one of the most annoying arguments I see for why the costumes in L*ttle W*men (2019) are Good Actually is that “the Alcotts were hippies”
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, didn’t 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 I’m in brought this up a few days ago, saying that the costumes in the movie were MORE accurate than “slavish devotion to accuracy” because the Alcotts surely wouldn’t have worn prim and prissy Actual Victorian Clothing™! 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, Louisa’s 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, cared 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. (Anna’s adolescent diary, emphasis mine.)
hold on. it’s almost like…someone can dress conventionally AND have radical thoughts about social issues?
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?
it’s almost like there’s a scene in part 2 of Little Women that movies always 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 are “more accurate to the family”
