So I accidentally almost got into an argument on Twitter, and now I'm thinking about bad historical costuming tropes. Specifically, Action Hero Leather Pants.
See, I was light-heartedly pointing out the inaccuracies of the costumes in Black Sails, and someone came out of the woodwork to defend the show. The misunderstanding was that they thought I was dismissing the show just for its costumes, which I wasn't - I was simply pointing out that it can't entirely care about material history (meaning specifically physical objects/culture) if it treats its clothes like that.
But this person was slightly offended on behalf of their show - especially, quote, "And from a fan of OFMD, no less!" Which got me thinking - it's true! I can abide a lot more historical costuming inaccuracy from Our Flag than I can Black Sails or Vikings. And I don't think it's just because one has my blorbos in it. But really, when it comes down to it...
What is the difference between this and this?
Here's the thing. Leather pants in period dramas isn't new. You've got your Vikings, Tudors, Outlander, Pirates of the Caribbean, Once Upon a Time, Will, The Musketeers, even Shakespeare in Love - they love to shove people in leather and call it a day. But where does this come from?
Obviously we have the modern connotations. Modern leather clothes developed in a few subcultures: cowboys drew on Native American clothing. (Allegedly. This is a little beyond my purview, I haven't seen any solid evidence, and it sounds like the kind of fact that people repeat a lot but is based on an assumption. I wouldn't know, though.) Leather was used in some WWI and II uniforms.
But the big boom came in the mid-C20th in motorcycle, punk/goth, and gay subcultures, all intertwined with each other and the above. Motorcyclists wear leather as practical protective gear, and it gets picked up by rock and punk artists as a symbol of counterculture, and transferred to movie designs. It gets wrapped up in gay and kink communities, with even more countercultural and taboo meanings. By the late C20th, leather has entered mainstream fashion, but it still carries those references to goths, punks, BDSM, and motorbike gangs, to James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Mick Jagger. This is whence we get our Spikes and Dave Listers in 1980s/90s media, bad boys and working-class punks.
And some of the above "historical" design choices clearly build on these meanings. William Shakespeare is dressed in a black leather doublet to evoke the swaggering bad boy artist heartthrob, probably down on his luck. So is Kit Marlowe.
But the associations get a little fuzzier after that. Hook, with his eyeliner and jewellery, sure. King Henry, yeah, I see it. It's hideously ahistorical, but sure. But what about Jamie and Will and Ragnar, in their browns and shabby, battle-ready chic? Well, here we get the other strain of Bad Period Drama Leather.
See, designers like to point to history, but it's just not true. Leather armour, especially in the western/European world, is very, very rare, and not just because it decays faster than metal. (Yes, even in ancient Greece/Rome, despite many articles claiming that as the start of the leather armour trend!) It simply wasn't used a lot, because it's frankly useless at defending the body compared to metal. Leather was used as a backing for some splint armour pieces, and for belts, sheathes, and buckles, but it simply wasn't worn like the costumes above. It's heavy, uncomfortable, and hard to repair - it's simply not practical for a garment when you have perfectly comfortable, insulating, and widely available linen, wool, and cotton!
As far as I can see, the real influence on leather in period dramas is fantasy. Fantasy media has proliferated the idea of leather armour as the lightweight choice for rangers, elves, and rogues, a natural, quiet, flexible material, less flashy or restrictive than metal. And it is cheaper for a costume department to make, and easier for an actor to wear on set. It's in Dungeons and Dragons and Lord of the Rings, King Arthur, Runescape, and World of Warcraft.
And I think this is how we get to characters like Ragnar and Vane. This idea of leather as practical gear and light armour, it's fantasy, but it has this lineage, behind which sits cowboy chaps and bomber/flight jackets. It's usually brown compared to the punk bad boy's black, less shiny, and more often piecemeal or decorated. In fact, there's a great distinction between the two Period Leather Modes within the same piece of media: Robin Hood (2006)! Compare the brooding, fascist-coded villain Guy of Gisborne with the shabby, bow-wielding, forest-dwelling Robin:
So, back to the original question: What's the difference between Charles Vane in Black Sails, and Edward Teach in Our Flag Means Death?
Simply put, it's intention. There is nothing intentional about Vane's leather in Black Sails. It's not the only leather in the show, and it only says what all shabby period leather says, relying on the same tropes as fantasy armour: he's a bad boy and a fighter in workaday leather, poor, flexible, and practical. None of these connotations are based in reality or history, and they've been done countless times before. It's boring design, neither historically accurate nor particularly creative, but much the same as all the other shabby chic fighters on our screens. He has a broad lineage in Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean and such, but that's it.
In Our Flag, however, the lineage is much, much more intentional. Ed is a direct homage to Mad Max, the costuming in which is both practical (Max is an ex-cop and road warrior), and draws on punk and kink designs to evoke a counterculture gone mad to the point of social breakdown, exploiting the thrill of the taboo to frighten and titillate the audience.
In particular, Ed is styled after Max in the second movie, having lost his family, been badly injured, and watched the world turn into an apocalypse. He's a broken man, withdrawn, violent, and deliberately cutting himself off from others to avoid getting hurt again. The plot of Mad Max 2 is him learning to open up and help others, making himself vulnerable to more loss, but more human in the process.
This ties directly into the themes of Our Flag - it's a deliberate intertext. Ed's emotional journey is also one from isolation and pain to vulnerability, community, and love. Mad Max (intentionally and unintentionally) explores themes of masculinity, violence, and power, while Max has become simplified in the popular imagination as a stoic, badass action hero rather than the more complex character he is, struggling with loss and humanity. Similarly, Our Flag explores masculinity, both textually (Stede is trying to build a less abusive pirate culture) and metatextually (the show champions complex, banal, and tender masculinities, especially when we're used to only seeing pirates in either gritty action movies or childish comedies).
Our Flag also draws on the specific countercultures of motorcycles, rockers, and gay/BDSM culture in its design and themes. Naturally, in such a queer show, one can't help but make the connection between leather pirates and leather daddies, and the design certainly nods at this, with its vests and studs. I always think about this guy, with his flat cap so reminiscient of gay leather fashions.
More overtly, though, Blackbeard and his crew are styled as both violent gangsters and countercultural rockstars. They rove the seas like a bikie gang, free and violent, and are seen as icons, bad boys and celebrities. Other pirates revere Blackbeard and wish they could be on his crew, while civilians are awed by his reputation, desperate for juicy, gory details.
This isn't all of why I like the costuming in Our Flag Means Death (especially season 1). Stede's outfits are by no means accurate, but they're a lot more accurate than most pirate media, and they're bright and colourful, with accurate and delightful silks, lace, velvets, and brocades, and lovely, puffy skirts on his jackets. Many of the Revenge crew wear recognisable sailor's trousers, and practical but bright, varied gear that easily conveys personality and flair. There is a surprising dedication to little details, like changing Ed's trousers to fall-fronts for a historical feel, Izzy's puffy sleeves, the handmade fringe on Lucius's red jacket, or the increasing absurdity of navy uniform cuffs between Nigel and Chauncey.
A really big one is the fact that they don't shy away from historical footwear! In almost every example above, we see the period drama's obsession with putting men in skinny jeans and bucket-top boots, but not only does Stede wear his little red-heeled shoes with stockings, but most of his crew, and the ordinary people of Barbados, wear low boots or pumps, and even rough, masculine characters like Pete wear knee breeches and bright colours. It's inaccurate, but at least it's a new kind of inaccuracy, that builds much more on actual historical fashions, and eschews the shortcuts of other, grittier period dramas in favour of colour and personality.
But also. At least it fucking says something with its leather.
1K notes
·
View notes
I'm waiting so excitedly for your updates, old and new, I can't begin to tell you! You are the fandom treasure! And as I'm waiting and biting my nails I wanted to ask something, what do you think about the final scenes of episode 8 where Gaon has dinner with his professor and tells him he chooses Yohan's side. How come Yohan knew where to find them and the precise moment to come in and pick Gaon up, was he following them or did he and Gaon had a deal?
And what's with leaving his car to stand next to Gain and look at professor? I love this scene so much but I don't know if I understand its message right. Was it posturing, laying a claim on Gaon or what? I tend to feel that Yohan was possessive of Gaon when it came to professor and his police friend and I think I feel some of it in this scene but I'm not sure, I just don't have a clear grasp on it. Would love to know your thoughts!
Aww, thank you so much, sweetheart! This is definitely the first time I've been called not just a fandom treasure, but the fandom treasure. Thank you 💜
Ah yes, the "Ga On runs off with his new sugar daddy" scene. Or, as I sometimes like to call it, the "You just don't understand, dad professor — I love him" scene.
I'm joking, obviously.
(... or am I?)
I would say that Ga On and Yo Han made an agreement beforehand, yes. They probably talked about Ga On's choice to switch sides and while Yo Han would no doubt have loved for Ga On to continue on as a double agent (feeding Professor Min intentionally faulty information) Ga On is way too honest for that. So he probably insisted that, no, he'll call Professor Min, meet up with him, and just flat out tell him that Ga On's spying mission is over. He's now going to elope work with Yo Han instead.
And I find it hilarious to think that, most likely, Yo Han was just sitting in his car, perhaps scrolling through his phone, waiting for his newly acquired sugar baby to finish telling his semi-father figure that he's going dark side. Because Ga On gets up and starts walking before Yo Han drives up, meaning that it's not like Ga On saw the car coming and went "oh, better wrap this up now." It was probably the other way around, where Ga On leaving the table was the signal for Yo Han to come pick him up.
So yes, they definitely had an agreement, especially since Ga On seems to know in exactly which direction to walk, even before the car shows up, and doesn't look the least bit surprised by Yo Han's arrival.
They planned that shit.
Brutal.
As for the fact that Yo Han gets out of the car? Well, buckle up, my darlings, because I think we should take a detour to discuss intent.
Now, intent isn't necessarily important when you want to interpret a scene, but I like the extra nuance it can offer. And by intent, I mean what the scriptwriter/director might have intended with a scene. Why is this scene here? What was the plan behind it? How is it supposed to impact the overall story? How does it tie into the rest of the plot?
Which is never something you can say for sure, of course, unless there are interviews expressly stating it, but, a lot of the time, we can guess.
The intent behind this scene, in its simplest, purest form, is to show that Ga On is switching sides. And, with that in mind, it makes sense that he crosses that road to Yo Han's car (if you know me and my metas, you know how much I love lines, characters crossing said lines, and the symbolism of that) and stops to stand next to Yo Han. It's a very simple yet effective way to show Ga On's choice and where it will take him.
Into Yo Han's arms.
NOW. Intent is very useful because, depending on how skilled the person writing is, you can hide a lot of subtext and leave room for a lot of interpretation with a cleverly formulated intent. That's how censored shows get away with so much, because they can point to the perfectly reasonable, heteronormative intent behind a scene and pretend that there aren't also a lot of subtler nuances to the reading.
And, if they're extra bold, they also add hints in the presentation and execution.
The scene where Yo Han invites Sun Ah to the house is a perfect example of this, where the intent is to make her feel lonely, like an outsider, as she's invited to observe this warm, comfortable family. Not a bad tactic as far as manipulation goes, I have to say. So, in other words, very reasonable intent — makes sense with what they're trying to achieve.
The fact that it ends up looking more like Yo Han is proudly showing off his doting, doe-eyed househusband who's passively-aggressively and not-so-discreetly staking his claim is... well, that's just an accidental side effect, isn't it? Not intent at all.
And that's true. It's not intent that makes it look gay.
It's the presentation of the intent.
(Sidenote: To be a fly on the wall when Yo Han and Ga On came up with this strategy. Because, clearly, they were both in on it and, I mean, how did that conversation go? Inquiring minds need to know.
Like, how did they go from: "We need to throw her off balance. We'll invite her to the house, show what she's missing out on, but also give her hints that she could have it all, if she's willing to surrender" to Ga On going: "I'll cook a fancy dinner. That'll make her jealous."
I mean, he's not wrong but, like, Mr. Sugar Baby. What? x'D
Also, imagine Yo Han's face. Transcendent.)
Anyway. Intent can also ruin a story. I think most of us have read a fanfic and gone: "... that character wouldn't do that. This makes no sense." That could be a sign that the author's intent is clashing with the characters or the story they're trying to tell. Or, put more bluntly, that the author is so focused on forcing an idea that they don't realise that they're going against the logic of the story or characters' personalities. Things happen because they want them to, not because it makes sense, meaning that the intent isn't tied to the story or characters, but what the writer wants. This is badly planned intent.
And, most of the time, readers can tell when the intent is off, even if you might not be able to put your finger on it while you're reading. But if you're feeling a niggling doubt at the back of your mind, wondering why this scene is here, what this scene even means, or why this character suddenly seems to act so strangely, it could be that the writer didn't plan it well enough.
That's not to say that a reader must always know the intent behind a scene. Ideally, the story should be good enough that they don't have to stop and think about things like that. If the intent and internal logic are sound enough, it should just flow naturally.
Because, when it comes down to it, pretty much all scenes in a story have an intent and that intent should be in harmony with the characters' personalities and how they would choose to behave. And I don't mean that there can never be conflict or that characters can't disagree — I mean that all scenes should have a reason for being there. It doesn't have to be a deep or complex reason, but there should be a reason that ties into the overarching plotline. And characters shouldn't be forced into a scene they have no business being in. Intent is very important from a crafting standpoint.
And intent is one of the things that makes The Devil Judge such an absolute joy. Because while there is always a perfectly reasonable — and very heterosexual, we promise — intent behind most scenes, they often choose to present the scenes in a way that leaves room for a much queerer reading. Now, that can happen with almost any story, but what sets The Devil Judge apart is that it seems to be entirely intentional.
The presentation is by no means subtle or accidental.
Like, they didn't have to make Ga On shuffle up in a soft, comfortable sweater and greet Sun Ah like a caring househusband, but they did. That was a conscious choice.
And this scene you mention, with Yo Han getting out of his car when he's picking Ga On up, falls into a similar category in my mind. The surface-level intent is clear — show that Ga On is switching sides — but he could simply have said so. He could have borrowed a car and driven himself. Yo Han didn't have to come pick him up. And he certainly didn't have to get out of the car.
But he did.
And that might be what you're picking up on when you're saying that you're not sure if you're understanding the message correctly. Because in a drama this clever, that puts so much effort into details and, again, intent, it feels almost a bit odd to leave this gaping hole, doesn't it? Yo Han stepping out of that car should mean something, right?
And, once you've gotten this far, you've got a couple of options to choose from to fill in the blanks. Either you can assume that it was just something the creators chose to do because it looked/seemed cool and therefore might not mean much at all. And considering that this drama does that a couple of times, this could honestly be the case. Maybe they just thought it would be more effective to have Yo Han to step out of the car? To really hammer it home to Professor Min what's happening?
Your other option is to bring in the harmonisation between intent and characters. Because, if the writer is good and their characters consistent, you should be able to pick up on secondary layers of intent, running parallel with the main one. Because while each scene has an intent, each character IN that scene also has one (though perhaps it would be more comfortable to call it purpose at this point?).
In other words: If "it looked cool" isn't the answer, could we find it in the character's behaviour instead? What is their intent, based on their personalities and previous actions? Does that give a more satisfying answer?
What reason would Mr. Kang "Abyss" Yo Han have for stepping out of that car?
I, personally, think that the answer is pretty simple.
He is absofuckinglutely staking a claim.
He's stepping out of that car because he's a Possessive, Dramatic Bitch and wants to rub it in Professor Min's face. He wants to show that he's won, that he's turned the spy Professor Min sent, and that he's, quite literally, taking Ga On away.
Yo Han is basically going: "Thanks for the sugar baby — I'll make sure to ravish savour treasure him."
So while the main goal of that scene is to establish that Ga On is switching sides, the intent Yo Han adds with his actions leaves room for a very gay reading. In fact, I'd argue that doing so only makes the scene more believable, since Yo Han's actions are otherwise kind of... unnecessary? He has no reason to step out of the car and make himself known, unless it's for the dramah.
Again, the presentation of the intent is where the magic happens.
So, why this long, godawful rant about intent, you ask? When I could just have answered the question right away?
Because while I know that I'm preaching to the choir in terms of this drama being gay as hell, I just want to highlight the importance of intent and how it can change the reading of a scene. I think intent — or specifically the harmony between characters and intent, and the various layers of intent — is absolutely fascinating, especially in this drama.
Especially if you want to argue that it's gay.
Because there is, in fact, some scenes where I just... I can't. The intent and characterisation don't match at all — unless you add a queer element. Like, this drama is so clever. Not perfect, mind you, but so clever. And so careful with especially Yo Han and Ga On's characterisation. Very little is left to chance.
And so, if you keep everything I've said about intent and characters in mind, and I ask you to explain the intent behind this one, singular shot, can you do so without making it gay?
I'm not joking when I say that this scene, right here, was the one that definitively made me go "oh fuck, this is gay gay."
Because in most others — if not all — I can find that safe surface-level intent which means that the people behind this drama can claim plausible deniability. Of course it's not gay! Look at this perfectly reasonable, heterosexual intent!
Except this one.
There's no explanation for this. Ga On has no reason to look this jealous unless his jealousy is the main intent behind this shot. There just isn't. And it's only made worse by his huff and the way he clenches his jaw a couple of seconds later. Not even the argument that Sun Ah is their enemy so letting her fix Yo Han's tie might be dangerous can justify this, since that's not a look of concern or alarm — that's jealousy.
The intent is jealousy. Plain and simple.
And that's why intent is important. Because, if push came to shove, the intent behind this one, singular screenshot could, theoretically, be the only evidence you need if you wanted to defend a queer reading of this drama.
Because there is, quite frankly — in my humble opinion as the fandom treasure — no other way to explain the look on his face in a drama this meticulous and obsessed with details.
In this scene, unlike all the others, the queerness isn't just in the presentation anymore — it's in both the intent and presentation.
So, if you want the scene that says "this shit's gay, fam"?
This is the one.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
28 notes
·
View notes