Rating (aka Roasting) Historical Movie Corsets
Credibility score: 69/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "Rating (aka Roasting) Historical Movie Corsets" and rated it 69/100 for credibility (a BS score of 31/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-09-22. Its weakest claim — "Speaker frames herself as an expert whose historical knowledge 'ruins' movies." — scored 45/100 and was flagged as loaded language. 45 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 45 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 9 between 40 and 69, and 36 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Speaker sets up corsets as a 'controversial topic' they love to discuss. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:00
Just setting the stage, no specific framing yet. She's just stating her interest and the topic's popularity.
Why this score: This is a straightforward introduction to the video's topic. The speaker is simply establishing her personal connection to the subject matter and noting its general appeal, which is a common and neutral way to begin a discussion. No particular rhetorical device is being used to sway the audience here.
Original quote: “Let's get back to the corsets! I'm never done talking about corsets Corsetry is something that comes back in the round every single time I sit in front of the camera just because it's a controversial topic people like it, I like it Uh, let's jump into it - corsets movie corsets”
Speaker frames herself as an expert whose historical knowledge 'ruins' movies. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:17
She's using her personal experience to establish authority, implying her knowledge makes her uniquely discerning.
Why this score: By stating she 'can't watch movies anymore' due to historical inaccuracies, the speaker is subtly framing herself as an authority whose deep knowledge makes her sensitive to errors others might miss. This uses a bit of 'loaded language' to elevate her perspective, suggesting her expertise is so profound it affects her enjoyment of popular media. A more neutral framing would simply be 'I often notice historical inaccuracies in movies.'
Original quote: “Have you ever watched a movie and been like that does not look right? Ever since I was interested in fashion history and history of fashion I can't watch movies anymore because because anytime something inaccurate happens i'm like nahhh”
Corsets are hard to get right in movies because designers ignore historical accuracy. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:31
Setting up the premise for the video — seems like a fair observation about historical costume design.
Why this score: The speaker is laying out the core argument of the video: that historical accuracy in corsetry is often overlooked in film. This isn't a claim to be fact-checked but rather the foundation for their critique. It's a straightforward statement of intent and observation, not using any manipulative framing.
Original quote: “And apparently corsets are something that are really hard to get right so a lot of the time I watch a movie and All of the costumes are stunning and then it comes to the underwear and for some reason costume designers or the directors Are like you know what? Let's make it what we want it to be not…”
Using 'corsets' for 18th-century 'stays' for audience understanding. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:56
Transparently simplifying terminology for the audience — good move for clarity.
Why this score: The speaker is openly admitting to a simplification for the sake of audience accessibility. They acknowledge the technical difference between 'stays' and 'corsets' but choose the more commonly understood term to avoid alienating viewers. This is a transparent and audience-focused framing choice, not an attempt to mislead. It's about making the content digestible.
Original quote: “for the record i'm going to talk about corsetry in movies rather than tv and for the sake of this video i'm going to refer to 18th century and earlier stays or pairs of bodies as corsets because it just makes sense Like i'm not going to do a separate stay video because no one's going to click the…”
Audience suggestions for corset movies were mostly 'Pirates of the Caribbean' and 'Titanic'. — No Frame (75/100)
At 1:15
Sharing audience input, specifically noting 'Titanic' as 99% of suggestions — seems like a genuine reflection of common knowledge.
Why this score: The speaker is sharing a personal anecdote about gathering content for the video, citing audience input from Instagram. The '99% of the answers' for Titanic is a specific, verifiable detail from their own experience. This is a straightforward account of their process, not an attempt to frame information manipulatively. It sets the stage for the movie examples they'll discuss.
Original quote: “I couldn't - for it for some reason I couldn't remember any movie with a corset in it. Like I only got like two so I asked you guys on instagram some of you helped out Most of you appointed pirates of the caribbean which was not super helpful. Uh Some of you pointed titanic and that was 99% of the…”
'Gone with the Wind' corsets reflect 1930s/40s fashion, not 1860s historical accuracy. — No Frame (75/100)
At 1:47
Explaining the film's costume design choices — a common observation in historical costuming analysis.
Why this score: This is a well-known point in costume history and film analysis. 'Gone with the Wind' is often cited as an example of a film that modernized historical fashion to appeal to contemporary audiences. The speaker is accurately describing the film's approach to costuming, including corsets, as a reflection of 1930s/40s aesthetics rather than strict 1860s accuracy. This is a factual observation, not a framed one.
Original quote: “So gone with the wind corsets are kind of the reflection of what the actual costumes are, which is a modernized 1930s 1940s version of 1860s fashion at that time. They weren't really going for like historical accuracy They were going for the look which is why a lot of the cuts pattern seams are…”
Explaining historical corset characteristics — good context setting. — No Frame (75/100)
At 2:30
Setting the stage with clear, specific details about historical corsetry. No tricks here!
Why this score: The speaker is providing factual background on the shape and use of corsets during a specific historical period. This is straightforward, informative framing that helps the viewer understand the subsequent analysis of movie corsets. It's a neutral, educational approach.
Original quote: “The corsets reflect the corsetry fashion at the time while women did not wear corsets on a daily basis [2:32] They definitely they wear them for like fashion photo shoots or under [2:35] The structured gowns of the time so the corsets sort of reflect that the main [2:41] Characteristic of a corset…”
Identifying inaccurate corset lines — clear criteria for evaluation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 2:57
Giving a direct, verifiable criterion for judging accuracy. This is how you do it!
Why this score: The speaker is establishing a clear, observable metric for historical accuracy: whether the corset's lines follow the original period style. This is transparent framing, telling the viewer exactly how they'll be evaluating the claims, which builds trust and helps the audience understand the critique.
Original quote: “So this is how you can tell the corset is not super accurate because it doesn't follow the original line”
Critiquing "Gone With The Wind" corsets as underbust, not period-appropriate mid-bust. — No Frame (75/100)
At 3:08
Specific historical detail: 1860s corsets were mid-bust, not underbust. Good catch!
Why this score: The speaker is making a specific, historically-grounded claim about the style of corsets in the 1860s (mid-bust) versus what's depicted in 'Gone With The Wind' (underbust). This is a clear, verifiable point of historical accuracy, framed as a direct comparison.
Original quote: “I think most of them are under bust which were not fashionable at the time 1860s corsets were mostly [3:14] Mid-bust so they would push your boobs up and they would kind of cut them in half. Whereas the gone with the wind corsets [3:20] Look like underbust to me, which is not super period…”
Lowering score due to "unknowingly inaccurate" tight-lacing scene's impact. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 3:14
The score drop isn't just about accuracy; it's about the 'stain' on public perception. That's a strong emotional appeal!
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states that the score is being lowered not just for inaccuracy, but because the scene has 'stained people's memory and perception of corsets so much.' This is an appeal to emotion, using loaded language ('stained') to emphasize the negative impact of the inaccuracy, rather than solely judging the film on its historical merits. It frames the inaccuracy as having a broader, more damaging cultural effect.
Original quote: “they would get a six but because the tight lacing scene [3:27] Is so unknowingly inaccurate and it has stained people's memory [3:32] And perception of corsets so much i'm gonna give it a five”
Critiquing the common movie trope of incorrect tight-lacing technique. — No Frame (75/100)
At 3:45
Calling out a specific, repeated inaccuracy in movie depictions of corset lacing. Good observation!
Why this score: The speaker is identifying and critiquing a recurring, specific inaccuracy in how corsets are laced in movies. This is a direct, observable point of historical inaccuracy, framed as a common 'trope' that is done 'the wrong way.' It's a clear, factual critique of cinematic representation.
Original quote: “I don't know where the trope came from because a lot of these movie scenes that i'm gonna talk about [3:50] Feature this trope where a lady is being tight laced by her mate or a friend [3:55] And they always do it the wrong way in the movies. They push it like backwards. It doesn't do anything…”
Speaker asserts the corset is not 18th century — direct historical critique. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:30
Directly states the corset is historically inaccurate for the 18th century based on visual evidence.
Why this score: The speaker, an apparent expert on historical fashion, makes a direct, verifiable claim about the anachronism of the corset shown. This is a straightforward factual assessment within their area of expertise, not employing any specific framing technique beyond a direct critique.
Original quote: “I don't know what the ever loving heck is going on, but that's not an 18th century corset”
Questions the presence of cups in an 18th-century corset — highlights a specific inaccuracy. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:35
Points out a specific design feature (cups) that is historically incorrect for the period.
Why this score: This is a follow-up to the previous claim, pinpointing a specific detail (cups in the corset) that is inconsistent with 18th-century design. It's a direct, expert observation, not a rhetorical frame.
Original quote: “Why the hell does she have cups in in like”
Rating the Pirates of the Caribbean corset a solid 8, despite minor issues. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:30
She's giving a subjective rating, which is fair for a review.
Why this score: This is a personal opinion/rating within the context of reviewing historical accuracy. It's not presented as an objective fact, so it's a straightforward assessment from her perspective.
Original quote: “I'd give it a solid 8”
Acknowledging historical inaccuracies but still giving a high score, separating corset design from movie portrayal. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:43
She rates the corset highly based on design, but downplays the historical misdating for the specific scene.
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states she's rating the 'corsets not movies or not the context they were placed in,' which is a framing choice. While she acknowledges the 'misdating' (anachronism), she still gives it an 8/10 because the corset itself is a 'beautiful specimen.' This separates the object's quality from its historical accuracy in the film, which is a valid approach for a costume review, but it means the score isn't purely about historical accuracy in context. A more neutral framing would explicitly state the score is for the *design* of the corset, not its appropriate use in the scene.
Original quote: “They are being laced in a spiral way Which is also period appropriate so that's good its the way they're portrayed that it worries me a little bit but again i'm writing corsets not movies or not the context that they were placed in so corset-wise i'd say It's a beautiful specimen. It could be too…”
Explaining that non-parallel lacing indicates a poorly fitted or too-small corset. — No Frame (75/100)
At 7:55
This is a straightforward explanation of how corsets should fit and what non-parallel lacing signifies.
Why this score: This is a factual statement about corset fitting and construction. It's a clear, observable principle in historical costuming. There's no particular framing here; it's just an expert explaining a detail.
Original quote: “And something odd is happening with the lacing like the lacing in a well-made corset fitted to your body should be parallel If it's wider at the bottom, it means the corset is too small at the bottom”
Giving a 7/10 for Anna Karenina corsets, despite lacing issues, due to good design. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:09
She gives a high score for design despite acknowledging a significant fitting flaw in the portrayal.
Why this score: Similar to the Pirates of the Caribbean example, the speaker is again separating the 'design' and 'well-made' aspects of the corset from its actual portrayal and fit in the film. She notes 'something went off here' with the lacing, which is a major functional issue for a corset, but still gives a 7/10 because the 'overall shapes and patterns... are nice.' This frames the review more as an appreciation of the costume department's *creation* rather than its *historical accuracy in application* within the scene. A more neutral framing would explicitly weigh the fitting issue more heavily in the…
Original quote: “and i'm not sure if it hasn't been laced properly or if the actress's measurements changed or something, but something went off here, but like the overall shapes and patterns of the corsets are nice so I would give them like A seven out of ten perhaps because like they're well made and the design…”
Critiques Phantom of the Opera corsets as historically inaccurate for the 1870s setting. — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:34
Speaker directly states the corsets are incorrect for the 1870s, providing a clear historical judgment.
Why this score: This is a straightforward historical accuracy claim. The speaker is an expert in historical costuming and is making a direct assessment based on their knowledge of 1870s corsetry. There's no obvious rhetorical framing here; it's a direct critique.
Original quote: “Phantom of the Opera there are several corset appearing in that movie and i'm sorry to say none of them
Is correct”
Frames the modern look of the corsets as a consequence of the film's production era. — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:42
Acknowledges the anachronism is understandable given the film's 2000s production, showing a balanced perspective.
Why this score: The speaker is being fair here, acknowledging that while the corsets are historically inaccurate, it's a common and understandable outcome when a film is made in a different era. This isn't a manipulative frame, but rather a contextualizing one that shows a nuanced understanding of film production challenges versus historical accuracy.
Original quote: “they look kind of 2000s to me which is when the film was made
So it absolutely makes sense, but they just look really modern”
Highlights the absence of a front busk as a key historical inaccuracy for 1870s corsets. — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:50
Points to a specific design element (front busk) as a standard feature missing from the film's corsets.
Why this score: This is a specific, verifiable detail about historical corsetry. The speaker is using a concrete example to support their overall claim of inaccuracy. 'Canon at the time' is a clear way to state a common historical practice, not a rhetorical trick.
Original quote: “Most of them don't even feature a front busk which was kind of like canon
At the time”
Assigns a numerical score of 'four' for accuracy to the Phantom of the Opera corsets. — No Frame (75/100)
At 9:12
Provides a direct, subjective rating based on the previous critiques, clearly stating the basis for the score.
Why this score: This is a subjective rating based on the speaker's expert opinion, which they've just explained. It's a transparent way of summarizing their assessment. There's no hidden framing, just a direct numerical representation of their judgment.
Original quote: “So I say accuracy wise it's like a
four”
Gives a lukewarm assessment of the stays in Marie Antoinette, noting a lack of detail. — No Frame (75/100)
At 9:21
Offers a qualified positive review, indicating an area for improvement without harsh criticism.
Why this score: The speaker is giving a nuanced opinion here, acknowledging that the stays are 'okay' but could be better. This isn't a strong rhetorical frame but rather a balanced, expert assessment. They're not trying to mislead, just express a specific level of satisfaction.
Original quote: “Stays in Marie Antoinette are pretty much. Okay, I guess they could be more
Detailed”
Points out an 'odd silhouette' in Marie Antoinette dresses due to incorrect stay length. — No Frame (75/100)
At 9:47
Identifies a specific visual discrepancy in the film's costuming, linking it to historical inaccuracy.
Why this score: This is another specific, observable detail that the speaker uses to support their critique. The term 'odd silhouette' is subjective but is immediately followed by a concrete reason ('stays are kind of longer than they're supposed to be'), making it a clear, direct observation rather than a manipulative frame.
Original quote: “not to mention that some of the dresses seem to have this really odd silhouette where the stays are kind of longer than
They're supposed to be”
Rates Marie Antoinette stays a 'solid seven' and praises Dangerous Liaisons for 'properly pushing the boobs'. — No Frame (75/100)
At 9:58
Uses specific criteria (proper bust shaping) to justify a higher score, demonstrating clear evaluative standards.
Why this score: The speaker is transparent about their scoring criteria, using a specific historical function of stays (bust shaping) as a key differentiator. This is a clear and direct justification for their rating, not a rhetorical trick. It's a subjective judgment based on expert knowledge.
Original quote: “But they're I guess they're like a solid seven the stays in Dangerous Liaisons
get an extra point for pushing the boobs properly”
Gives Dangerous Liaisons an 'eight' and notes Young Victoria is set during a 'transitional period' for undergarments. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:20
Continues the scoring and then sets historical context for Young Victoria's costuming challenges.
Why this score: The speaker is providing both a subjective rating and important historical context. Identifying the 'transitional period' is crucial for understanding the accuracy of costuming in Young Victoria, showing a deep understanding of the historical evolution of undergarments. This is informative, not manipulative.
Original quote: “Which is why they get an extra point so they would get an eight, I guess? Young Victoria happens again at this weird
transitional period between stays and
corsetry”
Claiming stays were mostly white/off-white/beige — a specific detail presented as fact. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:30
A straightforward historical detail about common stay colors. Seems accurate for the period.
Why this score: The speaker provides a specific detail about the typical colors of stays worn during the period. This is presented as a factual observation without any obvious rhetorical manipulation or missing context. It's a direct statement about historical fashion.
Original quote: “the stays that were worn were not usually different colors like most of the time they were like white off-white beige”
Speculating on Queen Victoria's lavish underwear, then immediately admitting lack of evidence. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:51
Hypothesizes about royal underwear, then pulls back with 'I don't think we have seen' — a classic walk-back.
Why this score: The speaker initially suggests that Queen Victoria's underwear might be more lavish, implying a certain expectation. However, they immediately follow this with an admission that there's no actual evidence ('I don't think we have seen queen victoria's underwear'). This creates a 'confidence mismatch' where an initial speculative claim is undermined by a lack of supporting information, but the idea is still floated.
Original quote: “I guess it's period appropriate maybe for Queen Victoria. You would expect the underwear to be more Lavish but then I don't think we have seen queen victoria's underwear.”
Assessing 'Meet Me in St. Louis' corsetry as better than 'Gone With The Wind' for Edwardian era. — No Frame (75/100)
At 11:11
A direct comparison of historical accuracy in movie costumes, based on specific details like decoration and lace.
Why this score: The speaker is making a direct comparison between two films' depictions of corsetry, specifically noting details like 'fluffy decoration and Lace' to support their judgment of 'Edwardian appropriate.' This is a subjective assessment within the context of historical costume analysis, but it's clearly articulated with specific reasons, not vague generalities.
Original quote: “innovative now meet me in san luis is a 1944 I think movie that is set in edwardian era and I must admit that corsetry is a little bit better than gone with the wind mainly because of all the fluffy decoration and Lace and it just seems more edwardian appropriate than the supposedly victorian”
Contrasting 'Meet Me in St. Louis' corsets with Edwardian and 1940s silhouettes. — No Frame (75/100)
At 11:49
Clearly describes the difference between 1940s conical silhouettes and softer Edwardian lines.
Why this score: The speaker is providing a clear, detailed comparison of historical fashion silhouettes. They distinguish between the 'conical' shape of 1940s corsetry and the 'soft lines' that would have accentuated hips in the Edwardian era. This is a factual observation about historical fashion trends and how they are misrepresented in film.
Original quote: “it's closer to what 1940s silhouette was like which is more conical in contrast to like the more soft lines of an edwardian corsetry for example the hips edwardian corsets”
Critiquing 'Meet Me in St. Louis' corsets for only cinching the waist, and not effectively. — No Frame (75/100)
At 12:10
A direct critique of the functional accuracy of the corsets shown in the film.
Why this score: The speaker is evaluating the functional accuracy of the corsets depicted in 'Meet Me in St. Louis.' They claim the corsets are primarily focused on waist-cinching and are not even effective at that, nor do they shape the bust or hips as Edwardian corsets would. This is a specific critique based on historical knowledge of corsetry.
Original quote: “They're not doing anything to the to the bust they're mostly there to cinch the waist in And they're also not doing that greatly.”
Critiques 'The Prestige' corsets for historical inaccuracy and missed opportunity. — No Frame (75/100)
At 12:36
Speaker points out specific historical inaccuracies in the film's costume design. This is a straightforward critique based on historical knowledge.
Why this score: The speaker is making a direct comparison between the film's depiction of corsets and their historical counterparts, specifically for a 'showgirl' character. This is a factual claim about costume accuracy and a subjective opinion about a 'missed opportunity.' The framing is direct and clear, stating what was expected versus what was shown. It's a standard critique of historical film costuming.
Original quote: “none of them has anything to do with victorian or edwardian corsets while the costuming in the movie is Actually, not that bad the person that wears corsets the most in that movie, which is scarlett Johansson's character. I can remember her name. She is supposed to be like the show girl and I think…”
Claims 'see-through stockings' didn't exist in the late 19th century. — No Frame (75/100)
At 13:15
This is a specific historical claim about fashion items, which can be verified.
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states that 'see-through stockings which didn't exist at the time.' This is a factual assertion about historical fashion. The framing is direct and serves to highlight the film's historical inaccuracies. The claim is presented as a straightforward historical fact, not an interpretation or opinion.
Original quote: “Which is not great. So instead they had her looking kind of like your typical Saloon girl without a chimes underneath because why would you protect your body against the boning or lacing? and then she's not wearing skirts or anything just sort of like drapey bustle like Material which again gives…”
Expresses disappointment over 'The Prestige' using 'default sexy girl costume' instead of accurate showgirl attire. — No Frame (75/100)
At 13:43
This is a personal opinion and aesthetic critique of the film's costume choices.
Why this score: The speaker is sharing their personal disappointment and aesthetic judgment ('another default sexy girl costume'). This is an opinion framed as a critique of creative choices, not a factual claim. The framing is subjective, expressing a preference for historical accuracy and a specific 'cool' look over what they perceive as a generic 'sexy' portrayal.
Original quote: “I think some of them feature cups for her bust which again why I was kind of disappointed because I remember watching it going like oh We have a showgirl actress character a lot of outfits at the time Really rocked and looks super cool and it's a chance for some really nice underwear peek Whereas…”
Notes a historical discrepancy in 'The Piano' regarding the cage crinoline patent date. — No Frame (75/100)
At 14:11
Speaker identifies a specific historical detail (patent date) that conflicts with the film's implied timeline.
Why this score: The speaker is making a precise historical claim about the patent date of the cage crinoline (1856) and contrasting it with the film's implied 1850s setting. This is a verifiable historical fact used to highlight an anachronism. The framing is direct and analytical, pointing out a specific detail that doesn't align with the historical timeline.
Original quote: “an interesting example, of course, the tree is featured in the piano by jane campion again It's kind of a transitional period like hair hair and accessories and the dress suggests It's sort of 1850s, but then she's also wearing a cage crinoline which was only patented in 1856”
Framing the 1850s as when corsets 'restarted being the thing' — a bit of an oversimplification. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 14:31
Suggests corsets were a new phenomenon in the 1850s, downplaying their earlier forms and continuous evolution.
Why this score: While the 1850s saw a shift in corset style (more structured, steel/whalebone), corsetry in various forms (stays, bodices) had been a part of European fashion for centuries. Saying they 'restarted being the thing' implies a break and reintroduction, rather than an evolution of existing undergarments. It's a subtle framing that makes the 1850s seem like a more definitive starting point than it was.
Original quote: “1850s vibes which is when the corset restarted being The thing like before that they they were there were different types of stays etc And they were much softer”
Highlights the introduction of steel and whalebone in 1840s/50s corsets — accurate detail. — No Frame (75/100)
At 14:42
This is a straightforward historical observation about corset construction changes.
Why this score: The speaker is accurately describing a significant technological and material shift in corset design during the mid-19th century. The increased use of steel and whalebone indeed led to more rigid and structured corsets, shaping the silhouette of the era. This is a factual statement without apparent rhetorical manipulation.
Original quote: “But around 1840s 1850s things started changing shifting a lot more steel and whale bones started being featured in those Types of stay slash corsets”
Emphasizes vibrant, colored corsets in the 1850s — a detail often overlooked in media. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:05
Points out a historically accurate detail about corset fashion that challenges common visual tropes.
Why this score: The speaker is providing a valuable piece of historical context that often gets simplified in film. While white or neutral-colored corsets were common, the 1850s indeed saw experimentation with various fabrics, patterns, and colors, especially for corsets meant to be seen or worn as outerwear. This framing corrects a common misconception without being manipulative.
Original quote: “experimenting with like different fabrics and patterns and um colors Especially there's a lot of vibrant vibrant colored corsets in 1850s”
Justifies a 'flat bust' look as historically accurate based on photographs — a reasonable interpretation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:34
Connects a visual detail in the film to historical photographic evidence, offering a plausible explanation.
Why this score: The speaker observes a specific silhouette (flattened bust) in the film's corset and then references historical photographs to suggest this was a period-accurate style. This is a good example of using visual evidence to support a claim about historical accuracy, even if it's an interpretation rather than a definitive rule. It's a fair and well-reasoned assessment.
Original quote: “I don't know why but still it kind of like a lot of the photographs from the era feature Ladies busts being completely like flattened down to fit the dress So I guess that's the look that we're going for and in that case it is historically accurate. So i'm gonna give it like An eight and a half.”
Anticipates a 'super tight, can't breathe' corset trope in a film about girls in corsets — highlighting a common cinematic cliché. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 16:04
Uses exaggerated language ('super tight and you can't breathe') to describe a common, often inaccurate, movie trope.
Why this score: The speaker is using loaded language to critique a predictable cinematic portrayal of corsets. While it's true that movies often exaggerate the discomfort and restrictiveness of corsets, the phrase 'super tight and you can't breathe' is itself an exaggeration that reinforces the very trope it's critiquing. It frames the movie's likely depiction in a negative, almost mocking light, before even seeing the specific scene.
Original quote: “But again, imagine what kind of scene are we getting in a movie about girls girls in corset lacing girls in corsets? So again, we have this like super tight and you can't breathe in corset retro”
Questions the likelihood of all corsets being the 'very same shade of white' in a group of girls — a subtle but valid point about realism. — No Frame (75/100)
At 16:10
Raises a practical, realistic question about costume consistency that often gets overlooked in film.
Why this score: This is a great observation about the subtle details that contribute to historical realism. While white corsets were common, it's highly improbable that every girl in a group would have a corset in the exact same shade of white, given variations in fabric, age, washing, and dyeing processes of the era. This isn't a 'framing' in a manipulative sense, but rather a sharp eye for detail that enhances the viewer's understanding of historical accuracy in costuming.
Original quote: “and all of the corsets are white Which I think is Accurate but is it that likely that a group of girls have? Corsets in the very same shade of white some of them would obviously be like off-white. Some of them would probably be less”
Critiques identical corsets and poor shaping in films — a specific observation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 16:35
Speaker points out a visual inconsistency in movie corsets, noting their identical appearance and lack of proper shaping.
Why this score: This is a direct observation based on visual evidence from the films being discussed. It's a straightforward critique of costume design choices, not employing any particular rhetorical framing beyond stating an opinion on historical accuracy.
Original quote: “I feel like we have a set of identical corsets and also the shape is not doing much. It's it's an S6.”
Argues movie corsets don't shape enough, contrasting with modern makers — using a practical comparison. — False Equivalence (45/100)
At 16:52
Compares modern custom corset making to the realities of film production, overlooking key differences.
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by comparing the capabilities of modern, custom corset makers (who can take extensive time for fittings and individual tailoring) with the constraints of a film production's costume department. While technically possible to achieve better shaping, the 'can do it as well' argument downplays the significant differences in budget, time, and the need for actors to perform comfortably over long shoots, which are not factors for a personal custom corset.
Original quote: “Mainly my problem with all of the corsetry in the movies is that it's not shaping the body enough and i'm not saying like oh So we have to like literally cinch the waist of the actress so much that she can't breathe and make her look good. No i'm just saying if modern corset makers can make you a…”
Suggests movie corsets are made by costumers, not corset makers — an assumption about process. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 17:23
Asserts a specific reason for poor corset design ('made by costumers, not corset makers') without direct evidence.
Why this score: The speaker states 'I feel like' but then presents a definitive reason ('they are made by costumers and maybe that's why') for the perceived lack of historical accuracy in movie corsets. While it's plausible that costume departments might prioritize speed and actor comfort over strict historical shaping, the claim that they are 'not actually made by corset makers' is presented as a strong contributing factor without specific knowledge of the production processes for the films in question. It's an educated guess presented with a degree of certainty.
Original quote: “I feel like the corsets made in the movies are not actually made by corset makers they Are made by costumers and maybe that's why they're not like super Curvy most of the time the actresses just look like they're wearing sort of tubes and that's not what corsets did,”
Acknowledges film industry time constraints for fittings — a concession that provides context. — No Frame (75/100)
At 18:09
The speaker offers a reasonable explanation for the observed issues, acknowledging industry limitations.
Why this score: Here, the speaker provides a balanced perspective, recognizing the practical constraints of the film industry (speed, time for fittings) that contribute to the less-than-perfect corsetry. This is a straightforward and fair observation, offering context rather than employing a manipulative rhetorical device. It shows an understanding of the challenges faced by costume designers.
Original quote: “Achieve what they were supposed to achieve and I think that tells you something about how fast the film industry works and how little time there is for actual fittings and stuff because You can't spend months on altering the corset to fit your actress So she looks like a victorian godess like I get…”
Speaker asks for examples of accurate corsetry in films, admitting personal difficulty recalling any. — No Frame (75/100)
At 18:30
This is a straightforward request for audience input, acknowledging the speaker's own limitations. No hidden agenda here.
Why this score: The speaker is genuinely asking the audience for help, which is a transparent and collaborative way to engage. There's no attempt to manipulate or mislead; it's an open call for information, which is a sign of clean framing. They're not claiming expertise on every film, just their own memory.
Original quote: “If you know any examples of corsetry and movies done, right? Please let me know because I I can't think of anything from the top of my head But i'm pretty sure at least a couple of times in my life. I watched something and I was like she looks like A fashion plate. She looks exactly like she's…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →