How Accurate was Buzzfeed? Belle

Eugene Lee Yang via youtube.com | Disney

The Clues

First: "In the opening song, Belle says 'bonjour' to the townspeople, and in 'Be Our Guest,' Lumiere says, 'After all, Miss, this is France.'"  It might be news to some but French is the official language of quite a few countries -- Belgium and Luxemborg being great examples.  Lumiere pins this down pretty firmly for us, thankfully.

"When Cogsworth is giving Belle a tour of the castle, he describes the architecture as the 'unusual Rococo design,' and 'this is yet another example of the late Neoclassic Baroque period.' This dates the film to the 17th–18th century."

As discussed in previous installments, Disney has a habit of making Anachronism Stew; be it the Genie's gags or Prince Phillip's out of place egalitarianism.  In this case, it's an anthropomorphic clock pointing out Rococo and Neoclassical architecture.  This is a big blunder that film and television often makes - it's like setting a drama during one of the crusades and having all of the characters refer to it as a "crusade".  People in that time and place would not have called it such; it's a label the present gives to past periods of art, architecture, history, etc.  Cogsworth wouldn't have known what to call the different architectural styles.  (Incidentally people of the time would have referred to the crusade as "taking up the cross"... I'm sure you were just dying to know).

Further, the dialogue itself gibberish.  Here's an excerpt from the script:

COGSWORTH:    As you can see, the pseudo facade was stripped away to reveal a
              minimalist rococo design.  Note the unusual inverted vaulted
              ceilings.  This is yet another example of the neo-classic baroque
              period, and as I always say, if it's not baroque, don't fix it!
              Ha ha ha. Now then, where was I? (He turns to find the heads of
              the SUITS OF ARMOR have turned to follow BELLE.) As you were!
              (They all snap back to face forward.)  Now, if I may draw your
              attention to the flying buttresses above the--mademoiselle?

A facade refers to the exterior of a building, not the interior.  A "psuedo facade" makes even less sense unless they were attempting to make it look like there was a building within a building, which we can clearly see they had no reason to do in a hallway.  Rococo, as a note, is nothing remotely comparable to minimalism.  Rococo art was a response to the strict form and symmetry of the Baroque period; it included very ornate, asymmetrical elements with lots of flourishes and curves, floral designs, gold lacquer, and pastel colors. It's just about the complete opposite of minimalism.

There's also the "unusual" inverted vaulted ceilings.  Vaulted ceilings were used often in Romanesque and Gothic architecture long preceding the Baroque style; they wouldn't have been new or even that unusual. And, there is no such thing as "Neo-Classic Baroque." There is either Neo-classicism or Baroque and they are very different movements.

"Stripping away to reveal" usually means you took away an element to show what was there originally.  Rococo was an 18th century style of art; in order for Cogsworth's statement to be true the interior would have to have been built in the 1700's with the story taking place a long time after that.  This is a problem because generally building palaces takes a long time, sometimes spanning generations.  Unless the story is taking place much later than the 18th century, this would be extremely difficult to accomplish.

If the story taking place is set in the later half of the 1700's, all of this Baroque, "Neoclassical", or Rococo babble would have to hinge on a castle, or at least it's interior, being built within the last five to ten years.  Of course we know that's not possible since the prince and his entire household has been under a curse for at least that amount of time.  The name-dropping of styles is incorrect regardless as the castle's exterior is based, believe it or not, on Château de Chambord: a French Renaissance château built for King Francis I between 1519-1547.  No, really, Glen Keane said so himself.

What might have been a better reference was the collection of art in the background from the 17th and mid-18th centuries.  Paintings such as Girl with a Pearl Earring (Vermeer, 1665) and The Swing (Fragonard, 1767) were seen throughout the film dating the story to be mid-to-late 1700's -- though that also requires us to ignore the probable Anachronism Stew.

Lastly, "The fact that the Beast is a prince means that the story took place when there was still aristocracy, before the French Revolution in 1789."  I'm not fighting this one.  This one is legit.

But to be sure we've pinned this down let's refer to the original tale.  La Belle et la Bête was written by the French novelist Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont and published in 1756.  Leprince's version is based on an earlier story written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve (in which Belle is part fairy, part royalty, and had magical powers).  Leprince describes Belle more like Cinderella; she has two wicked (but beautiful) older sisters who treat her like a servant.  Unlike the Disney version, the Beast is cursed arbitrarily by an evil fairy and not because he had a bad attitude.  He's actually quite hospitable and generous from the beginning of the story; he treats Belle lavishly and declares himself to be her servant the moment she steps in his palace, asking her at the end of each night to marry him.  Of course, true to form, that doesn't mean a damn thing to our heroine who envisions a much more attractive prince in her dreams.  In the original tale it's Belle who sees something like character development; in Disney's version it's the Beast.

TLDR: For argument's sake, let's place this story in provincial France somewhere between 1750 and 1760 but because of the curse we're going to focus on fashion trends from 1730 to 1750.

The Background

As a response to the Fronde Rebellion Louis XIV  sought to end feudalism and create an absolute, divine-right monarchy in France.  He rebuilt his father's former hunting lodge into the Palace of Versailles as a centralized location for government, compelling the nobility to live there under his scrutiny.  Louis XIV systematized life at Versailles in a way that emphasized his divine status and forced the aristocracy into a role of cult-like subordination.  Louis XIV transformed extremely trivial functions into marks of prestige.  Nearly every gesture performed by the King - be it taking off his slippers or washing his hands - became sacred rites where the nobility functioned as both spectators and officiants.  These "imaginary compensations" (as remarked by Jean-Marie Apostolidès) created an intensely competitive environment among the nobles who seemed entirely oblivious to their actual loss of power.  To further underline the King's immense power and his death-grip on the dispensation of prestige, Louis XIV passed laws in which only specific chosen courtiers were allowed wear certain items of clothing.  It is for this reason that otherwise entirely superficial emblems and fashions became real, concrete measures of one's success or failure.  Appearance was quite literally everything.

Versailles underwent huge renovations commissioned by Louis XV.  The transformation became exorbitantly expensive and were not helped by the wars Louis XV waged with neighboring countries.  Renovations to Versailles continued under the reign of Louis XVI who also expanded the military, engaged in the Seven Year's War, and openly supported the American Revolution.  These military efforts, along with the extravagant lifestyle of an upper class mad to "keep up with the Joneses", drove France towards bankruptcy.  

France's predominantly agriculture-based economy had kept the country afloat for centuries while her neighbors faced financial collapse.  However the overwhelming majority of France were too poor and too heavily taxed to support any form of consumer base.  This lead to a virtually non-existent trade economy.  To compensate, France exploited it's only resource, driving the cost of food way up.  By the late 1700's an estimated ninety percent of French peasantry lived at or below the subsistence level.  In the context of La Belle et la Bête it's no surprise that Belle's father, a merchant, quickly went bankrupt and reduced them to laboring on a farm.

Caricature of the Third Estate carrying the First Estate (clergy) 

and the Second Estate (nobility) on its back via Wikipedia

Several strove to bring about reforms based on the ideals of the Enlightenment.  Jacques Necker, a foreigner and General of Finance, urged Louis XVI to do away with the taille, or tax on the peasant/non-noble class, rightly arguing that the high taxes on the peasants were unsustainable.  As an alternative, Necker suggested the tax exemptions be reduced for the clerical and noble classes.  Not surprisingly, these notions very unpopular with the King's ministers.  In the end the ministers pressured Louis XVI not to make the reforms and had Necker dismissed from his position.  

The Foreign Minister, Comte de Vergennes, suggested Louis appoint Charles Alexandre de Calonne to be appointed as Minister of Finance.  Calonne spent liberally until the gravity of France's debt settled in.  He too suggested a tax reform that would lift restrictions on free trade while placing higher taxes on landowners, nobility, and clergy.  In response, Calonne was blamed for somehow being responsible for the whole mess and was exiled shortly after presenting his proposal.  Calonne, an amazingly unpopular man, was apparently also very spiteful; not long after he left France he began to support budding revolutionaries.  

The Dress

The first half of the 18th century saw a more rounded front for corsets than previous periods instead of the boxier corsets of the past.  Necklines were square and in the later half of the century bones were placed across the top of the corset to maintain a rigid neckline.  The bottom of a corset was cut into tassets, allowing the corset to spread over the hip in the same way one cuts a vent into cloth.   A triangular busk was inserted in the front and a pointed stomacher was installed to emphasize a smaller waistline.

Stomacher, France, 1700–1750 via Wikipedia

Skirts were also propped up by different types of supports. A side hoop (or a panier in costume making) was a framework sewn into an underskirt designed to keep the back and front flat while extending the hips dramatically outward.  This created a silhouette where the hips were three times the width of the waist.  A slightly less dramatic version was a pocket hoop: a small bustle-like hip cage stitched into a petticoat to keep it in place.  Often they were anchored by the installation of pockets for the hands or other items a lady should like to carry with her.  Hip pads performed a similar function to pocket hoops but were much smaller and shrank as the century stretched on.  One's status in life dictated which support was used: panier for the lady, pocket hoop for the merchant's wife, and pad for the maid.

Hoop petticoat or pannier, English, 1750-80. Plain-woven linen and cane via Wikipedia

At the beginning of the 18th century mature women wore somber colors while younger women wore brighter colors.  Both would be of solid colored silks with very little ornamentation.  Soon lace trim, ribbons, bows, lacing, and rosettes became popular.  Solids were replaced with bold patterns.  Botanical, especially floral, motifs were often embroidered to gowns and stomachers.  Stripes were particularly en vogue mid-century and were set to run in all different directions from the body to trim.  Brocades and blends of wool, silk, and linen were commonly used but Indian calico (chintz) was considered the most desirable.

Formal dress consisted of the stiff-bodiced gown called a mantua.  This dress featured elbow-length, cuffed sleeves with a skirt usually drawn back over the hips to display a decorative petticoat beneath. Starting around 1710, the formerly long trained mantua became pinned up the back and constructed so that the exposed "reverse" side the proper face of the fabric or embroidery.  This became almost exclusive to court dress by mid-1700's.

Another well known style of dress was the robe à la française or sack back gown. This started as an informal gown, with fabric at the back arranged in box pleats.  The pleats would fall loose from shoulder to the floor forming a short train.  The sack back gown often sported iconic scalloped ruffled elbow-length sleeves, which were worn with separate frills called engageantes.  

Woman's robe à la française, c. 1760 via Wikipedia

Skirts were usually attached to the bodice.  Either the mantua or the sack back gown could be closed in front (a "round gown") or opened in an "A" at the front of the dress over a decorative petticoat.  Between 1750 and 1780 the edges of the skirt would be decorated.  The bodice may have also been opened over a decorative stomacher.

Toward the end of the period a lace or linen kerchief called a fichu was worn to cover the low neckline.  The fichu might have been decorated with ribbons, flowers, and jewels adorning the lace. Strings of pearls, ribbons, or lace frills were often worn high on the neck which became popular around 1730.  The high curved heel made its first appearance around the 1720's.  These shoes ditched the square toe of the last century in favor of a pointed one.

The 18th century was the first century to see cosmetics become the distinctive costume of the elite.  The excess of Louis XV's court encouraged an unnatural cosmetic style: thick layers of white face paint with vivid rouged cheeks popular to both men and women (though the use of makeup for men had begun to decline by 1760).  Because beauty was considered equivalent to one's power and influence the whiteness of one's skin was vital.  Blanc paint was applied in thick layers over the face, neck, and shoulders in an attempt to hide blemishes and aging.  The face paint was made of a variety of ingredients depending upon the price point of the purchaser: bismuth and vinegar, lead chalk, or aluminum sulfate mixed with oil.  The whiteness of one's skin was so desired that some accented the veins in their necks and chests with blue paint.  Both the use and sale of blanc, parasols, and hats spiked in this time frame.

Flushed, red cheeks were the prima symbol of youth and beauty and to that end rouge was applied.  Rouge was usually made of mercuric sulfide (vermilion) or red lead.  Some rouge recipes called for the use of safflowers, saffron, sandalwood, brazilwood, and wood resins.  The most valuable rouge was made from cochineal insects - carmine, a dye still used in food and lipstick today.

Rouge was not often applied to the lips, however.  Almond oil and goose grease were used as a balm to keep lips smooth and shiny.  If a lady wished to color her lips she might have used a vinegar or alcohol which worked by irritating the skin, causing a red discoloration.  A red pomade had made it onto the market by mid-1700's and was even sometimes sold in stick form.

False beauty spots, mouches, were used by women and some men.  Mouches were made of black silk and glued onto the face as a way of providing contrast for the white face paint.  The position of the mouche on the face indicated a style of flirtation, directly informing the observer of the tastes of the wearer.  A mouche may have been small or as large as an inch and a half in diameter and sometimes were arranged in dotted shapes.

Facial hair was so discouraged that hair removal creams were used to create longer foreheads and thin eyebrows.  Plucking the eyebrow became very popular in the 18th century and often men and women would re-paint the eyebrows in black with burnt cork or berry juice.

A truly white haired wig was rare as it was hard to produce, and expensive, becoming the symbol of the most elite.  White and gray powders were much more common and safer for coloring wigs than hair dyes.

Perfume was a necessity - as were most scented potpourri and incense - as most eschewed bathing.  It was believed submerging one's body in water might damage the internal organs.  Every cosmetic item was perfumed, even wig powder.  Breath fresheners and even tooth paste came into style in a hurry; although this was primarily fueled by vanity as rotting or stained porcelain teeth were very faux pas.  The practice of washing oneself with perfumed oils took precedence and lead to the modern day vanity space.

If Belle was being hosted by provincial nobility that had fallen at least a decade behind in fashion, it's likely her gowns would have been modeled after those worn by Madame de Pompadour.

Portrait of Madame de Pompadour (1721-1764) via Wikipedia

So how does Buzzfeed compare?

Buzzfeed really cleaned up their resources this time.  The link for "extravagant dresses" lead to an online collection from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  "Tight-fitting corsets" lead to the Kyoto Costume Institute.  Though it's pretty clear that only a cursory glance was afforded to these sources, they are good sources none the less.  The links for "wigs" and "powdered white" both referred to Morag Martin's Selling Beauty: Cosmetics, Commerce, and French Society, 1750–1830, Volume 127, Issue 2 which is a stellar read.

However....

There is a pitfall in referencing the style of one person when you're trying to get a feel for the general tastes of that era.  When you extrapolate from one celebrity you end up blanket-applying their bias and obviously larger-than-life tastes to society at large.  A specific example: Marie Antoinette was a very prominent figure of the late 18th century but since most of her wardrobe was sacked and destroyed after revolutionaries stormed Versailles, almost everything we know about what she wore comes from surviving fashion journals, account books, and a slew of very unflattering cartoons and pornographic pamphlets.  Her iconic looks would have influenced very late 18th century styles besides.  It should also be noted that Marie Antoinette, a native Austrian, did not embody French fashion - she rebelled against it. Please see Caroline Weber's Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution.  For the time frame of this story Madame de Pompadour would have been a much better reference.

And don't ever, ever reference Huffington Post as a scholarly resource, especially when that article only regurgitates a book's summary from Amazon.  FFS!

Let's take a look at what they summarized about this gown: 

Once Belle married the Beast and became part of the aristocracy, she would have worn the styles found in the royal court. Like the styles worn by Marie Antoinette, who lived during this period, women wore extravagant dresses with tight-fitting corsets and exaggerated hips. (Bummer to think about what would’ve happened to Belle and the Beast during the French Revolution, though.)

Well, uninspired as it is, it's true that corsets were worn and hips were exaggerated.  Marie Antoinette doesn't play a part in this however; she didn't make it to court until 1770 and didn't turn up the volume on her personal style until some years later.  Belle would not have immediately worn what was popular anyway, as the curse had completely cut off the castle from society for a decade or more.  It would have taken some months, possibly years for Belle to get her wardrobe back in fashionable order.

Women in 18th-century France wore their hair in huge, elaborate hairdos. The bouffants could be as long as the face. Often these hairdos were wigs, but whether natural or fake, the hairstyle was powdered white. Women also powdered their faces down to their shoulders. The look was altogether unnatural: The cheeks were heavily rouged, and women wore black silk beauty patches of varying sizes on their faces.

These aren't necessarily wrong statements, so much as they are inaccurate.  French women didn't wear the huge, towering hairstyles burned into popular memory for most of the century.  Marie Antoinette herself wore her hair in the style of Madame de Pompadour (the style called, not surprisingly, the pompadour) for the first few years of her reign, adapting the large pouf in 1774.  Also it's bad form not to at least link a description for a bouffant if you don't bother explaining what that is to a modern audience.

The costume they presented isn't their worst.  True, it would never fly in a large scale production  but as a proof of concept I guess it's slightly ahead of Halloween Express in terms of accuracy.  Here's where they went wrong:

The skirt is not attached to the bodice.  This is most evident in the shots where she is seen moving, where the bodice visibly lifts up and off the skirt displaying the waist band beneath.  More importantly the skirt is too limp for the look they're attempting to achieve.  Belle should be wearing at minimum a pocket hoop which would extend her hips out three-times the width of her waist.  If this is meant to resemble her formal ballgown she needs to be wearing a panier.

Eugene Lee Yang via youtube.com | Disney

The sweetheart neckline is a huge mistake; it would have been square.  Period.  Instead they extended the edges of the angled breast, making the shoulders look weak and loose.  The stomacher has also been appliqued on; this was an item that would have been layered over the corset but beneath the gown.

Eugene Lee Yang via youtube.com | Disney

The sleeves are one long piece of fabric with two bands were the lace is thin.  This was done to give the appearance of multiple layers of engageantes without having to actually spend the time and effort installing them.  This leaves the sleeve looking limp and thin.  The biggest offender however is the pathetic level of ornamentation.  If this dress is supposed to be middle century it should be brightly colored, embroidered, stuffed with frills and pearls and ribbon bows.  We can tell in other shots that a pastel yellow paisley print was used but this shows up so washed out onscreen as to be missed entirely.  That's just poor production planning.

Now, video tends to wash out makeup (and everything else apparently), but the extreme level of artifice described Buzzfeed's resource is no where near evident enough here.  She should have remarkably, unnaturally white skin down to her breasts and shoulders, and rouged cheeks that stand out.

Eugene Lee Yang via youtube.com | Disney

Bottom Line:

Buzzfeed brushed up their act in regards to their resources (except for Huffington Post - I mean, really?!).  But, Buzzfeed disregarded the contents of the story and reached for the first recognizable pop figure they could, thus disregarding an accurate time frame.   Ultimately they failed to construct a gown that reflected their research.

For more accurate examples, check out Buzzfeed's sources from Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Kyoto Costume Institute.  If you're in the mood for more of a pop-culture reference and you want to see late 18th century fashion you might check out Sofia Coppola's 2006 Marie Antoinette.  While not extraordinarily accurate to history plot wise (or even necessarily a good movie) it definitely captured the style and the insecurity of the real figure.

Still from Marie Antoinette | Columbia Pictures Corporation