Varsity: Resonating with every generation since its release, Little Women saw a brand new remake in 2019. A story of four sisters — Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy March — Louisa May Alcott’s beloved tale reads as an autobiographical depiction of her own adolescence: navigating the transition from childhood to adulthood. Greta Gerwig’s retelling of this narrative gives a new spin to the classic.
10 comments:
I have such beef with the Little Women costumes. I think that following the line between creativity and accuracy is extremely hard and I will forgive a little bit. I agreed with most of the article though. One thing I didn’t one hundred percent agree with was that the characters' color palettes didn’t work. I think that they are a great example of using creativity in an effective way, each palette truly reflects the character and overall creates a better look for the movie which has a lot of beautiful aesthetic shots. Something that I can never forgive the designer for is those Uggs. Honestly how did a whole team allow them to put a group of girls from the 1860s in pairs of Uggs. I also agreed that Jo can take on this more inaccurate design. She’s ahead of her time, she doesn’t care about fashion or the conventions of society. I really love her design for this version of Little Women.
I can relate to this internal struggle some face as a lover of scenic design, and an artist. There is a battle that you have to fight in order to ensure your work represents the function of the design needed, sometimes that means heavy research on period and chronologically. However, sometimes it means synthesizing inspiration for internalization of the content and a personal interpretation. Unfortunately, a good designer does not get to choose to use one or the other approach based on personal preference, nor do they let this affect the quality of the work that is produced. The entire vision of the piece can be ruined by a detail that shatters the illusion that all the designers work to create. This is shown when the author describes the disappointment they felt when Durran dressed Amy March in Uggs which clearly makes no sense in this world that they were building.
With the Hamilton National Tour having come into town just last weekend, the question of historical accuracy versus creative liberty is one I have been asking myself recently. I mean, theatre is a medium that allows creative expression. One can take a text such as Hamlet by William Shakespeare and set it in a post-apocalyptic world– as was the case of the junior performance pieces. This, in other words, means that those in charge of the design have the unique opportunity to disregard historical accuracy. In terms of costume design, as is the focus of this article, I find it interesting to hear Jacqueline Durran’s take on the 1860s fashion of Little Women. That being said, I did not watch the movie. So, my knowledge and/or opinions come from this article and this article alone. With that being the case, I cannot help but agree: “A crime I cannot overlook is Durran dressing Amy March, the youngest sister, in Uggs”.
I, personally, have been a really big fan of the 2019 retelling of Little Women– Greta Gerwig’s direction and the acting of the cast were all phenomenal. But, it was interesting to read about the costume design: the difference between accuracy versus creative liberty is probably a hard line to draw. Though, the Ugg boots are definitely a no-go in my world. In what world does that fit in to accuracy or creative decision making? Not sure that it does… The note about cotton was interesting too, how the Civil War would’ve made cotton so much more expensive. But, I think that’s not something immediately noticeable on screen, but is something interesting to note. There was much more grace given for Jo’s costume design, which I think made sense, because Jo followed less of the social norms for women of the day. Generally, I think if you’re not knowledgeable about costume design, these things are easy to overlook, but brings up an interesting discussion nonetheless.
Upon reading the title of this article, I was expecting to find some report about how the costume designer had made little errors or taken little creative liberties around the time period. This occurrence is extremely common in period films, especially those that attempt to recreate a certain era. Take, for example, Clueless, the film from the 90's that inspired, rather than reflected, popular culture and fashion. The article as it is, however, absolutely surprised me. I had never even noticed that the costume designer threw uggs into the mix. Not only are they extremely modern, they don't even protect well against winter conditions in Massachusetts like snow. I believe they were created in Australia, and I myself have seen them worn in California in the areas where it doesn't snow either. I'm surprised that the details like the uggs and the would-be-expensive color coordination weren't pointed out earlier. All I remember hearing about the film during its release was Greta Gerwig's great work, and the wonderful performances of the actors.
As much as I love 2019 Little Women, I have had beef with the costume design ever since it a) existed, and b) won the Oscar for best costumes during that season. Really do love some color symbolism don’t get me wrong and let me emphasize, I LOVE color symbolism. But the historical inaccuracies really took me aback at times. A portion of what makes this retelling interesting is the going back and forth between present and past. The costumes help tell part of that story. But because they start out at the wrong spot, when they do the back and forth it feels off in that sense. What they are wearing now should have been what they wore then and so forth. My thing is that there are some characters that did follow the rules of the century, I feel like if everyone had been on the same page it would not have been so jarring.
I think historical accuracy vs design decision is always a debatable topic. Sticking to historical accuracy can mean that the designer loses the chance to tell the audience more about the character. On the other hand, ignoring historical accuracy and only serving the aesthetics can make the story loses credibility and reality completely. I think finding the balance between the two is also a difficult task, especially for period shows. Additionally, I think this article makes a good point in pointing out that some of the costume choices just don’t seem convincing. The UGGs, for example, can definitely be replaced by something from that time period yet still fits the aesthetics. The distinction in colour palettes of the girls, though, I think is a smart decision and I think it would add to the character development well.
I already back in 2020 was baffled that Little Woman received the Oscar for best costumes, purely because it is incredibly historically inaccurate and poorly done. I am really glad that I read this article because it pointed out details that even I didn’t notice. The use of Ugg shoes within the show is absolutely ridiculous because it shows a saddening level of laziness in reproducing the garments within the show. Already then, when I watched the film, it was clear to me that the entirety of almost all the costumes was simply borrowed from large costume rental houses and thrown together. The entire controversy of not using bonnets aside, people need to understand that this modern style of having mismatched pieces of clothing like depicted in the film was not common at all. Everyone including the poorest farmers even in the 1860s would go specifically to a tailor to receive their clothing as there was no such thing as mass-produced garments and sizes except for the military. This film feels like the clothing is more fiction than historic, and it’s clearly not done with that in mind which only makes it worse. Films like Cyrano are also historically incorrect, but this is clearly done on purpose not because it’s easier to throw together a film with crummy rental clothes, but instead, the film attempts to emphasize and overdo the styles of the time in a cartoon esc way which I find incredibly genius. Marie Antoinette personally is the most historically correct film I’ve ever seen and the costume detail is done to an incredible extent, but even this film playfully hides convers in the background of the set, this is clearly done on purpose as a way of teasing the audience, but wearing uggs is simply ridiculous and only hurt perceptions on historic garments from this period.
I still have not seen Greta Gerwig’s Little Women, but I was shocked to hear the costume designer had actors wear Uggs in the period piece movie. Personally, I think that there is a delicate balance to staying accurate to the time period and taking artistic liberty. In instances like the sisters wearing cotton instead of silk is an unfortunate oversight, but not detrimental. However, Meg’s conservative gown for the ball completely misses the point of what the outfit is supposed to represent. The general point I’m getting at is that the average viewer doesn’t know the specific standards of fashion for most historical eras, but they will notice when costume choices fail to align with the characters personality. This also relates to how much input an actor has on their costume. I think actors should absolutely have a say, but I do not think that they get to dictate everything.
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen little women but when I did watch it I remember thinking it was an ok movie, but not as fantastic as everyone made it out to be. I recall the first movie as being better. I read all the books growing up. I do see how it appealed to all age groups, although my grandmother, aunt, and mother all had the same opinion as me. I agree with the author that I felt like Jo’s costumes made sense. I liked having her dressed in the cap with the open coat and the messy hair, it felt in line with her not caring. I didn’t realize they were wearing uggs but yes that is terrible I have no idea what anyone was thinking with that. That is not in line with anything at all and I feel like there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for that.
Post a Comment