitous and ridiculous, proving our misconceptions. It's a potent reminder that our idealized our conception of the period is shaped by movie adaptations and books from subsequent eras.
Visually, Emma is really stunning: almost every single scene is worthy of a “perfect shoot” post on social media. The audience can really see Autumn de Wilde’s sensibility as a photographer and video maker. Emma.’s visual richness is joyful but never gratuitous. There is less idealization and more comic irony as it describes the lives of these famous Austen characters.
Emma’s costume design process started from surviving garments of the past to work its magic. Some embroidery details, the cuts, and the colors chosen for Emma’s beautiful coats, headdresses, and evening dresses are extremely well researched. Naturally, Alexandra Byrne altered original designs. But the outfits of Emma and George follow the basic rules of fashion of the time, and most of the time they're believable replicas of what a young, wealthy person would wear to walk outside with friends or to drink the afternoon tea at some acquaintance's house.
Sometimes a detail that seems anachronistic is historically accurate. Emma owns dresses and coats with really bright colors: deep reds, rich yellows, the purest of whites. We expect Regency fashion to be all about muted, neutral, delicate colors. Period movies from the past “copied” surviving garments with a very subdued palette, shaping our expectations. In illustrations drawn in that period, people are often wearing very brightly colored dresses. According to historians, wealthy people commonly used bright colors in their garments. However, textile dyed with natural techniques loses almost all of its brightness over time, fooling experts and some costume designers when considering the past.
Moreover, Alexandra Byrne’s costumes are not just there as history lessons but as storytelling devices. Pay attention to the evolution of Mia Goth’s fashion choices. The actress plays Harriet Smith, the poor, naïve orphan girl who Emma chooses as her friend and confidant. At first, she dresses mimicking Emma’s style, but the outcome is underwhelming for the fundamental lack of both financial resources and fashion taste. Later in the movie, the way Harriet dresses is quite similar to Emma, but with a taste of her own; she's no longer a copycat. At this point in the story, the poor girl has a basic knowledge of the world of wealthy people, so she has learned how to dress modestly. The moment she sees the limits of her wardrobe is the one in which she discovers Emma’s superficial judgment of her sentimental situation, changing her fashion choices accordingly.
Emma.’s costume design is yet more ambitious than that. De Wilde and Byrne often poke fun of more stereotypical romanticizations of the past. The movie shows both Emma and George half-naked while lazily waiting to be dressed by some servant or carelessly discarding some layers of their outfits on the floor. These little, “messy” scenes break the artificial perfect order that romantic period movies often try to maintain. Sometimes, to achieve perfect romance in comedy of errors, Austenian characters are disconnected from the needs and the faults of human bodies, both in public and private life. So seeing Emma alone in her own house uncovering her ass to warm her body looks like a bold move (For an Austen adaptation, it is a bold move.). There is so little sense of flesh and blood in a lot of these kinds of movies that the half nakedness of Johnny Flynn playing George Knightley was worthy of British tabloids!
Some critics have described Emma. as a "sensuous" Austen adaptation. I think its actual power lies in reminding the audience that Emma, George, and Harriet are human beings after all (albeit fictional ones). Yes, they are well mannered and spotless in appearance, but when they are alone in their majestic households, their behavior can be as sloppy and lazy as ours. Byrne’s work on Emma.’s costumes helps break stereotypes of period drama appearance and atmosphere. It's well researched, inventive, visually stunning, and totally effective in delivering a fresh adaptation of an otherwise familiar Austen comedy.
Reader Comments (3)
I loved reading this and wholeheartedly agree with many of the points made. As someone who's not usually very drawn to Alexandra Byrne's work, this film was a delightful surprise. Love when someone uses researched detail to make the clothes look weird, even unappealing to modern aesthetics, alienating but character-specific.
However, I don't think AMPAS usually displays the attitude of "Historically accurate costumes? Oscar-worthy!". If anything, what they tend to award is very flashy work that appears period without evoking the specificities of historical fashion. That's not to say one approach is superior to the other (it all depends on the project) but the Academy usually privileges a more anachronistic approach like ANNA KARENINA, THE GREAT GATSBY, LITTLE WOMEN, and others.
I do wonder what'll win this year? Will they go with the oddities of this EMMA or pick something more uncomplicatedly appealing?
"but 2020's lack of gorgeous actors dressed in lavish costumes might help Alexandra Byrne gain her sixth nomination anyway"
even if the year was crowded this still probably would get in as the lone nominee in the way Anonymous, The invisible woman or Jane Eyre did, since it checks every single box this branch adores: period piece, colorful, made by a previous nominee/winner
Ridiculous. The only good version is the Gwyneth Paltrow one and that one is perfect.