#skipperlaurens

Bah, Star Princess and rooftop dress has switched place. Thank you!

Well, typically speaking, in society every generation or so we experience a pendulum effect. What happened after the massive expansive period of pluralism and social progressivism in the 90s, we had a push back from more "conservative" mindsets which resulted in the Bush presidency, stricter censorship standards for media, resentment toward "social-justice warriors" and being "forced to be politically-correct". Disney, as always, follows along as much as it dares. In the 90s, it seemed "trendy" to be aware and appreciative of other cultures (of course a lot of that sadly resulted in wild cultural appropriation, but I digress), so Disney capitalized on that. Their television and film was much more diverse than it has become... Back then, we may have gotten a PoC sidekick or supporting character, but now we're considered lucky to have a presence at all. Disney is lazy. I love them, I love a lot of what they do, but it's the truth. They don't want to do any more work than they have to. So they've scraped by with the bare minimum for ages... Now that we're in this weird time period where you can pretty much get away with being reductive and redactive progressively, they do even less than they were accustomed to in the 90s. What I'm hoping, and what it seems may eventually happen, is that the pendulum will once again swing towards inclusive practices and mindsets, but only time will tell. -ren

I think the POTO design in large avoided the 1980s look. There are several Masquerade costumes I see the 80s influence - for example the tights-and-tunic fashion echoed in Meg’s costume, or the many fitted-bodices-with-poofed-shoulders-and-skirt constructions which I oh-so-vividly remember from the 1980s party dresses. Another thing echoing the 1980s is Christine’s B-L-U-E makeup and frizzy curls. This was dropped in the early 90s, and replaced with a bit more smoky or pink look, and sleeker curls, and in turn replaced by a more “natural” look and more styled curls. The hair and makeup is always what reveals what generation the Christine is from. Not so much the costumes, unless you're SUPER nerdy and knows their evolution. What Maria Bjørnson did well was to go to historical sources. Books on old opera costumes, Victorian fashion plates from Harper’s Bazaar, illustrations she found in Palais Garnier - these formed the basis of her costume design, or formed the general look, if you will. Then she added an original flair to them, by combining different sources into a new look (Rococo + Flamenco = Aminta, for example), and/or in the use of materials and in the ornamental details. If anything, it’s these ornaments the tour costumes has removed, and they end up looking more modern. But as you write, why is that a goal? To look 1980s modern and not 1880s historically plausbile? One example: as I’ve written in other posts, for example here, at masked balls in the Palais Garnier people either dressed highly allegorical or in modern shaped outfit with fun props. The in-between thing the tour aims for is neither - they wanted ballgowns, but used the allegorical costumes as basis, and the result is just weird. Again, yup a modern look, prom modern, Pretty in Pink prom modern, well done you - but what’s the relevance to the 1880s? They really should have designed new costumes for the tour. They wanted something different, I don’t see why they went for the Bjørnson costumes in the first place. Probably cost related; easier to pick from an existing stock than to make brand new costumes for some 30+ persons and multiple scenes. But with the initial butchered look in the UK, with those Masquerade costumes and those Sylphide dresses and the lack of accessories and decorations all through the show, it’s clear they SHOULD have made new costumes instead of using scissors on existing ones. It was cool in “Pretty in Pink”. Not so much in the restaged tour. 

My URL is the same on Twitter and Instagram: skipperlaurens Check 'em out!