In defence of historically inaccurate period dramas.

Like clockwork, the conversation about historically inaccurate period pieces has resurfaced, once again. This time, it's courtesy of the upcoming Wuthering Heights adaptation and those circulating images of Margot Robbie's rather questionable costume choices. Social media is ablaze with opinions about her decidedly not-1800s attire that appears to have time-travelled from several different eras at once.

I'll admit, I'm on the fence about that adaptation.

First of all, why is Jacob Elordi playing Heathclif, a man who is famously described as having "dark skin" in Brontë's novel. It's 2025. Let's do better, casting directors.

The film's casting director, Kharmel Cochrane, actually did respond to the criticism, claiming that while "some English Lit fans" may not be happy with the changes, ultimately it's fiction and can be interpreted differently.

"There was one Instagram comment that said the casting director should be shot. But just wait till you see it, and then you can decide whether you want to shoot me or not. But you really don't need to be accurate. It's just a book. That is not based on real life. It's all art," Cochrane said, per Deadline.

"Wait until you see the set design, because that is even more shocking. And there may or may not be a dog collar in it," she added.

margot robbie on the set of ‘wuthering heights’ pic.twitter.com/gvt5QPzbhz

— margot robbie daily (@margotdaily) March 23, 2025

While I'm not sure I accept that particular explanation for the unnecessary 'whitewashing' in the film, when it comes to the fashion and design choices in the film and THAT ALONE, let it be known… I do somewhat agree.

Yes, I know that the particular neckline on the wedding dress worn by Robbie wouldn't exist for another 40 years and no woman at that time would ever be caught wearing those sleeves. Or white.

But here's a thought.

Who cares? It's not a documentary. It's a fictional adaptation.

Before you jump down my throat, hear me out.

Watch the trailer for 2005's Pride and Prejudice. Article continues after video.

Costume designers are storytellers first, historians second. Their job isn't just to recreate what people wore… it's to tell us something about the characters through fabric and fashion. And sometimes that means taking some creative liberties.

I'm not saying we should put Heathcliff in skinny jeans or give Catherine an iPhone. But I think there's some room to make things a little more interesting.

When Keira Knightley graced us with her presence in that gloriously simple white dress in 2005's Pride and Prejudice, did anyone really care that a proper Regency ensemble would have looked entirely different? Of course not! We were too busy swooning over her and Mr Darcy's hand flex (THE HAND FLEX, PEOPLE).

Image: Focus Features

Bridgerton took this concept and sprinted right into a technicolour wonderland.

Those candy-coloured dresses? The string quartet covers of Taylor Swift? Queen Charlotte's gravity-defying wigs with actual moving parts? Not to mention Kate Sharma's season three Regency dresses that referenced Indian fashion?

Historically accurate? I think not. But did we love it? Absolutely. Did it capture the spirit of Regency romance while making it accessible to modern audiences? One hundred percent.

From Penelope's glitter eyeshadow to the beautifully contemporary hairstyles — I lap it all up. Because who's getting mad over a little bit of out-of-place glam in a world that is so whimsical to begin with?

The show understood the assignment: it's not a documentary. It's a delicious confection meant to transport us to a fantasy world that feels like the past (without being constrained by it).

Image: Netflix

Now, I'll be the first to admit, sometimes the "creative liberties" approach crashes and burns… horribly.

Case in point: 2022's adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion, where characters spoke like they were recording a TikTok series. There's artistic licence, and then there's whatever that linguistic abomination was.

The difference? One enhances the story for modern audiences while maintaining the emotional truth of the period. The other makes everyone involved look like they've never read a book written before 2010.

That all considered, here's my somewhat controversial take: period pieces don't always need to be faithful historical documents. Sometimes they can just be fun.

Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, with its post-punk soundtrack and Converse sneakers hiding just out of frame? Delightful. Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet with its Hawaiian shirts and, not to mention, Mercutio's drag performance? Neither was in the original, but both are undeniably iconic.

Image: Sony Pictures

These adaptations understand that sometimes capturing the feeling of a story matters more than making sure everyone's undergarments are period-appropriate.

Costume designers often make deliberate choices to communicate character through clothing in ways modern audiences will intuitively understand.

That stunning gold phoenix ceremonial gown that Elizabeth Taylor wore in 1963's Cleopatra bears no resemblance to actual Ptolemaic Egyptian or Greek clothing. So why did they do it? Pure Hollywood spectacle and 1960s glamour.

Would a strictly accurate period costume have become the same iconic symbol of cinematic excess? Probably not.

Image: 20th Century Studios

So before we all take to Twitter to decry the historically questionable costumes in film and TV, perhaps we should ask: Does it capture the essence of the world? Will it make audiences feel connected to the characters?

If the answer is yes, then maybe we can forgive a few anachronistic hemlines or makeup choices.

There's a time for factually correct documentaries, and there's a time for fabulous, slightly bonkers interpretations of classic literature. History is important, yes, don't get me wrong. But so is joy! So is creativity! And I will defend the whimsy of slightly inaccurate adaptations until the end of time.

Because, honestly, sometimes the latter is just more fun. Pass the popcorn.

Feature Image: Focus Features / Netflix / Paramount Pictures / Sony Pictures.