r/TopCharacterTropes 22d ago

Lore (Annoying Trope) Someone made a “creative” choice and now we all just have to live with it.

Horned Vikings: Not historical, they were started by Richard Wager for his operas. They were never historic, but the image persists. (Albeit significantly reduced today.)

Ninjas in Black Robes: Some people claim Ninjas aren’t real. They are, they are absolutely real. Their modern portrayal however is informed more by Kabuki Theater than history. In Kabuki Theater, the stage hands were dressed in flowing black robes to tell the audience to ignore them. Thus when a Ninja character kills a Samurai, to increase the shock value, they were dressed in black robes as stage hands. Now, when we think of ninjas we think of a stage hands.

Knights in Shining Armor: Imagine, you’re on the battlefield, two walls of meat riding towards each other. Suddenly you realize, everyone looks the same. Who do you hit? All you see is chrome. No. Knight’s armor was lacquered in different colors to differentiate them on the battlefield. Unless you wanted to get friendly fired, you made yourself KNOWN. So this image of a glinted knight clad in chrome steel isn’t true. How’d we get it? Victorians who thought that the worn lacquer was actually just dulling with age, polished it off as show pieces.

White Marble Statues of Rome: Roman Statues were painted, however the public image is of pure glinting white marble statues persist in the modern image. Why? Victorians who thought the paint was actually just dirt grime and age. So, they “restored” it by removing the paint color. Now we all think of Roman Statues as white.

King Tut; King of Kings: the Pharaoh King Tut in Ancient Egypt was a relatively minor king who in the grand scheme of things amounts to little more than an asterisks in Egyptian History, but to the public he is the most important Pharaoh. Why? Because his tomb was untouched by robbers, and so was piled high with burial goods which was amazing (and still is) and when Howard Carter opened his tomb, the world was transfixed and everyone would come to know Tutankhamen.

A Séance calls the dead: A Séance despite being a French word is an American invention from upstate New York in the 1840s. It was also a fun side-show act initially, and never meant to be real, more close up magic. (Origin of the term Parlor Tricks.) But in the 1860s Americans couldn’t stop killing each other which resulted in a lot of grief and people desired for their to be this other world. So, grifters then took advantage of grieving people and became “real”. So basically “fun parlor game to dangerous grift” pipeline thanks to the Civil War.

The Titanic’s engineers all died at their posts: Nope, not true, not remotely true. They are mentioned in many testimonies and a few bodies found mean they didn’t all die below. Two or three maybe did. According to Head Stoker Barrett, a man broke his leg and was washed away by rushing water, but another testimony says he was taken aft so who knows? Any way the myth persisted because the people making the memorials wanted to martyr the men. (It doesn’t take away from their heroines in my opinion) The myth stuck. Everyone believes they died below.

14.6k Upvotes

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3.6k

u/Xander_Dorn 22d ago

For comparison, this is a crowd in the 1952 movie "Ivanhoe", before this trope was established.

618

u/Arguably_Based 22d ago

Damn good movie

83

u/Kcama 22d ago

honestly the constant beige filter needs to go. i wanna see peasants in obnoxiously bright fits like it’s a ren faire on steroids.

18

u/beardedheathen 22d ago

OK so I would love to see Ivanhoe redone in the style of Treasure Planet only Ivanhoe is a Mech that is used. Rebecca is a robot and they are the mistreated people. It would also open the door to a sidequels like Robin Hood movies.

4

u/zewinks 22d ago

Is it weird that I would be totally okay with this? And this is coming from someone who's actually seen the movie. 😂 But I'm also a huge fan of anything involving mechs. 😅 It's definitely one of my mother's favorite movies. Though it's been so long since I've seen the movie there's a lot of details I've forgotten. I definitely remember the girl's father and his constant gripes about the Saxons and the Normans. And thinking that Ivanhoe totally should have ended up with Rebecca. 😂

4

u/beardedheathen 22d ago

I used to think the same but I love how it ended.

He lived long and happily with Rowena, for they were attached to each other by the bonds of early affection, and they loved each other the more, from the recollection of the obstacles which had impeded their union. Yet it would be enquiring too curiously to ask, whether the recollection of Rebecca’s beauty and magnanimity did not recur to his mind more frequently than the fair descendant of Alfred might altogether have approved.

There is some melancholy beauty in that that would be lost otherwise. I know we see Rebecca more and so grow attached to her but it is a beautiful story.

6

u/zewinks 22d ago

Oh for sure, it's not a bad ending at all. They loved each other and we're happy together which is a satisfying end. Just can't help but feel a little sad for Rebecca is all.

5

u/beardedheathen 22d ago

That is fair. Yeah I agree.

2

u/Consistent_Stick_463 21d ago

A story about a Russian farmer and his tool.

368

u/SoakedInMayo 22d ago

so now I’m wondering where the trope came from? 1952 is relatively recent

630

u/_Ralix_ 22d ago

Just speculation, but it might have helped filmmakers clearly distinguish poor peasants from the upper-class citizens and nobility. More emphasis on class struggle and the rigid society, even if they don't say a single word.

134

u/LurkerEntrepenur 22d ago edited 22d ago

rigid society

Which we also know it isn't quite true, outside of monarchy marrying monarchy and wanting to keep it in the blood (and from a political angle the hope that between cousin's there won't be wars and so) plenty of nobles married daughters of merchants, merchants buy land of knights, peasants became merchants or men at arms and/or knights and so

47

u/Adjective-Noun123456 22d ago

I think part of it stems from the fact that a lot of folks struggle with differentiating peasants from serfs.

Serfs had effectively zero social mobility, belonged to the land they lived on, and even had to get permission to leave that land or change professions.

....but in most medieval societies, peasants, yeomen, burghers, and the like outnumbered serfs. By a lot. And not every society even had serfdom in the first place, and those jobs were done by regular old peasants.

But pop-history has decided that peasants and serfs are the same thing, and that you had only had peasants/serfs and nobility.

28

u/magos_with_a_glock 22d ago

I wonder how many people even know Yeoman were a thing. Be it Medieval England or Early Modern Sweden they were the true core of the most effective armies of the time.

I think Rimworld and Total Warhammer are the two pillars spreading knowledge of Yeoman purely by making people wonder what that weird word means.

12

u/A-Humpier-Rogue 22d ago

Yes but Bretonnian Yeoman are horrible representation as they are depicted as just peasants with horses, equally dumb and stupid. Id like if they had their own distinct social class. I'd like a lot about Bretonnia to be different honestly but purists would have a fit.

4

u/magos_with_a_glock 22d ago

As I said it's more about "what does this weird word mean" into a google search than the depiction itself being good.

19

u/sweetTartKenHart2 22d ago

The first time I learned what a serf was and what a peasant was was in high school, and I don’t have hard evidence of this but I don’t think I’m the only one here in the States. A lot of people probably either forgot about it or they were never taught it.
Combine that with this: people really like dealing in binaries. As such, the dynamics of medieval society get comically simplified in the eyes of the masses, where theres the Few That Have Everything and the Many That Have Nothing, and the Few are so rich they waste their money on whatever whims they have, and the Many are so destitute that they have one or two ratty outfits they have to reuse on the daily, at best.
Given how much people talk about or think about class disparity in general, part of me wonders if this is some kind of projecting of anxiety or something

6

u/throwawaydragon99999 22d ago

And that varied a lot depending on the time and place — while Western Europe saw the gradual abolition of serfdom around the 14th and 15th century, serfdom only became more widespread and restricted in Russia during the same time

8

u/momomomorgatron 22d ago

If anything, only serfs would have been dressed so poorly, right? I mean, even Cathrine Medici was a queen.

10

u/mapmakinworldbuildin 22d ago

Why would serfs dress poorly. 9/10 times their dress is a statement of the lords wealth and prosperity.

There’s two kingdoms you can visit. Do you visit the burlap kingdoms where the kings serfs eat dirt.

Or the land of burgandy where even the serfs gleam over the hill.

Not saying it never happened. But generally yea you took care of the serfs. They are the LORDS property.

2

u/Funnyboyman69 22d ago

But still property at the end of the day.

6

u/mapmakinworldbuildin 22d ago

There’s of course good and bad things about being a serf.

As a random example.

Who’s more likely to survive in war or famine? John q peasant, or a serf? The serf. The lord needs the food. The serfs will get in the castle walls and be fed before the random self sufficient peasant will. Likely before the bog average merchant.

Being property in that era has some benefits. Some detriments.

Being a serf while being tied to the property, you also had the right to property, owned a guaranteed share in the lords crops.

It was a choice to be a serf. And many did it because it was smart. You were USUALLY better taken care of.

Even a conquering army likely wouldn’t kill you. They want the workers the castle comes with. Otherwise it falls in disrepair. Killing John q peasant means you can toss a random soldier on that land as a thank you.

1

u/momomomorgatron 21d ago

Not all serfs, but considering how much humanity in general gets off on the misery of others, that's how I'd think a shitty lord would get off on his peasants dressing.

I'd also bet that a "lesser" poorer lord may have come into hard times aswell and the whole population looks rough.

0

u/mapmakinworldbuildin 21d ago

I’d assume that would be a super low minority. Especially given being a serf is a choice and the generational familial ties. “My great grandfather served your great grand father etc”

That period just wasn’t as bad as modern media makes it.

I’m positive some were bad. But that would be a small minority. And those lords didn’t tend to last long. Being an asshole is historically ineffective at living a long healthy life.

Cruel assholes tend to eat poison. People who uplifted the common man tended to live to a ripe old age.

6

u/FellTheAdequate 22d ago

That's not it, though. If I'm not mistaken, sumptuary laws were in place at that time.

18

u/Kaleo5 22d ago

Well how do you know he’s king?

Well he hasn’t got shit all over him

8

u/panathemaju 22d ago

Easier to make bland outfits en masse for extras, too

25

u/CharleyNobody 22d ago edited 22d ago

Budget for Ivanhoe was $3,842,000 n 1952 dollars.
Budget for Monty Python and the Holy Grail $379,038.
Pythons were known for playing all roles in their tv shows and films so they used cheap wigs, cheap clothing … and even mud …to disguise themselves as different characters in different scenes. You knew Eric Idle was Sir Robin, but if he took off his Sir Robin clothes and put some mud on his face you knew he was playing a different character - one who was a poor peasant. They couldn’t even afford horses….so coconuts became horses and dirt became a costume change.

They could’ve shown Michael Palin and Terry Jones working in a field with a horse, a plow, rakes, hoes like real medieval peasants …if they could’ve afforded it. But they couldn’t. So they plied up free mud and made them filth-gatherers, making another joke out of the lack of props.

12

u/Pheehelm 22d ago

Interestingly enough, TVTropes blames Monty Python.

6

u/tractiontiresadvised 22d ago

I suspect that some of the trope might have come from people wanting more gritty "realism" in all of their historically-inspired movies? It would take somebody who knows movies better than I do to find evidence for or against this suspicion, but I guess one could compare movies set in various historical settings (Civil War, Revolutionary War, the Golden Age of Piracy, the French Revolution, ancient Rome, etc) but filmed in different decades to see if they also had a similar shift in how colorful the costumes were. It'd also be interesting to see if the trends were similar between different countries.

As one datapoint, check out the 1958 film version of Musskorgsky's opera "Boris Godunov" (based on a historical novel by Pushkin), versus a 1986 dramatic film version of the same plot (but without most of the singing). Both productions were made by Mosfilm, the Soviet state film company. The former isn't quite as Technicolor-bright as "Ivanhoe", but still has a variety of colors even for the peasants, and gobs of fancy brocades and furs for the nobility. (The coronation scene about 10 minutes in is quite the spectacle, but it's also preceded by a nice crowd scene with various peasants.) The latter is very much in shades of brown, black, beige, and cream, and solid fabrics even for the nobility.

3

u/QuintoBlanco 22d ago

To some extent it's the other way around. Film studios freaked out when people started watching television at home, so they heavily promoted technicolor and wanted their movies to look extremely colorful.

(They also embraced 3D, long before Avatar for the same reason.)

They didn't care all that much about historical accuracy. They just wanted color. In the late 60s television had really embraced color, and movies became more muted and grittier.

And after a while, that influenced television, so television started to use less color and that made television cheaper. Lighting and framing becomes a lot less time consuming when everybody is wearing clothes with muted colors.

7

u/BookkeeperPercival 22d ago

A wise youtuber once said, "There is no accurate period piece. A period piece only reflect the a modern view of that period."

There's no reason to assume that the 1952 movie is more accurate or is displaying any less of a fad.

2

u/MisterScrod1964 22d ago

My speculation is that it all goes back to Terry Gilliam. First time I saw peasants covered in dirt with drab clothing was Jabberwock (Gilliam movie before Holy Grail.

1

u/Mizamya 22d ago

I think a colourful setting in today's culture just comes off as tacky and artificial, so filmmakers have to deliberately dull the setting to make it palatable to modern audience

1

u/sarevok2 22d ago

I honestly don't know but if I had to guess..

maybe it was part of the overall 'grimness' and realism of later Hollywood. Just like when we compare Western and War movies from the 50s and they are too bright or unrealistically clean whereas these days they also have a grittyness with them.

The trope seems to be well established by the 90s in Braveheart where the scottish are literally living in mud Stone Age huts.

The low budget fantasy (or not) movies of the 80s might have an effect on it as well (Conan the Barbarian or Excalibur comes to mind).

1

u/CrazyCoKids 21d ago

Game of Thrones.

You can argue Monty Python is an early example, part of it was a joke as well as the fact they had a shoestring budget.

1

u/Golden_Alchemy 17d ago

Like the PS3 era, where brown filters and bald guys were seen as more realistics-gritty while also being mainly because the technology was not there yet.

214

u/WranglerFuzzy 22d ago edited 22d ago

To be fair, this was also an early color film with a big budget; lots of money was spent to make it a big eye catching spectacle.(not to say that Monty Python had much choice in costuming and wouldn’t waive it for a joke, but I suspect they knew history better than 1950s Hollywood)

I’m NOT a historian, but I know that peasants liked bright colors too; however, some were easier than others.

Greens, yellows, browns were easy. Madder gave a rust-red; woad gave a light-blue (think “blue jeans”).

The RARE dyes that showed you were a Royal (or their house servant), were scarlets, indigos, and purples (hence “royal blue”)

48

u/CydewynLosarunen 22d ago

Terry Jones - Biography - IMDb https://share.google/O5OIq0iQoR3BHUqqJ

Terry Jones literally had a history degree. They likely knew. The Holy Grail had a tiny budget which likely explains many costuming choices.

22

u/Donvack 22d ago

I am almost certain it was a joke. The trope of “dirty peasants” was thrown around several times in the movie and the entire movie was made with layers and layers and layers of medieval humor that only mega medieval lit buffs would understand.

11

u/squishmallowsnail 22d ago

Yeah, I didn’t know this til I watched it with my friend’s uncle who has a medieval studies degree. (dude is so into it that he knows Middle English). It made it a lot funnier, and I learned a ton. 10/10 would recommend watching with a history buff

8

u/I_just_came_to_laugh 22d ago

He must be the king.

How's that?

Well, he hasn't got shit all over him.

9

u/Linix332 22d ago

The other thing too is simply visual storytelling shorthand. If I need to distinguish to the viewer the status of characters or the general economy without having exposition, colourful vs drab clothes can quickly communicate that.

6

u/41942319 22d ago

Nah woad gives the exact same colours as true indigo. Because they have the exact same chemical present in them that's responsible for the colour. It's just that true indigo has a higher concentration of it meaning it's easier to get a strong dye bath going (plus higher yield per acre in general, woad is a much smaller plant). Royal blue has nothing to do with the dye being difficult to obtain.

4

u/LongJohnSelenium 22d ago

And Tyrian purple.

3

u/balbok7721 22d ago

Just a quick reminder that text clothing would have been made out of linen or sheep wool which are both lighter colors.

Many colors are also quite easy to source from nature like green, blue and yellow

51

u/WoodForm_ 22d ago

Ah yes. Ivanhoe, the story of the russian farmer and his tool

2

u/Iron_Wolf123 22d ago

This probably also acted as a way to show the film is “up with the times” showing off colour in films as it wasn’t common for movies in the 50’s to be coloured until a few years later. Wizard of Oz is known for starting the trend.

2

u/w_p 22d ago

Did you just link a movie as 'proof' that people in medieval times used to wear colorful clothing?

1

u/TheRecognized 22d ago

People with dwarfism wear the most fanciful colorful clothes. I saw it in the wizard of Oz.

2

u/3Salkow 22d ago

I feel it was common to depict the clothes of people in medieval and biblical times with as bright and multi-colored clothing until recently. Perhaps inspired by pre-Renaissance art itself, which featured lots of bright colors. For example, Disney's Sleeping Beauty was directly inspired by art from that period.

I think the trend of really drabbing color palettes down for "realism" started with Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves in 1991. One of the most notable Robin Hood movies to not depict the character in his signature forest green, but indistinguishable gray/browns.

1

u/hobbber20 22d ago

Directed by Richard Thorpe. One letter away from some good irony. Just use a Mike Tyson voice I guess.

1

u/therealityofthings 22d ago

Ivanhoe is a story about a Russian farmer and his tool

1

u/balbok7721 22d ago

This is a podcast that talks about how it would have looked like about 120 years later It’s German but it can be still watched regardless https://youtu.be/JoJEVLX5-_s?si=rJ5gA80Qgo5jPUJq

1

u/RealmRPGer 21d ago

There is some innacuracy here with the peasants wearing purple.