one of the most annoying arguments I see for why the costumes in L*ttle W*men (2019) are Good Actually is thatΒ βthe Alcotts were hippiesβ
this goes back to an interview with the costumer before the movie came out, in which she called the Alcotts hippies because they made their own clothes. which, of course, didnβt make you a hippie. it made you a lower- or middle-class woman living in Concord, MA in the mid-19th century who wanted to have clothes. but the Bad History seed had planted
someone in a historical fashion FB group Iβm in brought this up a few days ago, saying that the costumes in the movie were MORE accurate thanΒ βslavish devotion to accuracyβ because the Alcotts surely wouldnβt have worn prim and prissy Actual Victorian Clothingβ’! they were free spirits! they were rebels! they
(Louisa May Alcott, probably 1870s or 80s. She is definitely wearing a corset in both photos.)
um
(Anna Alcott Pratt, right, the inspiration for Meg.)
wait a minute
(Abigail May Alcott, left, Louisaβs mother. At right is Louisa as a young woman. Note very precise curls and most of her hair pinned up.)
well those are just formal photos! surely only May and Anna, the inspirations for Amy and Meg, caredΒ about silly things like clothes!
In the evening Louisa and I walked through the lane and talked about how we should like to live and dress and imagined all kinds of beautiful things. (Annaβs adolescent diary, emphasis mine.)
hold on. itβs almost likeβ¦someone can dress conventionally AND have radical thoughts about social issues?Β
like Louisa and her sisters and mother could write letters about trimming bonnets and going to balls (which they did) AND be active, groundbreaking proto-feminists?Β
itβs almost like thereβs a scene in part 2 of Little Women that movies alwaysΒ leave out where Jo is happily working on a dress for one of her sisters and gets cross when Amy makes her stop and go calling?
but sure, loose hair and prairie dresses areΒ βmore accurate to the familyβ
