okay so I'm not complaining about the new WH costumes. I have no interest but I'm GLAD they're so insane- it means nobody could mistake them for real historical clothing, which is the main reason I take issue with historical implausibility in movie costumes

but also like

again with the trend of...I don't know, assuming that historical movie costumes with any visual creativity at all are Boldly Inaccurate (Positive)? like people have been saying about Crimson Peak?

Frankenstein is DEEPLY rooted in the realities of 1850s clothing. the hair, the outfit components, the silhouettes, the hats- it works because it respects the era. it doesn't see historical clothing as a problem to be fixed through modernization. its liberties are liberties I can see someone taking in the era. the biggest diversions from history I saw were Elizabeth's sheer-sleeved day dress and the fact that her day bodices were back-lacing. also the women all wearing veils at the wedding (her hair was down because she was getting ready, so that didn't bother me). her nightgown was pure fantasy, of course, but it's a very intimate garment- she could have commissioned it specially. and I'm willing to give the movie that grace because everything ELSE was so grounded!

same with Crimson Peak. "oh it's not accurate!!!" except it is though? have you ever seen Pingat's opera capes from the 1890s? half the garments were based on museum pieces or paintings anyway! Lucille's red dress had a spine lacing element ripped right from a museum dress of the same era! none of those outfits would be at all out of place in collections storage in any of the museums where I've worked!

this is REAL. this is from the 1890s. you can be crazy and artistic and weird and glorious and still respect the era!