POTO obsessed, self-taught designer wannabe. Bara and Shoujo average enjoyer.
48 posts
Long Ago, It Seems So Long Ago
Long ago, it seems so long ago
How young and innocent we were
She may not remember me But I remember her....
A references study of Leyendecker's artstyle with my Raoul as the model;///; Hope you love this blonde hunk (He's buff and I make this rule😏)
-
liumingyansgf liked this · 11 months ago
-
ohmygodletmesignup liked this · 1 year ago
-
aleksakonstanta liked this · 1 year ago
-
s-saddie liked this · 2 years ago
-
thewildwestpyro liked this · 2 years ago
-
laura911 liked this · 2 years ago
-
smallchillsposts liked this · 2 years ago
-
piedalchemist liked this · 2 years ago
-
perpetual-pathos liked this · 2 years ago
-
kimwexlers-brownhair liked this · 2 years ago
-
bluemasque86 reblogged this · 2 years ago
-
bluemasque86 liked this · 2 years ago
-
rainblue-art liked this · 2 years ago
-
uhhhhhhmeow reblogged this · 2 years ago
-
blake-thesilly liked this · 2 years ago
-
arcadianambivalence liked this · 2 years ago
-
keetadelopera reblogged this · 2 years ago
-
keetadelopera liked this · 2 years ago
-
literallywhomstdve liked this · 2 years ago
-
pastel-cryptids reblogged this · 2 years ago
More Posts from Keetadelopera
IF THEY WOULD, THEY COULD!
To the left, recent UK made Star Princess bodices worn in the UK and in Asia. To the right, new UK made bodices, also worn in the UK and Asia.
ROW 1: Claire Lyon in the World Tour revival, and Lucy St Louis in the West End revival
ROW 2: Pan Hangwei in Beijing, and Lucy St Louis in the West End revival
ROW 3: Lucy St Louis in the filmed West End fitting, and Son Eun Hye in the Seoul revival
ROW 4: Holly-Anne Hull in the UK Tour revival and early West End revival, and Lily Kerhoas, West End revival
ROW 5: Claire Lyon in the World Tour revival, and Kown Ga Min in the Seoul revival
I am not shaming the individual wearers. They are beautiful and talented and put on the assigned costume. I am also not shaming the individual costume makers. They make what they are asked to make. Chances are some of these bodices were even made by the same costume makers. I am shaming the decision of going from what reflects on Maria Bjørnson's rich design, to stripped-down, half-assed bodices which sometimes doesn't even seem to be properly fitted to the actress.
OK, so the general audience may not notice. But for example in photos it is quite visible. You can do better. The column to the left is a proof you both CAN and HAVE done better. As it is now some fan replicas looks a lot better than the stage equivalent. I'm not sure that's what you want. Just... up the game goddamnit!
"Tonight, I gave you my soul, and I am dead."
I wouldn't say they are all over the place, to be honest. Maria Björnson was really careful with the historical details. Most civilian dresses (in the design) are based on the silhouette of years 1874-6 including the background dresses that are referenced from Harper's bazaar fashion plates.
The Elissa costumes used to look more historical and in line with the 1876 bustle silhouette, but they've been amped up over the years to bell shaped skirts with backdrape. They're opera costumes after all. They don't have to follow the current fashion as long as they stay theatrical.
The reason why the bustle silhouettes seem to all over the place is because the choices made by different productions. Some production goes for a more pronounced bustle, some with something almost natural form but they never mix the silhouette up together (unless they start inheriting costumes from different warehouse and workshop)
TLDR: The concrete style and aesthetic of the late 1870s is there but the bustle size and shape is for the productions and workshops to interpret. Even though I don't agree with 'The costumes in the show are all over the place' but great research, op!
How come the wedding dress for Christine in the musical is somehow based of the bustle era? Which was in late 1880's. But then Wikipedia says its based of 1860s for the musical but now I don't know which to trust?
Always a good question. For this and more I give you the following tag:
THE TIMELINE ISSUE
Long story short, there's many different takes on when the story is set, both in the prologue and the main story. For example, the original cast album said 1861, but the West End stage show said 1881. Meanwhile Hamburg listed 1871, and the Japanese productions "mid 19th century". Today I think they all list "Late 19th century". And that's just the replica versions!
Meanwhile the prologue has been pushed from 1905 to 1911. But then "Love Never Dies" came along and claimed its main story was 1907.
So in short, nothing makes sense.
The 1973 film is the most enjoyable film just for Aramis and Milady alone. The world would be healing faster if we care about this adaptation more
And also, the costuming served cvnt so bad WTF? Yvonne Blake you were so amazing thanks for all the gorgeous works
Maybe it's the Gauloise?
Smurf?😂