1958 McCall's: Fabric and cutting

I'm in Nebraska and went fabric shopping for my dress almost first thing. The idea was to get a floral print that was very seasonal but could also be formal (if I ever get the chance to attend something semi-formal). I found a brilliant lilac and blue small floral at Joann in a poly (of course) that was a very light satin, but there wasn't enough. I went to Hancock's and Hobby Lobby but hated everything and was very upset. I went back to Joann the next day after calming down and got a very large print fuchsia and purple floral on a peach/ivory back. I've grown to really like it and am excited about it.



I cut the dress at the end of last week and began the bodice front. The material frays like crazy (since I'm doing seam finishes, not surging)and I was in no mood so I only got the front bodice done. Shame on me. Then, in the middle of the night some time after I realized that on my shoulder alteration I taped the yoke and the bodice together at the cut line, not the seam allowance. I don't think this should make a huge difference, at least in this case, but I'm still a little frustrated at myself for doing it wrong.



I will hopefully get more done today. I was going to work on it yesterday night for a long bit, but got a migraine, and while I do have a Rx now that knocks me out for an hour and it's gone I wasn't in the mood afterward.

New Project: 1958 McCall's

I trace a lot of the vintage patterns from the costume shop, and just finished making a 1940s summer dress at the beginning of May, but alas alack I have no pictures of the process or the product! I know, I am a bad blogger. But now I have a new pattern that I absolutely adore!



Introducing this McCall's 1958 dress with gathered front and back bodices into neck and waist yokes with an optional gathered front skirt. The dress also includs bodice and skirt stays, onto which the gathers are seamed. I'm blessed with having the measurements of a vintage size 12 in the bust and waist. As far as hips are concerned...let's just say it's best to go for full skirts, unless I want to alter.

But I alter anyway! I'm VERY tall AND lopsided (from years of holding babies on only one side) and so if I so choose I can alter my patterns for those variations. As it so happens I've spent the week altering the bodice of this pattern for my sloped left shoulder and square right shoulder, which alterations I'll blog you through when I have the time. I have also lengthened the bodice and plan on splicing my skirt sloper (including my high left hip) with the pattern.

I am leaving for Nebraska on Sunday and so will make the dress over the three weeks I am in Corn Husker land. The deadline I am giving myself is August 7th, my first Sunday back in Provo, when I will WOW my ward with my impeccable dress. Fabric is yet to be determined, but I'm thinking the pale blue fabric of Titania's cape from the Utah Shakespeare Festival or a flowy floral. Either way the fashion fabric will be rather chiffony so the dress will needs be lined, what joy.

I plan on constructing this dress using all my fashion techniques and am very excited to have the time to do it! Huzzah! Stay posted!

Jane Eyre

Some avid Shakespeare attendees I have found develop an abhorrence for Hamlet. Everyone does Hamlet and it's a very long and arduous play. I knew a woman who refused to see the David Tennant Hamlet at the RCS because she was so over Hamlet. I couldn't imagine this! Every Hamlet is new! and David Tennant! Although Hamlet is not my favorite, so I might have skipped it as well had I not been such a Tennant fan, but we're not going to talk about Shakespeare. We're going to talk about Bronte!

With the recent movie Jane Eyre being the 4th in fifteen years I think that some of us have become a little weary of this particular piece, but not me! It was hard for me to imagine a better telling than the most recent BBC production starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. At four hours it included everything I loved and gave a new life to the story.

When I heard about the new version I was skeptical at first. The Jane, played by Mia Wasikowska, did not thrill me as she was nothing special in Alice in Wonderland. Rochester looked hunky, but I was concerned that he was barely ten years older than Jane, not close to twenty. The costumes of course (by Oscar winning designer Michael O'Connor) were going to be a win, but even after watching clips online I was unsure about casting and was interested to know how this version could be different or noteworthy among the so many others.

In truth you can't really change Jane Eyre up too much. This version did change the order of things a bit, but that was perhaps the most novel thing about the actual story line, but that was the best part! This version went back to some of the essentials in the book that I feel have been missing from other versions, while updating it enough to make it palatable for the audience. Case in point: the after the wedding scene.

In the Timothy Dalton version this scene is followed faithfully with Rochester going NUTS and throwing the biggest tantrum ever, as the literary Rochester does.
In the Toby Stephens version this scene is split up into memories of Rochester in Jane's room in less than vertical positions.
In the newest version the essence of the book, Jane and Rochester's absolute defeat, is portrayed beautifully, violently on Rochester's side, but without turning the audience off to him. It was just absolutely breathtaking.

Other scenes of note are of course after the fire, when Rochester falls off his horse, and the proposal. The very former was again, breathtaking.

Wasikowska's performance was better than I'd ever hoped. Again, the script returned to the book in such a way that the real, feisty but careful Jane was revealed. I was so pleasantly surprised by her performance. Michael Fassbender was fantastic, and attractive in such a peculiar way that while not being ugly enough for Rochester (no man yet cast has been) had a strange look about him that wasn't entirely knock you over attractive. His portrayal of Rochester I feel was new enough and lovable.

Other performances of note were Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax and a never looking better Jamie Bell as St. John (whom, opposite of Rochester, has never been cast handsome enough).

The costumes were perfect to distraction. The accuracy in the women's wear was exhaustive, even down to the little known flap on the front of Jane's chemise to prevent any chance that her corset might be seen. The material choices in the menswear were especially interesting as Rochester's evening ensemble seemed to be some sort of polished cotton. In general Rochester was costumed impeccably, if not mildly stylized and slender. Set in the 40s when the book was written Rochester had a fly front pair of pants, something I'll have to research. I don't doubt O'Connor found research for this. Down to the collars and bustles (not to be confused with the 1870s usage) the costumes were spectacular.

As was the hair and make up. Oh man, so great, and pristine.

New Wedding Dress Designs

As you may or may not know, I love to design wedding dresses. My dresses are different because my religion adheres to certain modesty standards that heavily influence what women wear. The common dresses Mormon women wear all have princess seams, cap sleeves and square necklines. I abhor these dresses and try to design different, yet classic dresses that aren't the same top with different bottoms. It's my goal that my designs never make it necessary for women to fiddle, pin or tug at their dress to make it modest enough. Some day I hope to have my own boutique in London, but for now my designs are only on paper.

I love to design wedding dresses because I love the influence what you wear has on how you feel and think about yourself. I think that this is no more prevalent than on a woman's wedding day when she's the center of attention. I'll never forget when one of my actresses told me she'd never felt prettier than when she was all done up in the (black) wedding dress I'd designed for the play she was starring in.

And so, without further ado, some new designs. Many of these designs are very much inspired, if not copied from vintage patterns of the 50s and 60s, either altered for color, length or modesty. Others are also entirely of my own design. You only get 5 of my favorite for now. Check out my facebook page for the rest.



This dress is a 50s pattern that I made full length in white with a slightly higher neckline.



A friend has been wanting me to design a dress for her for a while. she said she loves lace and beading, so here it what she gets. This is a vintage pattern, early 60s I think, with added embellishments. What I love about vintage dresses is that they have long sleeves! Too many Mormon brides freeze at winter weddings, or cover up their dresses with giant fur capes. This dress however, could also be short sleeved.


I've always loved Grace Kelly. I didn't have her in mind when I designed this dress using only the major silhouette as inspiration, but it's undoubtedly Grace Kelly-esque.



This design is entirely my own. It has a moire top with bias chiffon trim at the neck. The waist band is out of bugle beads and the skirt is a plain fabric. This if for a classic, but unique bride.



This is another design that's all my own and one of my favorites. There is a severe lack of simpler, sleeker skirts in Mormon wedding-dom so this and the previous dress are an answer to that. This dress reminds me of the 40s and would ideally be in some sort of spotted silk.

PS. All my designs would have pockets!!!

Wishlist: Knit Wool

http://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Merchant_Id=1&Section_Id=490&Product_Id=1469942&Parent_Id=1034&default_color=BLUE&sort_by=§ioncolor=§ionsize=#

I've been craving knit wool for about a semester now. I would DIE for this skirt. Oh Brooks Brothers, how you tease me with your Full Milano Pleated skirt. 'Bet you 20 bucks it'd be too short on me. Worst part, I'm not sure I know how to make that skirt! Horror of horrors! I've never sewn on knits before (double needle?) and are those pleats heat or chemically set? Pleating board for sure. Someday...

Jane Eyres

With the upcoming March 2011 release of a NEW Jane Eyre I thought I'd review the past versions. To some outside the costume drama circles it might seem strange or ridiculous that there are so many versions of the same story, but those in the know know that British literature lends itself to wonderfully different interpretations. Sadly, not all interpretations are created equal. If you'll permit me I'll now give you my opinions about five versions and what I think of what I've seen of the new Jane Eyre.


Ok, so truth be told the first two reviews are going to be rather short and broad b/c I just watched the pivotal scenes on Netflix. First up, Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine in the 1943 movie. By pivotal scenes I mean the proposal and the reunion. I watched a few more from this version because I didn't mind it too much, but here are my impressions, characterization wise, costume wise, production wise and overall wise.
Characterization: Run of the mill. You'll find with most Jane Eyres that Jane, b/c she's supposedly so plain and small, is played very subdued and deadpan. Rochester was pretty similar, VERY deadpan. There was very little fire and passion, but Welles made up for it with his RIDICULOUSLY sexy voice. He was rather captivating but she was nothing to scream about, too beautiful.
Costumes: Run of the mill. Made in 1943 the costumes had a very 40s feel to them, mostly in the menswear (what's with normal pointed collars? I should NOT see Rochester's neck, weird). Jane's hair was beautiful in a perfect, subdued, coming out of the 30s, into the 40s, looking historical sort of way. The costumes were more 1840s than 1830s which is when the novel is set (written in the 40s, tells the story of ten years prior).
Production: What you'd expect of a 1940s romance, very Casablanca. Lots of maudlin shots of the heroine with glistening tears and the man looking brooding.
Overall: It seemed like a pretty straight interpretation of the novel, with exact lines from the book. It really had the subdued feel of a 40s movie.


Oh William Hurt. I thought I'd watched bits of this on Netflix but it's not on Instant Play, so maybe it used to be, or maybe I actually had it sent to the house, I don't know. I barely remember it though...For being a Zeffirelli you'd think it would have made more of an impression, but it didn't. So, Rochester played by William Hurt, Jane by Charlotte Gainsbourgh, from 1996. Rochester was more passionate than Welles, but I remember thinking he wasn't as passionate as real Rochester. Gainsbourgh as Jane I do remember, totally underwhelming. Yes, Jane is poor, obscure, plain and little, but she's NOT soulless and heartless. Jane's written witty and clever and refreshing for Rochester. Gainsbrough was completely lifeless. The proposal scene was painful. I can't remember enough else to give you a good review about anything else.


Jane Eyre '97. Rochester=Ciarin Hinds, Jane= Samantha Morton. This version tried to be sufficiently moody.
Characterization: Rochester was temperamental, probably the closest to the book as any of the Rochesters so far. Hinds, whom I adore in Persuasion and other films, groused about and had a mustache and was probably ugly enough for Rochester, but lacked the lovableness that one gains for him as the novel progresses. Samantha Morton. Not. a. fan. I always feel like she needs to sniff her nose to keep it from dripping. She plays Jane soft spoken and timid. I watched this one awhile ago so I can't remember much else. Yes I am prejudiced against the woman, but I don't remember much to dissuade my prejudice.
Costumes: Fine, again, set further back in the 1840s. I remember Rochester being a little too big, like his silhouettes didn't do it for me. Jane was plainly dressed of course, and I don't remember enough petticoats. One could argue this was a choice to show her reduced circumstances. Nothing to write home about.
Production: Dark, bleak, very Bronte.
Overall: Not a fan. At about 100 minutes (which all the versions have roughly been thus far) it rushes a great story. I hate to be away from Rochester too, but rushing their separation is a disservice to Jane's development.


Alright! Here we go. I read Jane Eyre in 10th grade and loved it. After I read it I went straight out and rented this version, and got it for my subsequent Christmas. Timothy Dalton is Rochester, Zelah Clarke is Jane, 1983. I love this version, it was my favorite for a couple of years.
Characterization: Rochester is very passionate but lovable. Of course Timothy Dalton is no where near ugly enough, or ugly at all, to play Rochester, which truth be told we are all grateful for. He's tall and dark and has his growly Welsh baritone. His characterization is very changeable and I feel like the closest to the book. Zelah Clarke as Jane switches between looking and seeming 19 and looking and seeming much older, which I think is a hallmark of Jane. She's sharp like she is in the book and when called for she's just as passionate as Rochester. I think she's also the most appropriate portrayal of the novel's Jane.
Costumes: Set in the 1830s! Yes! I have nothing against setting the film in the 40s because the costumes are all together more palatable for the modern palette, but I can't help but love the 30s and this version has done them up right. Rochester's costumes are a little dated but I love that his neck is pasty white (b/c it really never would have seen the light of day. Jane's costumes, while plain and grey are the perfect examples of 1830s gigot sleeves. Her collars are adorable and everything is piped! The hair is also fantastically 30s with many a style a la Chinoise in the house party.
Production: Overall the production value was rather poor. The lighting was awkward or dark, the faces needed powdering desperately and the overall film quality was rather awful but the locations were good and the set dressings very appropriate.
Overall this is my second favorite Jane Eyre. It is probably the truest to the book in my mind with its characterizations, lines and storytelling. It is also something like 4 hours so it really tells the story like it should. The supporting characters are lovely. If you need to cheat and watch a movie instead of reading the book I'd say this is your best bet.


Oh baby, oh baby. 2006. Rochester=Toby Stephens, Jane=Ruth Wilson. I waited and waited for this version to come to the US on Masterpiece Theatre and I have journal entry after journal entry from the Sundays it was on extolling this version's virtues.
Characterization: Definitely modernized. Rochester is grouchy and changeable, but much more dragged down and worn. With extra pounds of muscle and long curly hair Stephens is of course, again, too beautiful to play Rochester, but again, we don't mind. His Rochester is lovable and vulnerable in a way the others aren't. Scenes and lines have been added pointing to Rochester's dependence on Jane even before he declares his love. The reunion is heart warming and tear jerking. Stephen's Rochester is a man's man while still being absolutely desperately in love. Wilson's Jane is the feistiest and most full of character of any Jane I've seen. She acts a lot from just looks, something I think that is lost in other versions. There's no ignoring that she has a duck face and no chin, making her plain enough for Jane, but she has a beauty, especially with her hair down, that makes sure we like her. The relationship between the two really develops and you understand why they are drawn together.
Costumes: 1840s, great. I LOVE Rochester in this one, mostly because Stephens put on so much muscle weight that is excellently shown off by his tight breeches and high boots. Jane's costumes are appropriately plain, but well fitting. The house party's costumes are what there is to scream about. I just love them all.
Production: Excellent, of course. The modern BBC productions are unparalleled. The locations were breathtaking, the set dressing meticulous and the attention to detail was greatly appreciated. The supporting characters, with their own personalities and new characterizations and scenes were enjoyable and made our time away from Jane and Rochester bearable.
Overall: My favorite, duh. It is a very modern version. Time has been played with, esp with the after the wedding flashbacks. I don't mind it. This version is a lot more smoochy than any others. I don't mind. At four glorious hours this version also takes its time, but doesn't dwell too much with little Jane, a vital portion of the story I know, but once you've read it you don't need the entire back story on film. I just love this version for all its little extra touches which I feel don't take away from the story or the original novel.


http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/janeeyre/
Alright, new Jane Eyre. Due out March 2011 starring Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska. Fassbender's been in 300 and other things I haven't seen. Of German/Irish decent he sure looks like a hunk. Mia Wasikowska (say that 3 times fast) was Alice in Alice in Wonderland. I was underwhelmed by her in that one, let's hope she brings more to the table with this one.
Characterization: Fassbender's 33 in real life, compared to Wasikowska's 21 I don't think the difference is enough, but there you go. I'm not going to complain TOO too much, b/c I mean, look at Fassbender, yum. Meanwhile, how weird is it that Wasikowska's younger than me? Weird. Anyway, moving on. Rochester looks rather brooding, but not dark enough. We'll see if Jane falls into the timidity, no personality trap. Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax is exciting!
Costumes: By Michael O'Connor!! of Oscar winning "The Duchess" fame! So excited. Again, set in the more palatable 1840s these costumes look GORGEOUS! Jane's look quite fancier than any I've seen, but I'm not one to say O'Connor nay for dressing her mildly above her station. The striped dresses alone of Jane and Blanche are enough for me. Also, watch the trailer above and checkout the shot at 1.36, yum yum Rochester's pants w/ his skinny skinny waist. Also, he rides that horse.
Production: Looks pretty great, big budget stuff.
Overall: I'm excited. The trailer claims that it's a bold new look at the novel. From the trailer I see nothing that's especially different from any other version. If they're playing up the Gothic, Romantic and horrific elements of the story I'd say that's slightly new, but not unheard of. Jane Eyre is a creepy, scary, unsavory story with fires, insanity, disfigurement and creepy laughs. It looks to me like this one might just capitalize on this more than others. I'm excited to see Sally Hawkins and Jamie Bell again, and I'm sure I'll have to buy this one.

Essentials for MY wardrobe

My friend Anjali asked me to compose an entry reviewing the essentials of a wardrobe. I was thinking about this and decided that I’d review the essentials for MY current (and someday my dream wardrobe) because your style is not my style and my style is not your style (but maybe it should be).

Let's start with the tops:
I’m absolutely currently in LOVE with the fact that trends are leaning on the big and baggy side so MY essential tops include my Gap t-shirts. I have two styles that I love and have multiples of, my navy and blue horizontal striped bracelet length long T and my two long batwing Tshirts. LOVE them! With my scrawny frame I swim in them and love it!
I also adore my New York and Co blue and white striped man’s style shirt. It has a self belt but I’ve stopped using it. I only define my waist on Sundays .

Bottoms: Gap chinos in brushed cotton. Adore them, wearing them right now. They are perfect now that the weather has turned and denim is so frigid. Mine are wide legged and fall from my rather large and angular hips. They’re soft and oh so casual.
When I want to look a little more feminine with my larger tops I wear my can’t live without them grey pants (of which I have two in twill and one in denim, all from the Gap). I buy my grey pants slim cut because they go with anything and define my legs when I leave my torso more ambiguous.
Wool grey pencil skirt: goes with brown or black neutral, I made it and it fits me perfectly. It's got a nipped in waist and looks great with my batwing tshirts.

Feet:
Trouser socks from Banana Republic in neutrals (including greys and browns) and more fun colors (pink and blue). I’m dying for a pair in red but have yet to find them.
Brogued wingtips from Jones Boot Co in Soho (not strictly a Soho store, but where I got mine). Wearing them right now. I need to polish them desperately. As you may or may not have been able to tell, I am in love with menswear for women and this new rash of mens dress shoes for women is too much! I want more pairs of course, but for now I settle for my lovely wingtips.
Keds: I’m on my third pair in a year. I started with banana yellow and turquoise, wore those out in London and now am on to pink, not as versatile as the yellow, but lovely all the same. I love to wear them with my pink trouser socks. I want red and navy real bad, but I just buy the ones that are on sale.
Hunter Wellingtons: If you’re going to buy a rain boot buy a REAL rain boot. I got pea green wellies last year for Christmas and love them so much. I wear them all the time b/c I’m too lazy to tie my shoes.
Minnetonkas: moccasins. My home teachers got me a pair for my birthday last year from the DI. Mine have soft soles so I change into them when I get to work most days. They are a dream. The company has so many styles. Mine are the ankle fringe zip up the back variety.
Classy brown heels: mine are suede 4” Steve Maddens, reminiscent of the 50s opera pump.

Outerwear:
Cardigans, get them, get them now. I have oh so many. I’m pretty peeved however that I’ve lost my navy ribbed cardi with pea green and ivory details. Boo. I do however still have and wear VERY often my grey Gap cardi with homey cabinesque knit detail. It has pockets in the front. I’m a HUGE advocate for patch pockets in my cardis.
Raincoat. I used an amazing Old Navy khaki trench for the past 6 years until I decided to leave in London to save on case space, but don’t you fret! I bought an amazing Kelly green trench in Stratford-Upon-Avov (b/c you go to the dep’t stores when you’re Shakespeare’d out).
Winter coat: Wool. All I have to say is wool. Wool is my favorite textile and your winter coat should be mostly wool. I’m not talking your North Face or your skiing jacket, but your proper, stylish winter coat. You may or may not have seen mine. It is orange. It has a pleated skirt, is double breasted and is awesome. Wool, and poly and nylon. Nylon is always a nice addition in moderation to make your outerwear last longer.
Pashminas/shawls/scarfs/Cashmeres: Call them what you will, they are ever so handy and lovely and SUCH a classy way to keep warm when church is absolutely freezing. I got 3 amazing Indian imports at Portabello road, proper and beautiful wool giants. They are a bit scratchy, but when I can’t afford the absolute BEST cashmere and we’re all so used to the rayon blends you get domestically it’s no surprise.

Accessories:
Pearls: of the stud and necklace variety
Drop earrings:just a little dangle. My favorite pairs are a princess diamond and a tear drop Forget-Me-Not from Kew Gardens
Golden fly Egyptian bracelet from Banana, or at least that's what it reminds me of. I really thing it's a recast of what was probably a 50s mimic of a golden fly motif.
A brooch: I have a long champagne colored gold and crystal brooch I got from Portabello Road. I pin my shawls with it.

When I get around to it I might add pictures. I found an amazing store I need to acquaint you with b/c it possesses my ideal essentials by way of leather and outerwear.