The costumers putting tatting on her collar. I had to look twice and hard, but it's tatting and it's rings and picots. I didn't think they tatted that far back - but please correct me if I'm wrong (is it's Hollywood's liberal interpretation?).
Yes, it's tatting - and very simple tatting at that. Thanks for the link to the image, Bev.
You are right, Helen - they didn't tat that far back, but movie costumers usually go for the look of something rather than an exact historical recreation. At least they knew enough to go for a solid-looking bit of lace, like tatting, rather than some airy, delicate Chantilly. I wonder if it's noticeable while a knowledgeable person is watching the movie, or if you do need a still picture to look at.
We make a lot of books for the movies where I work (I'm a bookbinder) and we always carefully explain what a book from a certain period *ought* to look like, but we're usually overruled, because what the set decoration people want is determined by what the producers want which is determined by what they in turn think the filmgoing audience expects to see.
I think that when the audience contains a large number of people who know what they're looking at and expect to see historically accurate costuming a big budget film will make the effort to satisfy them. We see that in the current crop of Jane Austen films. The characters may not behave remotely like a true Austen character, but nowadays the costumes are generally pretty good.
Adele North Vancouver, BC (west coast of Canada) - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
