"what's bombadil even doing in lotr" he's a transition between the hobbit and lotr! as the hobbits leave the shire they're still having hobbit-like adventures, and the stakes get higher very gradually! bombadil is as ancient as the wide world they're about to face and as full of joy and cheer as the home they're heading out of! he's a big part of the bridge between the two books! fuck!
Hello! Transfem person here. I haven't started HRT yet, but want to procure a 1730s menswear suit (actually decided based on your video). I would prefer not to wait for it if possible, since I don't know when HRT is going to be possible. I am, however, a little concerned about my bust size changing and affecting the fit of the waistcoat. Is that decade usually pretty forgiving in it's tailoring? I am also considering having the upper back tie like some later waistcoats to accommodate if necessary (even if it's not entirely historical), but I figured I would ask you.
Thank you!
Hello! Ooh yay! Not enough people do early 18th century, so I'm delighted to hear that! (Link to the 1730's suit mentioned.)
I think the fit would be affected, yeah. The sides of the waistcoat are easy enough to let out (and we have extant examples of waistcoats with an extra strip of fabric added into the side seam) but the curve of the front is pretty important to how it sits on you. But then, it is fashionable in that era to leave quite a lot of the top portion unbuttoned, so maaaybe you could get away with it not fitting as well, depending on what changed and how much?
Regarding the adjustability of waistcoats, some of the earlier ones actually do have lacing in the back! This red one is an especially nice example, and it's separate all the way to the top.
(c. 1740's, V&A) (Though you also do see ones with the back hacked up and a bunch of ties that were likely added by Victorians for their fancy dress parties.)
The breeches also have adjustable waistbands, of course, so I think the hardest part to alter would be the coat. The back vent is edge to edge, so there's no overlap to sneak a bit more width out of, and letting out the side seams would require re-doing those massive pleats, which were the part I found the most difficult when making my coat. But fortunately those coats were worn open a lot of the time, so even if they're not quite right when buttoned, they should still look ok unbuttoned.
It's very difficult to predict how the fit will be affected, since HRT is different for everyone and things keep changing years down the line. (One comment on this post talks about suddenly getting more breast and hip growth after 7, 12, and 14 years.)
I only have experience from the transmasc side of things, and alas, I very much did outgrow all my old waistcoats and coats. My 1730's suit needs alterations, because the waistcoat is a bit too small, and the coat seams could use a bit of letting out too. (I made those the year after top surgery, but my ribcage kept expanding and my posture improving for quite a while.)
I've been putting it off because alterations are boring :/ My pre-top surgery waistcoats are all way too small across the chest even though material was removed, because my posture was kinda bad and I didn't even notice it, and I expect that the opposite could also lead to the same sort of better posture from more confidence & comfort.
But bodies keep changing forever anyways, even without transitioning. Plenty of cis people can't fit into the things they sewed when they were younger, so we may as well make things to fit us now. Perhaps you could make the suit now, but use a not-too-expensive fabric, and then maybe alter it later, or make a newer and better one with the experience you gained from the first one!
Also I know you specifically said menswear suit, but I want to add the fun fact that women's riding habits in this era looked extremely similar to men's suits!
(Left: Maria Amalia von Habsburg by Franz Joseph Winter, right: Member of the Van der Mersch Family by Cornelis Troost.)
As far as I can tell, the main differences are that the riding habits have a petticoat instead of breeches, and are made to fit over stays.
(Empress Elisabeth Christine in riding costume, unknown artist.)
So similar, in fact, that this portrait of a young lady in a riding habit was misidentified as a young man!
Most of the petticoat is out of frame, but you can still see that it's not beeches, and the stays shape is pretty obvious. Very silly of Sotheby's not to notice!
I have no idea if you're interested in wearing a riding habit, and I'm not sure how difficult it would be to alter the somewhat looser men's coat to fit over stays, but thought I ought to mention it.
this all takes me back to when i was thinking about making 18th c to wear to burns night. those riding habit jackets are yum. great idea to make the first iteration out of something not too expensive. also take more notes than you think, because you will want them for the second one. along with all the "next time i will do xyz instead" thoughts.
The fact that Aziraphale emerges from this flashback
Makes this face
and then with a ginormous gap on the right side of the screen, proceeds to be like "I must call Crowley right now immediately."
Omg thank you for these screens because LOOK AT AZIRAPHALE'S FACE IN THE SECOND ONE
I've seen so many people on here be like oh he was so detached about Crowley being pulled down to Hell but he's distraught as hell thank ye very muchly. He KNOWS nothing good is about to befall someone he cares a lot about.
Oh man. If there's anything we should know by now, it's that 99% of the time, Aziraphale cannot be trusted to tell us how he feels.
"And that was the last I was to see of Crowley for quite some time," Aziraphale narrates to us, calm, neutral. Distracting from the body language that we can see (he immediately goes fully tense)
and hiding from us the fact that he calls out to Crowley in panic twice. Put on headphones, the first one is juuust audible under his line during the above shot. The second one doesn't have audio but is visible, I turned on the lights a bit:
Aziraphale was not detached at all about this development (though he would love for you to believe he was).
I had a very interesting discussion about theater and film the other day. My parents and I were talking about Little Shop of Horrors and, specifically, about the ending of the musical versus the ending of the (1986) movie. In the musical, the story ends with the main characters getting eaten by the plant and everybody dying. The movie was originally going to end the same way, but audience reactions were so negative that they were forced to shoot a happy ending where the plant is destroyed and the main characters survive. Frank Oz, who directed the movie, later said something I think is very interesting:
I learned a lesson: in a stage play, you kill the leads and they come out for a bow — in a movie, they don’t come out for a bow, they’re dead. They’re gone and so the audience lost the people they loved, as opposed to the theater audience where they knew the two people who played Audrey and Seymour were still alive. They loved those people, and they hated us for it.
That’s a real gem of a thought in and of itself, a really interesting consequence of the fact that theater is alive in a way that film isn’t. A stage play always ends with a tangible reminder that it’s all just fiction, just a performance, and this serves to gently return the audience to the real world. Movies don’t have that, which really changes the way you’re affected by the story’s conclusion. Neat!
But here’s what’s really cool: I asked my dad (who is a dramaturge) what he had to say about it, and he pointed out that there is actually an equivalent technique in film: the blooper reel. When a movie plays bloopers while the credits are rolling, it’s accomplishing the exact same thing: it reminds you that the characters are actually just played by actors, who are alive and well and probably having a lot of fun, even if the fictional characters suffered. How cool is that!?
Now I’m really fascinated by the possibility of using bloopers to lessen the impact of a tragic ending in a tragicomedy…
If we shadows have offended
Think but this and all is mended
The fact that Aziraphale emerges from this flashback
Makes this face
and then with a ginormous gap on the right side of the screen, proceeds to be like "I must call Crowley right now immediately."
It’s one of those scenes that shows how utterly wrong it is for them not to be side by side. How empty it feels.
I’d like to suggest that he remembers how much he missed him them, so he quickly wants to call him to check on him.
john=the guardian. note the transition starts at his heart, and pans up to his face.
John, the sun
Love this transition in Sherlock’s mind palace and how it likens John to the sun, lit in red, when they are talking about the obliquity of the ecliptic….
Another detail to support @heimishtheidealhusband‘s “Thank you, Wilder” and how the important thing is not the case, but Sherlock’s relationship with John!
Impressions from Sherlock BBC, The Sign of Three
Some links I found on a quick search to ‘knights’ and ‘chess’ below the cut ….
nice roundup, thanks!
John Watson + the Sherlock effect | S01E01 A Study in Pink
John Watson dissolves into rainbows… well
And Sherlock Holmes dissolves into women.
or does he resolve out of the reflected women ?
What the hell even is THIS transition
Yes it looks completely normal
I remember there’s a post where the resemblance between this transition and the effect of TD-12 drug is discussed. TST is a treasure of masterful transitions! Masterful and so unexpected for “Sherlock"🙄
