Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I (finally) saw Les Mis this afternoon. I liked it. Even though I heard spoilers here and there (but mostly here) it didn't ruin anything for me. I thought I'd recognize more of the music, but the only song I knew was I Dreamed A Dream. A little more boobs and violence than I expected, but on the whole it was really good.

oh, I saw that yesterday. I forgot how pro-revolutionary it was!

A little more boobs than you expected? What? Where? There were no boobs exposed in that movie. The prostitute scene? Um, they ARE prostitutes.

Marduk wrote:A little more boobs than you expected? What? Where? There were no boobs exposed in that movie. The prostitute scene? Um, they ARE prostitutes.

Sometimes I like to imagine what Les Misérables would be like if it was edited to Deseret Book standards.

Katya wrote:

Marduk wrote:A little more boobs than you expected? What? Where? There were no boobs exposed in that movie. The prostitute scene? Um, they ARE prostitutes.

Sometimes I like to imagine what Les Misérables would be like if it was edited to Deseret Book standards.

Boring?

Maybe cleavage would have been a better word choice? I wasn't trying to imply toplessness. But it was the costuming for the women in general, not just the ones in the prostitution scenes. I feel the same way about costuming in most Jane Austen movies, too.

A Deseret Book version would be interesting. That's where my family got the VHS of Joseph & the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat long ago. And that was more of Donny Osmond than I cared to see, although not an "inappropriate" amount.

Of course, that's what's historically accurate.

Marduk wrote:Of course, that's what's historically accurate.

Sorry, I don't mean to take the thread off topic. But I've always wondered about the historical accuracy there. I know you can't assume US fashion was the same as European fashion, but these are set not too far before the founding of the Church. And I always have this mental image of the early women of the Church in the highest-necked tops possible. Some of the early converts came to the US from Europe/England so I wonder if the women were wearing dresses cut similarly to the Jane Austen style ones.

I have no idea. But if that was the European style of the time, maybe so? That's an interesting juxtaposition.

thatonemom wrote:

Marduk wrote:Of course, that's what's historically accurate.

Sorry, I don't mean to take the thread off topic. But I've always wondered about the historical accuracy there. I know you can't assume US fashion was the same as European fashion, but these are set not too far before the founding of the Church. And I always have this mental image of the early women of the Church in the highest-necked tops possible. Some of the early converts came to the US from Europe/England so I wonder if the women were wearing dresses cut similarly to the Jane Austen style ones.

I have no idea. But if that was the European style of the time, maybe so? That's an interesting juxtaposition.

I really don't know anything about this topic (isn't that a great introduction!), but maybe the people who were likely to become pioneers and travel to/across the U.S. were lower class than the people depicted in, say, a Jane Austen novel. This could certainly affect what clothes they wore.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:

Katya wrote:

Marduk wrote:A little more boobs than you expected? What? Where? There were no boobs exposed in that movie. The prostitute scene? Um, they ARE prostitutes.

Sometimes I like to imagine what Les Misérables would be like if it was edited to Deseret Book standards.

Boring?

Sure, but I think it's significant that the story wouldn't be nearly as powerful if we had to edit out all of the "bad" stuff.

thatonemom wrote:

Marduk wrote:Of course, that's what's historically accurate.

Sorry, I don't mean to take the thread off topic. But I've always wondered about the historical accuracy there. I know you can't assume US fashion was the same as European fashion, but these are set not too far before the founding of the Church. And I always have this mental image of the early women of the Church in the highest-necked tops possible. Some of the early converts came to the US from Europe/England so I wonder if the women were wearing dresses cut similarly to the Jane Austen style ones.

I have no idea. But if that was the European style of the time, maybe so? That's an interesting juxtaposition.

If we're talking about P&P-era specifically, very formal dresses (such as ballgowns) were more likely to be low-cut than day dresses (if you think about it, that's still true for the clothes modern women wear to, say, the Oscars). I think it was also associated with the higher classes, though, and not a lot of them were leaving everything behind to join a new American religion. (Plus, a lot of converts came from Scandinavia, and their fashions may have been very different from what the English were wearing.)

Pride and Prejudice was published exactly 200 years ago. This was Regency fashion - empire waists, low necklines, echoes of Greek goddesses everywhere. The opening scenes of Les Misérables are set two years later, so we should see similar looks. Lots of tight ringlets and updos.

The founding of the Mormon Church took place seventeen years later and on a different continent. Early 1830s fashion rebelled completely against that of a generation before - an emphasis on breadth, puffed sleeves, wasp waists, richly colored brocades. A very similar rebellion took place ninety years later, if you contrast the costume of the 1920s (rectangular, lots of neutrals, sloping shoulders) with that of the 1940s (small waists, broad shoulders, deep colors). The main action of Les Mis takes place in this era (during the July Revolution of 1830, through which Hugo lived), and should be reflected in the costume of the characters. There is a wide variety of hairstyles, most of which are middle-parted and half-pinned, half-curled.

The wave of European Mormon migration took place yet another generation later. Necklines rose, skirts became ridiculously voluminous, and you sometimes see the hair worn down, though the conservative styles persist (as they always should, with older generations not just disappearing). The immediate success of milliners, dress shops, barbers, and shoe-sellers should attest to the interest of pioneer women in fashion, and their allegedly dowdy appearance should be taken with a grain of salt - would you dress the same for backpacking across Peru as you would for a professional job, or for your wedding? My favorite image of a pioneer woman is this one - "Handcart Pioneers" - by Minerva Teichert. Our trekeress is wearing a form-fitting, elbow- and floor-length dress with a beautiful bird of paradise motif, as she raises her arm in triumph overlooking the Salt Lake Valley. The parallels with Eugène Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People are striking.

Often, costume was the only text available to women, and we ought not dismiss it in portrayals of Regency, Early, or High Victorian women.

Jane Austen herself was conscious of costume (as she was of every other social detail), and showed it in her work:

Miss Bingley: "Miss Eliza Bennet, let me persuade you to follow my example, and take a turn about the room.—I assure you it is very refreshing after sitting so long in one attitude."

Mr Darcy: "I have not the smallest objection to explaining them," said he, as soon as she allowed him to speak. "You either choose this method of passing the evening because you are in each other's confidence, and have secret affairs to discuss, or because you are conscious that your figures appear to the greatest advantage in walking;—if the first, I should be completely in your way;—and if the second, I can admire you much better as I sit by the fire."

Modesty, I feel is a somewhat anachronistic paradigm with which to read women's fashion, when Comeliness, Power, Beauty, and Class were all more to the point. Cleavage as a display (implying sexual availability) doesn't square with an understanding of pre-modern sexual politics.

Katya wrote: Sure, but I think it's significant that the story wouldn't be nearly as powerful if we had to edit out all of the "bad" stuff.

Yes. Now that I'm no longer an orthodox Mormon, one of my biggest pet peeves is the idea that everything needs to be G-rated. It bothers me that someone can watch a powerful, moving, thought-provoking movie like Les Mis and come away with "there were boobs and violence." That just misses the whole damn point.

I'm not directing this at you, thatonemom, I'm just railing against that idea. It can also go too far the other way; I dread lessons on certain parts of Church history, especially pioneers, because we seem to focus so much on "everyone was dying, mothers buried all their babies, people got shot, let's do object lessons including buckets of ice water."

Also, discussions on modesty, especially trying to view historical fashion through a modern lens, makes me laugh. Mostly because standards of "modest" dress change a lot (how many ladies are currently showing their ankles?) but also because modesty should really be more of a discussion of confidence and self-worth than necklines. Despite what our mother or others in church may think, my sister is modest in her shortest skirt (which is about a foot long) and we're both modest even though we are usually showing cleavage (it's either t-shirts or cleavage, and we usually choose the latter).

I also don't like seeing the violence and gore because it affects me so much.

On the modesty point: I always was taught to wear clothes that would be long enough, as if I were wearing garments. I feel that it is showing enough skin, and I never feel limited or oppressed. I don't feel like I am a nun or anything. I understand that with "well endowed" women, it is extremely difficult to cover all cleavage unless you are wearing a turtleneck. I am not "well endowed" and so the garment-line thing works for me. I cringe at the thought of having not had the rule while growing up, and going to the temple, only to find that half of my clothes were not garment-standard. For me, the garment-line thing is my personal commitment, and I feel comfortable in it. Because I am almost positive that I am not supposed to go on a mission, and I am single, it is my way of showing Heavenly Father that if I were to be endowed, I would be ready to accept the responsibilities that come with it. For me, it doesn't matter if I am endowed today, or in five years, because I have already outwardly and inwardly been living as close as I can to keeping those covenants, even though I don't know the details of what will be expected of me when I do receive those blessings.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:

Katya wrote: Sure, but I think it's significant that the story wouldn't be nearly as powerful if we had to edit out all of the "bad" stuff.

Yes. Now that I'm no longer an orthodox Mormon, one of my biggest pet peeves is the idea that everything needs to be G-rated. It bothers me that someone can watch a powerful, moving, thought-provoking movie like Les Mis and come away with "there were boobs and violence." That just misses the whole damn point.

I'm not directing this at you, thatonemom, I'm just railing against that idea. It can also go too far the other way; I dread lessons on certain parts of Church history, especially pioneers, because we seem to focus so much on "everyone was dying, mothers buried all their babies, people got shot, let's do object lessons including buckets of ice water."

My sister-in-law had the same attitude about this movie, bob! She said she liked it, but "of course" she wanted the prostitution part gone. Of course. Heaven forbid you were one of those horrible people who wanted it in the movie.

Though, to be honest, I think there can be some editing. Do we need to see how far Fantine's life went downhill? Absolutely part of the message of the book/movie. Do we need to see that the Thenardiers are horrible, backstabbing lowlifes? Sure, Hugo wanted to point how how absurd it was that they were running free and Javert was hunting a bread thief down for decades. But did we need to drive that point home by actually watching Santa in the act? Probably not. Those two were more about lying and stealing than prostitution.

I didn't notice the cleavage at all though. Huh.

TheAnswerIs42 wrote:

bobtheenchantedone wrote:

Katya wrote: Sure, but I think it's significant that the story wouldn't be nearly as powerful if we had to edit out all of the "bad" stuff.

Yes. Now that I'm no longer an orthodox Mormon, one of my biggest pet peeves is the idea that everything needs to be G-rated. It bothers me that someone can watch a powerful, moving, thought-provoking movie like Les Mis and come away with "there were boobs and violence." That just misses the whole damn point.

I'm not directing this at you, thatonemom, I'm just railing against that idea. It can also go too far the other way; I dread lessons on certain parts of Church history, especially pioneers, because we seem to focus so much on "everyone was dying, mothers buried all their babies, people got shot, let's do object lessons including buckets of ice water."

My sister-in-law had the same attitude about this movie, bob! She said she liked it, but "of course" she wanted the prostitution part gone. Of course. Heaven forbid you were one of those horrible people who wanted it in the movie.

Though, to be honest, I think there can be some editing. Do we need to see how far Fantine's life went downhill? Absolutely part of the message of the book/movie. Do we need to see that the Thenardiers are horrible, backstabbing lowlifes? Sure, Hugo wanted to point how how absurd it was that they were running free and Javert was hunting a bread thief down for decades. But did we need to drive that point home by actually watching Santa in the act? Probably not. Those two were more about lying and stealing than prostitution.

Oh sure. One of the interesting things about Les Misérables is that it's been adapted dozens of times in films rated from G (or Hays Code, at least) to R. So there's no one right way to approach it, since directors have a lot of leeway in how much of the violence or sex they show. At the same time, the story is supposed to be brutal and tragic, and I'd argue that if you don't come away affected by it, it hasn't been told right (for you, at least).

I just want to say that I can show enough cleavage to probably get a job at Hooters while wearing my garments. They don't even come up as high as most of my bras. That is all. Carry on.

NerdGirl wrote:I just want to say that I can show enough cleavage to probably get a job at Hooters while wearing my garments. They don't even come up as high as most of my bras. That is all. Carry on.

This is awesome.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:

NerdGirl wrote:I just want to say that I can show enough cleavage to probably get a job at Hooters while wearing my garments. They don't even come up as high as most of my bras. That is all. Carry on.

This is awesome.

One of my mom's friends said, she would have cleavage in a turtleneck.