PDA

View Full Version : Gone with the wind - the hair styles



Thumper
December 1st, 2008, 07:47 AM
I started watching this last night, haven't seen it in years.

The dresses that Scarlet wears are beautiful!

But the hairdoo's! Fantastic! I kept noticing alot of them had this wide clip thing across the mid-back of her head.
I'm really fasinated with these hairdoo's - anyone have any insight on how these were done, and what are those really cool looking pin up's they were using??

ktani
December 1st, 2008, 08:38 AM
The movie is great but read the book. In it the author goes into detail about period hairstyles and how they were done. I had a book about the making of the movie and the changes they made from the book. Most were made for visual considerations.

In the book for example, Scarlett wanted to cut bangs, which were new for that time in her culture. Rhett threatened her, lol, if she did but in the movie, Scarlett wears them.

Stagecoach
December 1st, 2008, 08:45 AM
The movie is great but read the book. In it the author goes into detail about period hairstyles and how they were done. I had a book about the making of the movie and the changes they made from the book. Most were made for visual considerations.

In the book for example, Scarlett wanted to cut bangs, which were new for that time in her culture. Rhett threatened her, lol, if she did but in the movie, Scarlett wears them.

Is this the early 1860's the book is set in? If so, then I wouldn't trust the author to much for accurate hairstyles. Bangs were NOT in fashion then. The only reason a woman would have had bangs was if hair hair had been cut for sickness or such, and even then, she would have disguised them as qickly as possible.

ktani
December 1st, 2008, 09:02 AM
Is this the early 1860's the book is set in? If so, then I wouldn't trust the author to much for accurate hairstyles. Bangs were NOT in fashion then. The only reason a woman would have had bangs was if hair hair had been cut for sickness or such, and even then, she would have disguised them as qickly as possible.

The author researched pretty well as I understand it and bangs were in several cultures at the time, I believe but I could be mistaken. It was not bangs as we know it but a fringe of some sort.

ktani
December 1st, 2008, 09:12 AM
Here are some links.

Hairstyles of the 1860's
http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/hairstyles.htm

Scarlett in the book, wanted to cut a fringe, to follow a Parisian hairstyle, not in fashion in the U.S., and that is why Rhett disapproved.

Naluin
December 1st, 2008, 09:12 AM
Is this the early 1860's the book is set in? If so, then I wouldn't trust the author to much for accurate hairstyles. Bangs were NOT in fashion then. The only reason a woman would have had bangs was if hair hair had been cut for sickness or such, and even then, she would have disguised them as qickly as possible.

The book starts in 1864, I believe, but it continues through reconstruction... so up through the mid-187O's? IIRC, there are fashion plates of that time showing some sort of fringe.

ktani
December 1st, 2008, 09:22 AM
The book starts in 1864, I believe, but it continues through reconstruction... so up through the mid-187O's? IIRC, there are fashion plates of that time showing some sort of fringe.

Yes, the part of the book I am referring to, is post war.

GlennaGirl
December 1st, 2008, 10:09 AM
Here (http://www.lphouse.com/1870s.htm) are a few hairdos beginning in 1870 clearly showing a fringe. :) I can envision Scarlett or a lady like her "shockingly" begging for them in 1866, 1867 or thereabouts...definitely not outside the realm of realism.

I love that movie too...I think the characters are very human. Nobody's "all good" or "all bad" except Miss Mellie, who is all good. Even the ever-patient Ashley has his fault in being "too" wishy-washy, IMO...

Great book, fun movie.

Heidi_234
December 1st, 2008, 10:18 AM
I'm currently reading this book and your spoiling me the later-on happenings. :grin:

ktani
December 1st, 2008, 11:35 AM
I'm currently reading this book and your spoiling me the later-on happenings. :grin:

Ooops, sorry.

lora410
December 1st, 2008, 12:06 PM
I watched this again a week or so ago (my fav movie) and I woudld have loved some of her combs and yes they styles are amazing!!! I so wish we still dressed like back then, but i'd be wear peasant clothes if that was the case :lol:

ktani
December 1st, 2008, 12:14 PM
I watched this again a week or so ago (my fav movie) and I woudld have loved some of her combs and yes they styles are amazing!!! I so wish we still dressed like back then, but i'd be wear peasant clothes if that was the case :lol:

I think that you would find most of the clothes very restrictive in terms of movement, especially the corsets and long dresses.

Many people then, if they could afford it, needed help dressing.

joyfulmom4
December 1st, 2008, 12:43 PM
I watched this again a week or so ago (my fav movie) and I woudld have loved some of her combs and yes they styles are amazing!!! I so wish we still dressed like back then, but i'd be wear peasant clothes if that was the case :lol:

That's why I have always wanted to do reenacting. I would love to be able to travel back in time for a weekend to dress and live that way, but then return to my regular life. :D

GlennaGirl
December 1st, 2008, 01:46 PM
Here's (http://www.demodecouture.com/hair/index.html) some amazing info on post-Civil War hair. Awesome pictures!

lora410
December 1st, 2008, 01:50 PM
I think that you would find most of the clothes very restrictive in terms of movement, especially the corsets and long dresses.

Many people then, if they could afford it, needed help dressing.


yeah, seeing mammy tighten that corset almost made me pass out. :thud:

lora410
December 1st, 2008, 01:51 PM
That's why I have always wanted to do reenacting. I would love to be able to travel back in time for a weekend to dress and live that way, but then return to my regular life. :D

I also love the Renaissance dresses *swoon* you know the empire gowns?

GlennaGirl
December 1st, 2008, 02:01 PM
I think that you would find most of the clothes very restrictive in terms of movement, especially the corsets and long dresses.

Many people then, if they could afford it, needed help dressing.

It was, but typically for either the very rich or for special occasions. Day dress was still restrictive compared to today--women often wore corsets during the day to "keep their waists small," believing that constantly pinching them in made them eventually stay that way--but all the flounces and the underpinnings (like hoops or skirts) and overpinnings (like bustles) weren't worn while work-style daily movement was needed. Day dresses were also shorter than fancy dresses (not short-short, but to perhaps the lower part of the ankle, similar to walking dresses). The wider sleeves of the Civil War era and the leg-o-mutton sleeves of the very late 19th century also wouldn't be worn on typical day dresses, or for the somewhat wealthier of the working classes, the sleeves on these dresses would be cut smaller than on formal dresses so as not to get in the way; and you even see women with rolled-up sleeves at that time while they did their chores. And the corsets weren't pulled anywhere near as tightly as they would for a "big evening" or special trip to town.

In farm families and working class families they might not be worn at all for daily business, unless that was a high-profile business such as running a store, where they had to look their best.

Even wealthier people didn't wear such restrictive clothing *all* the time; for instance, the "tea dress," which was much looser, belted and only worn at home.

Almost always, the photos we see of this era are posed. The women in the photos primped literally for hours and often started the night before (curling their hair, etc.) for the photo, and wore their very best, with every underskirt they owned, or the bustle pinned out as far as possible, or the hoops the largest they owned, and the hair pulled as fancily as possible...just like today, when we primp like crazy to have our pictures professionally taken. You'll notice that "realistic" paintings, ones that catch a woman doing day-to-day things, of that era are much looser and more relaxed, often with stray hairs floating about the face where you'd never see that in a comparative photo.

ktani
December 1st, 2008, 02:51 PM
It was, but typically for either the very rich or for special occasions. Day dress was still restrictive compared to today--women often wore corsets during the day to "keep their waists small," believing that constantly pinching them in made them eventually stay that way--but all the flounces and the underpinnings (like hoops or skirts) and overpinnings (like bustles) weren't worn while work-style daily movement was needed. Day dresses were also shorter than fancy dresses (not short-short, but to perhaps the lower part of the ankle, similar to walking dresses). The wider sleeves of the Civil War era and the leg-o-mutton sleeves of the very late 19th century also wouldn't be worn on typical day dresses, or for the somewhat wealthier of the working classes, the sleeves on these dresses would be cut smaller than on formal dresses so as not to get in the way; and you even see women with rolled-up sleeves at that time while they did their chores. And the corsets weren't pulled anywhere near as tightly as they would for a "big evening" or special trip to town.

In farm families and working class families they might not be worn at all for daily business, unless that was a high-profile business such as running a store, where they had to look their best.

Even wealthier people didn't wear such restrictive clothing *all* the time; for instance, the "tea dress," which was much looser, belted and only worn at home.

Almost always, the photos we see of this era are posed. The women in the photos primped literally for hours and often started the night before (curling their hair, etc.) for the photo, and wore their very best, with every underskirt they owned, or the bustle pinned out as far as possible, or the hoops the largest they owned, and the hair pulled as fancily as possible...just like today, when we primp like crazy to have our pictures professionally taken. You'll notice that "realistic" paintings, ones that catch a woman doing day-to-day things, of that era are much looser and more relaxed, often with stray hairs floating about the face where you'd never see that in a comparative photo.

Great info, thanks.

I do realize that most day wear was not that restrictive but by our standards today, even the lighter clothes they wore would be, IMO.

My grandmother wore a corset. She came to Canada in 1910, with my grandfather, just after getting married.

And for years, my mother wore a girdle. I tried to wear a girdle, a long time ago, it gave me stomache cramps, lol.

lora410
December 1st, 2008, 02:54 PM
You know I wore my corset on halloween and I couldn't wait to get the sucker off. http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f393/loralie1981/l_c2e8aa02b45c918112d0bfbf068100e1.jpg

Boots
December 1st, 2008, 07:03 PM
My favorite movie! The book is wonderful. I want to read the sequel though I hear it's not great.

I wore a corset for my wedding and I fainted during a fitting. I demanded they let it out- I dudn't want to be skinny yet unconscience. My gown had black satin ribon corseting up the back.

ktani
December 1st, 2008, 07:13 PM
My favorite movie! The book is wonderful. I want to read the sequel though I hear it's not great.

Margaret Mitchell was a great writer IMO. How someone else got the rights and wrote a sequel is a sacriledge to me. I was and am appalled.

To me, even in this age of Halloween 100 lol, it is like somone continuing Picasso's Blue period and doing Violet, for the hell of it, just to make money.

I saw part of the sequel TV movie, it sucked, big time!

Boots
December 1st, 2008, 07:43 PM
Margaret Mitchell was a great writer IMO. How someone else got the rights and wrote a sequel is a sacriledge to me. I was and am appalled.

To me, even in this age of Halloween 100 lol, it is like somone continuing Picasso's Blue period and doing Violet, for the hell of it, just to make money.

I saw part of the sequel TV movie, it sucked, big time!

I know what you mean; I just love the characters so much that I want the story to continue. I am afraid reading a bad sequel will ruin the exoerience for me though, or at least put a damper on it. I saw that movie for the first time as a child with my great aunts, and they told a story about going to see it in the theatre as teenage girls. That movie always brings back that memory.

ktani
December 1st, 2008, 07:55 PM
I know what you mean; I just love the characters so much that I want the story to continue. I am afraid reading a bad sequel will ruin the exoerience for me though, or at least put a damper on it. I saw that movie for the first time as a child with my great aunts, and they told a story about going to see it in the theatre as teenage girls. That movie always brings back that memory.

See or read the sequel, but remember, it has nothing to do with Gone With The Wind, lol, absolutely nothing, lol.