[HPFGU-Movie] Re: sloppy school uniforms

[Shaun Hately]

On 29 Jun 2004 at 16:16, GulPlum wrote:

> Normally, I agree entirely with most things Shaun says, but I'm afraid that 
> I can't say the same thing about several comments he's made on this subject.
> 
> >I don't think Cauron is familiar with these schools, or their traditions, 
> >or the way they work (even JKR probably has a literary view of them - but 
> >she certainly has that). He's from a quite different cultural background. 
> >Without an understanding of the culture the school is based on, it's 
> >rather difficult for someone to do justice to the books in my opinion.
> 
> Sorry, but he's got a British production designer and a costume designer 
> who's done most of her work in the UK (she's Dutch), and the reason they 
> are there is to have input on his ideas and to take them forward, not to 
> blindly follow his instructions. To say (as you later did) that Columbus 
> made use of their expertise whilst implying that Cuaron didn't is simply 
> unfair. Columbus is from a different cultural background again, yet you 
> don't seem to question his understanding of the culture of the books.

No, it's not unfair, because the judgement is based on the movies 
they have produced.

Columbus' films shows he either understood the culture, or he 
relied on people who did, because they portray the culture 
accurately. I was actually rather surprised, given his background, 
that on that specific point, such a good job was done - I dreaded 
the idea of an American director trying to portray such a school.

Cauron's films show either he didn't understand the culture, or he 
didn't rely on people who did, or he simply decided it didn't 
matter - and we can tell this because they *don't* show the culture 
correctly.

It has nothing to do with the costume designer - the designs are 
fine. It's not the clothes that are at issue - it's the way they 
are worn.
 
> Besides, if anything gets my goat about the uniforms in the movie series, 
> it's Columbus's (and his original costume designer's - an American's) 
> decision to put the kids in shirts and ties in the first place.

Yes, and I have some problems with that as well. As a purist, I'd 
have preferred if the students were in proper robes. But I think 
the choice he made actually worked rather well. It's just wouldn't 
have been my preference.

> We can argue until the cows come home about what the books' "robes" look 
> like and what's worn underneath them (the books aren't entirely 
> consistent), but there is no mention of modern shirts, ties or jumpers (or 
> house crests or any other identifying marks). Most book illustrations from 
> various countries have the kids (Harry in particular) wearing Muggle 
> teenage clothes under their robes, so the illustrators must have got that 
> notion from *somewhere* (and, presumably, independently of each other).

Yes, because they are children's book illustrators and they stick 
to the common conventions of illustrating children's books.
 
> In any case, the Muggle uniforms in the movies (the only nod towards 
> "non-ordinariness" being the cloaks and gowns - neither of which meet my 
> personal view of what a "robe" should be) make a mockery of insisting that 
> magical folk have no idea of Muggle dress codes. So in this respect, at 
> least, the movies are being consistent, in not keeping JKR's running joke 
> about their dress sense.

Yes, and as I have said on numerous occasions now, I have little 
problem with the movies choosing to show the children in muggle 
clothing on occasions. The only real reason I've mentioned is 
because some people seem to believe the books support that 
interpretation - and they don't. It is a change made for the 
movies. I don't mind the change - but I think it's worth pointing 
out that it is a change when some people seem to think it isn't.
 
> >The second issue is that Cauron was making the third film in a
> >series - it wasn't a stand alone film. When something fairly major
> >is changed between the second and third film of a series, it's
> >quite jarring. And because Chris Columbus presented the clothing in
> >a certain way, the change is quite noticeable.
> 
> There were already a few subtle changes in the kids' clothes in CoS (note, 
> British costumier), and British schools do actually change their uniform 
> codes more frequently than you are implying.

You're confused about the point I am making. I am *not* talking 
about the changes in the uniform. I am talking about the changes in 
the way the uniforms are worn.
 
> For instance, I went to a boarding school which had no dress code 
> whatsoever; my brother, on the hand, attended one of the top local grammar 
> schools (*VERY* traditional, and one step down for the public schools 
> you're talking about) and in the seven years he was there, there were three 
> subtle changes in the uniforms, to the ties, jumpers and blazers (i.e. 
> jackets).

Sure, some schools change a bit. Others don't. The school I was at 
hadn't changed its uniform (except for different shaped collars 
because they stopped making the original shirts) in over a century 
when I was there.

I don't really have a major problem with the changes to the uniform 
made in PoA, anyway - but there are a lot of schools where uniforms 
only change very slowly, and the top Public Schools tend to be 
among those. Also, the Wizarding World seems to change more slowly 
than ours.

But the point is, I'm not talking about the changes in the clothes 
- but the difference in how they are worn.

> Furthermore, I had reason during 1997-1999 to make frequent visits to 
> Harrow School (you don't get much more traditional British Public School 
> than that!) and saw pupils during lessons, after lessons and at weekends. 
> During school hours, they always wore their uniforms and I can tell you for 
> a fact that it was fairly rare to see a the top shirt button fastened, and 
> the ties were, like in all British schools (uniform codes are almost 
> universal over here), the item which pupils took great pleasure in 
> personalising by knotting them according to their preference. Outside 
> school hours, they wore what they wanted. As I later learned, the only rule 
> was that they were not allowed to wear tops emblazoned with huge logos. The 
> only time they took care to abide by the letter of the uniform code was on 
> public days or when there were photographers around (this is one reason why 
> you're unlikely ever to see a photograph of an untidy Harrovian). When off 
> the premises, they had to have specific permission not to wear their 
> uniforms (which was fairly easily given); the main reason for this (as far 
> as the school was concerned) was that Harrow boys should be identifiable as 
> such (which mirrors your own experience).

Yep, that matches my own experiences pretty closely.

The problem I have with PoA, is the *change* in how the clothes are 
worn.

They were generally worn neatly in the first two films. They are 
*not* in the third.

You're not likely to get that type of change in a single year, 
unless something has gone seriously wrong in a school (Year 5 at 
Hogwarts, I could believe it easily).

What you may get is a gradual relaxing of standards over time - a 
few students stop doing up their top button, there's no response or 
sanctions - others stop doing it. But that is going to be gradual.

The sudden change is jarring.
 
> Between 1998 and 2001, I was also a frequent visitor at Westminster School 
> (during which time they had a significant uniform change, BTW), where 
> exactly the same rules and behaviour applied.
> 
> In any event, uniform codes are enforced by the Headmaster, and Dumbledore 
> is hardly a traditionalist!

Actually, I'd dispute that. Traditionally in many Public Schools, 
primary responsibility for matters of discipline like this have 
been in the hands of the Housemasters, and I think Hogwarts uses 
that model. It's not uncommon for Headmasters to do it either - but 
it's not universal.

And McGonnagall does strike me as a traditionalist (-8
 
> The thing is, Hogwarts has no other schools to compete with (the only 
> rivalry is inter-House, which is - regrettably - encouraged) and pupils of 
> the same House generally know each other, so there is no real reason for 
> distinguishing features - the books certainly don't imply any.

Even though there's no other school like it in Britain, there are 
some overseas and they also seem to have distinctive uniforms. And 
historically, they do seem to have some competition with those 
schools - I get the impression in GoF, that competition 
historically was much more common than it is today.
 
> The only uniform requirement in the books is a *plain* (my emphasis) black 
> work robe (well, three of them), a winter cloak (am I the only one who 
> finds it strange that the fastenings are specified to be silver but nothing 
> else beyond the colour is?), and a black pointed hat (have the hats ever 
> served any function in the books - have we ever had a description of anyone 
> *wearing* them?).

It may be that the only supplier of the clothing is Madam Malkin's, 
so there's no need to make detailed specifications - my own school 
was like that when I was there, we could only get our uniform at 
two shops and they knew what brands of trousers were acceptable etc 
(parents can now buy the clothes elsewhere, but I've noticed the 
uniform list now does list the brands etc, because of that change. 
It wasn't necessary at that time.)

As to the hats, they are mentioned in Goblet of Fire, when the 
visiting students from the other two schools are arriving (which is 
probably a situation where the Hogwarts students are expected to be 
in their full uniforms and neat to boot. Ron is told to straighten 
his hat by Professor McGonnagall - and when Vitor Krum arrives a 
sixth year girl wants him to sign her hat in lipstick.

> The robes are *work* (again, my emphasis) robes, so they're hardly designed 
> to perform any kind of ritual function (such as identifying Hogwarts pupils 
> when at Hogsmeade). Clearly, the requirements are practical rather than 
> "tribal".
> 
> The case can therefore be made that Hogwarts doesn't actually have a dress 
> code as we'd understand a uniform to imply (like the school I attended), 
> and the clothing rules which are laid down aren't there to serve the 
> traditional purpose of a school uniform, but to serve the practical needs 
> of the pupils.

Yes, it could be.
 
> The movie universe has introduced uniforms (for better or worse - IMO, 
> definitely for the worse) and has to live with that. The rules for use of 
> those uniforms and how (and when) they are worn are therefore at the 
> director's discretion. Arguing the case with canon, or even, perhaps, 
> real-world examples, is an exercise in futility. There are traditional 
> boarding schools which don't have uniform codes, so if you want to compare 
> Hogwarts with anything, compare it to *them*, not Eton, Harrow and the like.

Every indication we have in my opinion indicates that Hogwarts 
should be properly compared to schools like Eton, Harrow, etc - the 
elite Public Schools. In actual fact, I think it compares best with 
the Public Schools of the 19th Century rather than than the 20th 
(and back then, many of the schools didn't have uniforms yet) As 
I've said, I'm planning a very long post looking at this issue - 
Hogwarts in terms of such schools.

It's possible that it's better compared with other schools - but I 
certainly don't see any reason to assume it must be.

> >Harry's clothing [fitting him] is certainly an issue.

You've added in [fitting him]. Personally that wasn't what I was 
talking about here. The reason I think there's an issue with 
Harry's clothing relates more to the condition than the size.
 
> Personally, I've never had a problem with Harry having clothes which fit. 
> Whilst this element has been excised from the book, he gets his own room at 
> the Dursleys' at the beginning of PS/SS because Vernon and Petunia are 
> scared that they're being spied upon. It would therefore make perfect sense 
> (although it's not mentioned) that they would equip Harry with better 
> clothes because if the "spies" can see into the Dursleys' house, it stands 
> to reason that they can see Harry outside. As the whole thing is about 
> keeping up appearances, if they improve Harry's conditions inside the 
> house, then it only makes sense that they should improve his appearance 
> outside it.

Except, as someone else has quoted, we have evidence from later 
books, that they haven't done this. Personally I think you're right 
- it would make sense if they did. But the books indicate 
otherwise.
 
> I'm prepared to be corrected on this point, but I don't think there's any 
> mention of Harry's outsize clothes once he is given Dudley's second 
> bedroom. I realise that we don't have a scene of them all going clothes 
> shopping, but it would make sense. The kinds of clothes Movie!Harry wears 
> can be acquired fairly cheaply - there are no visible labels or brands - so 
> there's no reason for Harry to continue having Dudley's cast-offs.
> 
> [Hagrid's lesson]
> 
> >Actually, it's September 2nd (at least it is in the book, and there's no 
> >real reason to think it's different in the film) and they are in Scotland.
> >
> >It is *not* likely that it's all that warm. The average daily high 
> >temperature for Glasgow (nearest location I have data for) in September is 
> >60F, or around 16C. Not warm at all.
> 
> Your dependance on statistics here is misleading. Making a guess about the 
> weather of 2nd September based on September *averages* is not fair, given 
> that the weather breaks around the middle of that month and, in any case, 
> does not respect month boundaries. If the *average* for the month is 16C, 
> then given the weather changes about the middle of the month and it's 
> noticeably cooler in the second half, then it follows that the first half 
> will be warmer - you may as well include 2nd September in August averages.

Which makes only a small difference (I did consider that and looked 
at August temperatures as well).

But please note, I am *not* basing the statement on the *average* 
September temperature - but rather on the average daily high 
temperature which is different - the average temperature is 
58F/12C.

Also, we are told about the weather that day in the book. There is 
no mention of it being unusually warm. Given we are told about the 
weather, I think we could assume that this would be mentioned.

> If the movie chooses to show a bright, warm, day, there is no reason to 
> question that on the basis of statistical probability of September as a 
> whole. If you can find some stats comparing temperatures in the first week 
> of September year-on-year, we can talk about reasonable expectations for 
> that day.

Except that the book tells us that it wasn't a bright warm day - 
the sky is grey.
 
> >But the kids are sloppy when they are in the Castle. The kids are sloppy 
> >in Lupin's classes.
> 
> *Some* of the kids are sloppy, *some* of the time. As far as I'm concerned, 
> that's the whole point. From memory, Ron's shirt-tails hung out fairly 
> frequently during the first two movies already - that's part of who 
> (Movie!)Ron is!

No, *most* of the kids are sloppy *most* of the time. The only 
student we see who is always properly dressed when we see him (and 
I looked because it would have been a travesty if he wasn't) is 
Percy.

I'm sensitive to these things - I notice them. Because I spent a 
year responsible for enforcing neatness at my school, and I was as 
anal about it as Percy would be.

I see a kid in school uniform - I instinctively analyse it for 
faults (-8. I notice if it's being worn properly.

In PS, and CoS, it nearly always was. In PoA, it nearly always 
isn't.
 
> Incidentally, however, I do agree that Hermione with her shirt completely 
> untucked during the COMC lesson is entirely out of character for her, 
> although I can see a rationale for doing so within the movie, to indicate 
> that she's "loosened up" somewhat since the last year. Nevertheless, it 
> grates on me as well.

Yes, that one is *hideous* (-8

Other points are fairly minor, really - it's just the difference 
between the first two films and the third grates on me (it's the 
change that is the main issue for me - not really how they wear the 
clothing itself).

But that particular scene seemed ridiculous - it wasn't just 
untucked - which I could just about believe - it was the way it was 
bunched up. You'd have to *work* to make things look that bad.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia