Colèchi talks to Lysanne Goble about politics and gender studies in regards to the significance of historical costume and undergarments, specifically in the films Marie Antoinette and The Duchess.
‘As we move forward in the fast paced culture of today it is not only vital that we consider past contextual discourse around garments but also how the current iterations move and exist within society’.
What is the title of your work?
With Regards to Costume, How Can Theories of Gender be Applied to How the Female Body is Presented as a Site of Political Conditioning and Restriction Within the Films Marie Antoinette (Coppola, 2006) and The Duchess (Dibb, 2008)?
What did you argue in regards to the importance of costume in films?
Using theories of body politics and gender, focusing on the works of Michel Foucault, Luce Irigray and Laura Mulvey, the dissertation critiques the way in which the costumes of Marie Antoinette (Coppola, 2006) and The Duchess (Dibb, 2008) serve as visual devices that support the disenfranchisement and in some cases empowerment of their female protagonists. Throughout the course of the essay, the portrayal of 18th century dress worn by two prominent European aristocratic women is compared to historical artefacts of the period and dissected accordingly through the lens of a gender binary under a patriarchal society.
I discuss how in both the private and public spheres, both women are subject to commodification for consumption whether it be a general enforcing of the male gaze by members of the royal court or by way of the more intimate voyeurism of the ‘wedding night’ bedroom setting. A brief comparison can be drawn between the way in which both directors display their Biopics, Dibb ultimately opts for a naturalistic style, presenting the Duchess as true to the period as possible. Coppola, in stark contrast chooses to present Marie Antoinette in highly stylized, yet constructively accurate way as a reflection of her own youth and adolescence, utilising this to argue a more humanising portrayal of the controversial monarch.
Did you make any interesting discoveries on how historical clothing served to empower women?
Whilst David Kuchta said ‘Dress for gentlewomen, embodied a simultaneous empowerment and disenfranchisement’ (Kuchta in Sorge-English, 2016, p181). It could be said that the introduction of the gown en militare particularly within the context of this dissertation is an example of empowerment by taking aspects of male dress and adapting into an accepted yet transgressive style. It takes elements of menswear and translates it into a style that makes a statement yet is still digestible for the masses. With regards to Georgiana Cavendish, it was used as a means to be political in a space where women were excluded.
‘Elizabeth Wilson stated that ‘fashion is obsessed with gender, it continually works to re-define it’ (Wilson, 1985, p. 117) this was demonstrated by the concern surrounding the concept of cross-dressing during the 18th century and thus the enforcement of the visible ‘othering’ through the use of garments such as the stays and panniers (p. 20)’.
What did your work conclude about the presentation of women in the two films?
Although both films differ in their approach to their portrayal of the characters, there is an overriding ideal that a woman is not her own and is simply experiencing life through a window. Both women are largely defined by their environment and the power that is exercised over them, they are almost always passive in conjunction with the active male counterpart which in some cases isn’t necessarily a singular male figure but a collective societal ideology. Though briefly mentioned, dress is used as a form of empowerment to place Georgiana as an active subject, albeit still within the confines of the masculine/ feminine with the partial acquisition of elements of male dress.
How do you think the discussion of historical costume in film could impact the future of fashion culture?
Although a discussion rooted in the historical and cinematic spheres, this dissertation adds an additional perspective to the conversations taking place around undergarments such as stays and corsets. With historical dramas and biopics constantly being produced and reimagined and their influence leading to the resurgence of boned bodices in trend forecasts, the previous discourse around stays and corsets often resurfaces.
Whilst the aforementioned case studies present a very restrictive and oppressive picture of stays and the garments of the 18th century, it is important to take into consideration the context and time wherein the original observations of the stays (and corsets) were made. Whilst contemporary critical theories and understandings can be applied to such garments and how they were used during the period, with each resurgence and reimagining they inevitably take on new forms through update means of production and therefore new connotations are subscribed to them.
Whilst previous discussions of the topic can be referenced, the conclusions they draw must be criticised as things such as scientific understanding of the effects of the garment were far more limited than the standards of today. Thus, as we move forward in the fast paced culture of today it is not only vital that we consider past contextual discourse around garments but also how the current iterations move and exist within society.
Since writing your body of work are there any new findings on the significance of undergarments that you would include if you were to rewrite the piece?
Whilst taking a largely critical stance on historical stays, it is important to note that throughout their existence stays and corsets have been widely misinterpreted time and time again by both historians and scientists. This was often at the expense of the women wearing them as they would be portrayed as superficial and vain in their use of stays and other means of shapewear throughout the centuries. Typically, mainstream visual media tends towards showing the technique of tight-lacing when depicting stays and corsets and it can be noted that at times this has been used anachronistically to reinforce a long-perpetuated demonisation of the garment. Whilst at times their construction could be considered uncomfortable, both stays, and their successor the corset, are equatable to contemporary forms of foundation-wear with the general rule for both being that if they are well made and worn correctly, they provide the wearer with desired shaping and support.
