Club Obi Wan

Okay, so we know that the way in which men wore their pants are different to how men wear them nowadays. Indy’s pants have always seemed to have baggyish appearance about them, especially in Raiders. It was this that gave me a theory about the look of the pants, and how Harrison wore them, especially during the Cairo street scenes.

We all know that Harrison was suffering from very bad dysentery about the time of these scenes. Firstly, I think that because Harrison was unwell, he would have therefore not been eating properly and including running around in the hot Tunisian sun, I imagine that he would have lost some weight, thus possibly giving gave the baggy appearance of the pants. It could be that the pants were not originally supposed to look the way they did, certainly not a criticism, as I think that Harrison looked great wearing all the gear.

Secondly, I have read threads where it says that in some scenes, Harrison wore his pants slightly resting on his hips, perfectly logical as when you have a bad stomach, the last thing you want is a pants belt pressing on your stomach.

So, what do you think. Do these theories make sense?

Absolutely! I read an interview with Harrison somewhere, once upon a time, where he said over the course of his illness, he lost between 10 - 15 pounds. I know MY pants would be baggy if I lost that kind of weight!

That makes sense. But look at the screenshots of the roof scene. These pants and the pants Ford wears in the streets cannot be the same. Look how tight the pant´s legs are. They must have used several pants with different cuts.

Yes, that would make perfect sense. The pants are loose-fitting in ROTLA but the Cairo scenes do indeed show some extreme bagginess...

Good thinking, Stella!:tup:

Speaking as someone who has lost and gained weight on both extremes, I cannot subscribe to this line of thinking. Weight loss (due to illness or otherwise) would account for a loose fitting waist, but would not affect the legs. HF was working out, and had muscular legs for the filming of Raiders, not 'fat legs'. Illness would not account for any loss in size/thickness of the leg, or the fit of his trousers.

HF's muscle tone would not change, especially to a drastic capacity as to change the fit of trouser legs. It was stated recently that the pants in Raiders were, in fact, true Officer's Pinks that Burmans and Nathans had in their stock, and not custom costume made pieces until ToD and LC.

Obviously the pants were changed from scene to scene, but perhaps since the Cairo fight scene (and the anticipated whip/sword dual) required more freedom of movement, the trousers chosen for that scene were purposely selected due to a more comfortabe/relaxed fit to allow HF to move more freely for the fight scenes?

I think the theory about the wearing the pants lower due to stomach problems is more truth than theory...not sure about the other part of the theory though

Last Crusader, those pants are still worn on his hips rather than his natural waist. If you see wwII photos of servicemen in officer's pinks, you'll see that they were generally worn higher, close to their natural waist.

Indy, on the other hand, never wears it this high, and the pants simply don't look like orginal officer's pinks - the rise is much shorter. In the photos above, they look like standard dress pants on Indy.

But as Canyon pointed out, in some scenes, usually action scenes, the pants are dangerously low on his hips. This could be due to a different set of pants or losing weight, sure.

Anyways, never in the film do I see these pants look like they way they do in most of your pics. Don't get me wrong, those are beautiful pants and you guys look fine in them.

15lbs has to come from some where, and for wasn't fat by any strech of the imagination. His waist would have got smaller and perhaps even his butt. The pants may have been cinched up tighter or rode lower, bothe would give the effect of the er "lower waist" are blooning out some and the legs bunching up a bit.

Perhaps not thinner legs but baggier due to weight lost and different fit, I'll buy that theory.

The pic of him on the rooftops may the legs clinging to him because of: 1) a strong breeze and 2) From the heat 3) They were tighter cut trousers!

Yeah, my hunch is the "we need roomier pants for the action scenes." Tight pants could've bunched up, torn, ridden too high, etc. The roomier pants would flow around you a bit better when moving quickly.

this make's some sence to me. If you were to lose weight because of illness, you would lose muscle mass as well as fat. Since Ford has a low body fat count ( I would guess from just looking at him). He would indeed lose alot more muslce. If you lose fat ( or gain ) you do not just lose it in one place.

I wear all my pants over my illiac crest not my waist.

BendingOak wrote:this make's some sence to me. If you were to lose weight because of illness, you would lose muscle mass as well as fat.

BO,

Over a priod of time, yes, but this is within a week's time?! Anyone who has met me, knows that I am a fat-body(!!) but I still have the legs of an Olympic athelete! The muscle tone of my legs has not changed in over 15 years, despite fluctuating weight between 180Lbs. to 285Lbs. (currently 260) 2 years of that was spent inactive due to my knee injury.

If HF was sick in a hospital bed for months, then I would understand loss of muscle, but in less than a week, I would be suspect.

The photos of the pants shown in this thread certainly look like they are different. Keeping this in mind and with the knowledge that Ford probably lost some weight (5, 10 lbs.?) due to illness makes perfect sense as to where/why his pants are hanging on his hips.
The only thing that would have kept his pants at a "vintage level waistline" would be suspenders.
I wear pants with a belt and they slip down without me running around filming action scenes.
It makes perfect sense why Ford's pants are hanging onto his hips.

First of all, those three pictures in sequence are misleading. The leftmost pic has the slimmest leg, but notice that he's taking a step. Naturally that extends the fabric, creating the illusion of a slimmer leg. But notice the rightmost pic where Ford is standing still. Suddenly his pants look wider and more full.

That's because the fabric is hanging straight down.

I highly doubt Ford was wearing trousers with two different cuts, a slim pant and a 'baggy pant.' Sure, he could have sized up for mobility in action scenes or he could have lost a few pounds. Or he just liked wearing them that way.

Either way, Ford wears the pants on his hips throughout the entire movie, because hese pants are cut like regular modern pleated trousers, not original WWII officer's pinks.

milesfides wrote:Either way, Ford wears the pants on his hips throughout the entire movie, because hese pants are cut like regular modern pleated trousers, not original WWII officer's pinks.

quite the contrary, they ARE WWII Officer's Pinks! At least, according to recent information (Peter) regarding the pockets.

And the info we have from the orignal supplier of the pants said they are originals they happened to have in stock--suggesting they are original officer pinks.

Let's not forget, though, that the Officer Pinks were made by SEVERAL different factories, and so even from one officer pink to another of the same era, there could be drastic differences in the fit/cut of the pant.

Cheers
Craig

Let us assume the costume department needed to outfit Ford and the stuntmen in pinks. They would have collected quite a few pair of pants. These were probably made by different suppliers. I can see a size difference in grabbing a pair of 32 or 34 waist.
I do not see much mystery beyond Ford being sick and using multiple pair of pants that were worn on the hips as modern pants are.

gator, read all of my post not part. thank you.

Over a priod of time, yes, but this is within a week's time?

your fact are backwards my friend.

a average human can only lose 1-3 lbs. of fat a week. Any more weight loss than this is coming from muscle mass. So if ford lost 10-15 lbs a week he lost a lot of muscle mass.

I don't think this is the big answer to why some of his pants look different. I think it could be a couple of things. 1 loss of weight or 2 different pants, or both.

milesfides wrote:First of all, those three pictures in sequence are misleading. The leftmost pic has the slimmest leg, but notice that he's taking a step. Naturally that extends the fabric, creating the illusion of a slimmer leg. But notice the rightmost pic where Ford is standing still. Suddenly his pants look wider and more full.

I can´t see that the fabric is extended anywhere in the three pics. What I can see is that Indy´s pants might be a bit too long in the roof scene.
In the pic Canyon posted he is also making a (bigger)step and you can see how baggy his pants are. The fabric only stretches in the knee area.
These two pants are not the same.

Indiana Gater wrote:

milesfides wrote:Either way, Ford wears the pants on his hips throughout the entire movie, because hese pants are cut like regular modern pleated trousers, not original WWII officer's pinks.

quite the contrary, they ARE WWII Officer's Pinks! At least, according to recent information (Peter) regarding the pockets.

Peter also conceded that there was some error in the patterns or in the process of constructing the pants. I don't remember the specifics, it's in the MC Hammer thread.

The width of the thigh can change due to waist increase/decrease, but what doesn't change is the rise. If he were wearing original officer's pinks on his hips, I believe the crotch seam would be closer to his knees.

That being said, it could be that HF is over six feet two with very long legs. In that case, he would NEED longer rise, and long rise original officer's pinks would look REGULAR on him.

I hope I'm making sense.

Last Crusader wrote:
I can´t see that the fabric is extended anywhere in the three pics. What I can see is that Indy´s pants might be a bit too long in the roof scene.
In the pic Canyon posted he is also making a (bigger)step and you can see how baggy his pants are. The fabric only stretches in the knee area.
These two pants are not the same.

Honestly, you can't? You're telling me you can't see any visual difference in the THIGH width of his pants, comparing the leftmost and rightmost? They appear to be much wider in the right pic. I dunno, like almost twice as wide. Camera angles and posture make a difference. Even whether pants are pressed and how they're pressed can influence their appearance.

These two pants might be different, or they can be the same. My point is, ultimately what matter is the RISE of his pants, particularly to those who are looking purchase cavalry twills from Peter or Noel.

Cause let's face it; some pants are wide legged, some are slim. Both are wearable. But if the rise doesn't fit, that's an expensive alteration. And it appears that for most people here, the rise wouldn't fit. (Whether or not they fit HF is another story)

This might all be OT anyways, so feel free to edit mods.

BendingOak wrote:gator, read all of my post not part. thank you.

Over a priod of time, yes, but this is within a week's time?

your fact are backwards my friend.

a average human can only lose 1-3 lbs. of fat a week. Any more weight loss than this is coming from muscle mass. So if ford lost 10-15 lbs a week he lost a lot of muscle mass.

My two cents. The majority of the weight loss would be from water loss through dehydration/perspiration. A huge symptom of dysentery is diarrhea. Plus, unless Ford was on Atkins, the average person has about two days worth of stored energy as carbohydrates, so very little muscle mass would be burned off intitially. More as the week went on.

In either event it would not change the height of the pants.

Another thing that is different in those two scenes is the gunbelt. Since that hangs low, the pants may need to hang lower so it looks right. Having three inches of waistband above the gunbelt would look silly.

I always thought that in the cairo scenes Ford wore trousers down because he was wearing a diaper under them, preventing diarrhea from staining precious clothing

I just can't find anywhere that says he even lost 10-15 pounds. In fact, what's to say he lost any weight? Sure he was ill, but other than shortening the Swordsman scene, he was well enough to film a movie!

LeatherneckJones wrote:I read an interview with Harrison somewhere, once upon a time

Sounds VERY reliable.

Oh dear, what have I started here?

Seriously though, it's good to see some lively debate around here.

Erri, you are a bad man! I'm never going to come to Italy to visit you now! J/K

In either event it would not change the height of the pants

I agee about the height of the pants. To me most likely not the same pants we are seeing here.

The majority of the weight loss would be from water loss through dehydration/perspiration.

Where would that water be coming from?

BendingOak wrote:

The majority of the weight loss would be from water loss through dehydration/perspiration.

Where would that water be coming from?

Every cell in your body depends on water, not just muscle cells and fat cells.

As you dehydrate, water from your entire body lessens. At first, you feel thirsty, have decreased urine output and maybe a headache or dizzyness. Then you may get lethargic and even have seizures. As dehydration worsens, your blood thickens and gets more difficult to pump causing low blood pressure. As a result your respiration increases to compensate for less oxygen in the blood.

If you are still unfortunate enough to have no water, your lips, tongue and mucous linings of the nose dry out and start to crack and bleed. The lining of your stomach dries out and you experience dry heaves. Your eyes recede into the back of your head and appear sunken and your skin becomes dry and scaly. Urine (if you have any at this point) becomes concentrated and actually burns the bladder.

Of course, without sweat to cool your body, your temperature starts to climb, your brain cells dry out and you go into convulsions. If you are still alive at this point, you will more than likely die of organ failure - or hope to soon.

In Ford's case, the dysentary would most likely cause only rudimentary symptoms such as physical exhaustion, weakness or possibly collapse. Since he was in a movie and there were people all around, the fluids were more than likely plentiful and he would only be battling the disease itself. People who start low-carb diets commonly shed 5lbs. of water weight in a matter of a few days.

There is an excellent article (I think in Time Magazine) that describes the perils of the undocumented immigrants coming from Mexico and the terrors that they encounter to achieve the American Dream. It describes the dehydration process in horrifying detail. My Mom also suffered from dehydration and I see a lot of the early symptoms in folks while I am hiking. Dehydration is scary.

(Edited on 10/11/2006 at 8:34am for spelling)

Thanks Doc for the explanation.

I wasn't really asking that question?

You asked "Where would that water be coming from?" I assumed that meant that you wanted to know where the water loss would occur if not from muscle mass since you also state that the average human can only lose 1-3 lbs. of fat per week and the rest is muscle.

I was just demonstrating my statement that it would more than likely be water loss rather than muscle loss, since Ford had dysentary and dehydration is a very real concern - especially in the climate in which he was filming. Sorry if I misread your statement...

Dr. Rick

I was being sarcastic.

The average human can lose 1-3 lbs. a week. If done correctly that 1-3 lbs will mostly be fat. If you lose any more weight than that in a weeks time will come from muscle mass ( muscle being mostly water). I think you and I agree for the most part.
I was just saying about canyon theory is that it's posible.
I tend to go with the easer explaination first. After stating that I would go with the fact that he wasn't wearing the same pants thoughout the movie first but could be that he lost a good amount of weight fast do to being sick.
Do I think Canyon theory is posible yes , maybe. Most likely different pants.

quite the contrary, they ARE WWII Officer's Pinks! At least, according to recent information (Peter) regarding the pockets.

How can you say this when we know that the pinks were pleatless.