- Hello, my beautiful doves, welcome back. So, today we'll be doing a highly, highly, highly requested video. I feel like I said that exact
same like two videos ago, but I've been listening to everyone and I thought it'd be appropriate because of the holiday season
to do a costume analysis, historical costume
analysis on "Little Women", the 2019 version. I really, really love
this movie narratively. It's probably one of my
favorite movies of all time. I just thought it was really well done. I loved the timelines
skipping back and forth, the color grading, the chemistry between members of the cast. I thought it was a lot
better than the 1994 version. (birds singing)
- Teddy, Teddy don't. - I just have, you know, a
tiny, tiny little minuscule, - Tiny, uh, little? - A problem, really. And that's the costumes. So everyone who knows me, knows I'm mostly a fan of
Jacqueline Durran's work. Like I loved her work in
"Atonement" and "Anna Karenina", but this movie was kind of a miss for me when it came to costumes. I also want to talk a little bit about the 1994 "Little Women"
in this costume analysis, because I watched that movie
for the first time recently, and the costumes were totally different. The costume designer
for that "Little Women" is Colleen Atwood. And if you're not familiar
with Colleen Atwood, she has done a number of
different things like "Chicago", "A Series of Unfortunate Events", the newest live action, "Little
Mermaid" she's working on. And she also designed the
"Black Parade" uniforms for My Chemical Romance. So for background information, "Little Women" takes place in the U.S., in the North during the Civil War. So to get a sense of what
fashion was like at the time, in the early 1860s, we
see really big skirts. The skirts were especially voluminous because of the invention
of the cage crinoline, or the hoop skirt, as some
people call it, in the 1850s, which was this cage like frame
worn underneath the skirt. The silhouette of the
skirt by the mid 1860s was kind of pyramid shaped, flatter at the front
and fuller at the back. Day dresses could be composed
of a one-piece garment or a separate matching bodice and skirt. By the end of the 1860s, waistlines rose, skirts were less full, and they were gored instead of gathered. In the early 1870s, we see skirts which were
looped or draped at the back. Women started to wear bustles to create more fullness
in the back as well. Jacqueline Durran said that
she tailored each sister's look to the character's idea
of who she is becoming. And if we look at the clothing colors, we can see that each
sister has her own palette. While I think color coding
the characters is a fun idea, it doesn't really make sense narratively. So the March's are depicted
as a family of modest means. They're not like dirt poor,
they still can afford a maid, but they're definitely, I would say, not as comfortable as
other families in the area. Most girls and women at the
time only owned a few dresses and they would just rotate between those two or three dresses. And if you came from a family of sisters, then the younger sisters
would wear hand-me-downs from their older sisters. If you design a color palette
for each individual sister, that implies that each
sister has her own clothes, like her own new clothes, which doesn't make sense economically. But let's just see why Durran gave each sister a color palette. In an interview with the
"Hollywood Reporter", Durran said that she designed a red and indigo blue palette for Jo, to represent Jo's energy,
creativity, and masculinity. Meg wears a green and
lavender color palette inspired by the Gothic
revival and pre-Raphaelite and William Morris paintings. Durran did this because Meg is supposed to be the practical and romantic sister. Beth has put in soft pinks,
plum purples, and browns. Durran wanted to dress
Beth in homier clothing as she never makes the leap
from childhood to adulthood. Beth's wardrobe is pretty drab in color and also carries this air of gloominess. For Amy, Durran put her in
light blues and rich tones because Amy is the showiest and most image conscious of the sisters. Also, Amy goes to Paris, which was the epicenter of
high fashion at this time. So Durran had her adopt
impressionist inspired fashion. So the color palettes do make sense and in a way, help us
understand each sister and her personal journey
a little bit more, especially as over time,
Jo and Meg's clothing gets a little bit more
lackluster in saturation, and that's kind of to show
their personal journey, growing into adulthood
and facing adversity. Amy stays in her vibrant
colors throughout the movie. And my justification for that, is that she is like the
most sheltered sister. So, you know, even at the end, she kind of just ends up with a guy that she's always wanted. She gets to go to Paris, et cetera. In contrast "Little Women" 1994 had pretty underwhelming costumes, but they're way more accurate. We see the girls wearing the same dresses over and over again. And they're all in pretty
much the same hues and tones with the exception of Amy's Paris dresses. Another nice detail in
the 90s "Little Women" is how we see the girls
wearing each other's clothing. When Amy is a little bit older, we can see her wearing the same dress that Meg was going to wear
to at the Moffitt's ball. Sure, none of the sisters
have their own colors, but the use of dress in this adaptation harks the March's financial situation, and is a more realistic portrayal of a real life, 1860s family. (upbeat funky music) It's kind of up to personal preference on whether you want the clothes
to reflect characters more or to reflect the environment more and give better background
context for the story. But I think after rewatching
both "Little Women", both costumes designers made the right decision for their movie. "Little Women" 2019 gave fuller storylines to all the sisters, whereas a "Little Women" 1994, really only focused on Jo's journey. If you want to give each sister a proper, equally cared for storyline, then having their clothes
reflect who they are is a great way to help add to the film. But if you're mainly focusing on one girl, then it doesn't really matter
what her sisters are wearing. They don't need to stand out because they're not supposed to. But something that might
sway you to team 90s, is that in an interview
with the "Daily Dot", Jacqueline Durran said that "to work out the economics
of their clothes", they purposely used cheaper
fabrics like cotton and linen". That sounds like it would make sense, but we have to remember
that this movie takes place during the Civil War in the North. And during this time cotton
prices shot up in the North because cotton was produced
in the South by slaves. According to economist David Surdam, in his article "Traders or Traitors: Northern Cotton Trading
During the Civil War", cotton merchants could cheaply
get cotton from the South and sell it up North
and turn a huge profit. Charles Gould, a New
York resident in 1864, described the potential
profits from trading cotton for a hundred dollars in greenbacks, which was the U.S.
currency during the war, you could buy a 400 pound
bale cotton in the South. That same bale would be worth $500 in greenbacks in New York. So can the March's
afford new cotton dresses for each sister? Probably not. The 90s version, once again, is more concerned with historical accuracy because even though the girls are shown wearing cotton
dresses in the summer sequences, Atwood made sure to put
little holes in the dresses and basically show like physical
visual markers of repair to imply that these dresses
had been heavily worn and probably were owned for a longer time. The 90s version also had bonnets. And, you know, I trust Durran's
fashion history knowledge. I definitely think that
she knew that bonnets were all the rage in the 1860s. So I took it upon myself
to kind of figure out why there were no bonnets
in the 2019 version. And I found this article
in the "New York Times" with an interview with Greta Gerwig, and she is quoted to say, "I didn't use any bonnets
because I don't love bonnets. I just don't like 'em. I feel like I'm allowed to
not do things I don't like." (frustrated grunting) I mean, okay, I understand
what she's trying to say, but at the same time,
I just don't understand why directors choose to
do movies in time periods when they clearly do not like the aesthetics of that time period. And yes, I'm looking
directly at Joe Wright for "Pride and Prejudice". But even so they could be wearing hoods, which were fashionable winter headwear. It just is not right for them to have bare heads in the cold. And I'll get to the
dresses more specifically in a little bit, but let's talk about the undergarments. In the interview with the "Daily Dot", Durran said that she let her actresses choose whether or not they
wanted to wear corsets. And I don't know why costume designers let their actors choose
whether or not to wear corsets because I think unless they do a whole PowerPoint presentation on what was appropriate attire back then, I feel like most actors
will forego the corset if they have a choice to. So if we run down the actresses very quickly in their decisions, so Saoirse Ronan decided
to forgo the corset for Jo, Emma Watson decided to wear the
corset occasionally for Meg, Eliza Scanlon decided to
forego the corset for Beth, and Florence Pugh, God is a woman, decided to wear her corset
at all times for Amy. (upbeat funky music) But wait, don't throw any
tomatoes at the actresses because I do want to raise a point first. I am normally all for corset wearing if we're going to do a period
piece before the 20th century, but there is an urban legend
or maybe there's a fact. The thing is, I couldn't
really find a source for this, but so many different people said this, that I guess it's true in
some capacity, I don't know. But Louisa May Alcott's parents were against corset wearing, and apparently Gerwig and Durran were working under that
assumption as well. Louisa May Alcott also wrote a
novel called "Eight Cousins", and there's some corset
discourse in the book with one character saying, "Nature knows how to mold a woman better than any corset maker, and I won't have her interfered with. My dear Clara, have you lost your senses that you can for a moment
dream of putting a growing girl into an instrument of torture like this?" In the "Little Women" novel, during the chapter when Meg
goes to the Moffitt's ball, Alcott writes, "they laced
her in a sky blue dress, which was so tight she
could hardly breathe". And then after dancing
for a bit with Laurie, Meg actually has to sit down because of the breathing issues. It's safe to assume then that Louisa held similar beliefs about
corsets as her parents, and probably didn't wear
them unless she had to. (children shouting) - It's is my opinion that young girls are no different than boys
in their need for exertion. Feminine weakness and fainting
spells are the direct result of our confining young girls to the house, bent over their needlework
and restrictive corsets. - So I guess the no corsets
get a pass in this movie. Other undergarment issues include the fact that none of the girls are
seen wearing hoop skirts. And this one is less forgivable because even women's rights activists at the time wore hoop skirts. The hoop skirt was considered
a feminist advancement because women no longer were constricted by the layers and layers
of heavy petticoats that they had to wear before. (upbeat funky music) And regardless of how much Gerwig wanted to stretch the hippie thing, the March's probably
would wear hoop skirts. In a March 1863 issue of
"Godey's Lady's Book", one journalist writes, "We see some hoopless individuals
perambulating our streets and queer oddities they are!" The 90s "Little Women"
definitely wins in this regard. In an interview with "LA Times", Atwood said that it took half an hour for everyone to get dressed because they all wore corsets, camisoles, bloomers, stockings, hoop
skirts, and petticoats. We also see Jo wearing
red drawers in the house and Amy wearing pink
pantalettes at the beach. This is just totally impractical, and you would think that Marmee is the beacon of practicality. Undergarments were almost always white because they were heavily laundered. And it just wouldn't make sense for you to wear colored drawers
because the colors would fade. Now we can move on to
the clothing details. At the beginning of the
movie, Jo is in New York. She's trying to establish
herself as a writer and she's wearing a men's
shirt, a waistcoat, and a skirt. According to Durran, she didn't want Jo to give
up her boyish qualities, even as a woman in the city. And you know what? I'm not mad about that. I'm generally not mad at any of Jo's fashion choices in the film because she supposed to be a
very unconventional character. However, I noticed that in the
"Little Women" 1994 version, Jo is dressed way more feminine, and I think that was a choice to make her seem more
respectable in society. Now I understand why Gerwig and Durran decided to keep Jo in men's clothing. But again, if this was a
realistically historical scenario, women who appropriated men's wear would not be looked upon favorably at all. And if Jo wanted to be
taken seriously as a writer and not have the publisher
door slam in her face, then she would have to make concessions with her personal style. Oh, and just one more thing
to point out about the shirts. Jo does wear a lot of
two-piece blouses and skirts, which is conceptually period accurate. We start to see more of those
as an alternative to dresses in the mid 1800s. However, she should be
wearing a Garibaldi shirt, named after the Italian
revolutionary Garibaldi. They were loose fitting shirts
that resembled men's shirts and became fashionable among
European and American women. They could be white or red,
but red was highly fashionable and would also fit well
with Jo's color scheme. In 1862 "Godey's Lady Book" said that the Garibaldi shirt was quote, "a change amounting to
revolution in lady's costume". So with that said, it
makes even less sense for Jo to be wearing men's shirts. These Garibaldi's shirts were
considered a breakthrough in feminist advancements
when it comes to clothing. And it's almost like Jo is two steps ahead of the feminists of the time. And you know, that just
doesn't make any sense. Jo also wears trousers, it looks like, underneath her skirt in the sequence. Again, it makes sense for her character, but people would absolutely
publicly ridicule her. In the 1994 version, Jo wears bloomers when
she goes ice skating, which makes more sense because it was more acceptable
for women to wear pants when they were doing sports. - Josephine March, you walked
all the way from Walden Pond in only these bloomers? - At the end of the day, despite my grapples with men's wear, narratively, I liked that Jo borrows a lot of Laurie's clothes. It definitely makes sense
for the relationship and is a good fallback
reason as to how Jo acquires so much men's wear throughout the movie. As for Amy, Durran said
that her Parisian outfits were inspired by the
painter she was painting, so Monet and Manet. Her ballgown is a very dark
color, which is inaccurate. Only married women would wear dark colors. Young women like Amy would
wear pastel bright colors, similar to how Meg is dressed
at the Moffitt's ball. I read an interview with
Durran, where she said she wanted to distinguish
between the three balls. The first one is more of
like a rural country ball of well-to-do farmers, and she wanted it to feel cozy and festive with Christmas-y color
schemes and plaid dresses. The second ball, Meg's ball, is one of high American society, full of excited, pretty young girls. So pastels and vibrancy is everywhere. The third ball, Amy's ball, is in Paris at the center of couture. And so she wanted a more
chic, richer color scheme. And look, I understand that. I'm just saying it's not accurate. I would argue that Amy's Paris dresses are also pretty off in
terms of silhouette. By the late 1860s, the silhouette had considerably
flattened at the front, but hers is still pretty full. I do like that this
overskirt is tabbed though, because it's a detail we see
in late 60s fashion plates. Meg is a disaster throughout
this whole movie fashion wise. Her side parted hair was not a thing. Her long hair was not a thing. And her side ponytail was
definitely not a thing. I understand why Durran might
have wanted to design Meg as a pre-Raphaelite painting subject, but I just don't think it
makes sense for her character. Yes, she's a romantic,
but at the same time, she is concerned with social norms. She obviously pays attention
to what's in fashion and she doesn't seem to like standing out from the other girls either. This is why she freaks out when Jo accidentally burned
some of her hair before a ball, why she puts on that silk
dress for the Moffitt's ball, why she pretends to be a
completely different person at the same ball, and why she felt she had
to purchase fancy silk at the store. Meg is super concerned about proprieties. So why is her hair always long? When every respectable girl her
age would put their hair up. It makes even less sense for her to wear it down for her wedding, which is definitely a symbolic moment of her growing into adulthood. (upbeat funky music) Meg's dresses are also at
questionably short lengths, which conflicts with her age. Only young girls can get
away with shorter dresses. Meg's Moffitt ballgown is pretty good. It's just strange that
her dress fits her so well when it's technically borrowed. Also don't even get me
started on Meg's wedding gown. It looks straight up 1970s boho style. And Meg's dress here too. The silhouette is a way to early 1860s. I know a lot of people criticize this, but it's totally worth reiterating, because if they did want to
show a passage of time better, then it would make sense to really emphasize the
silhouettes of the early 60s versus the late 60s versus the early 70s. I mean, I personally didn't have any issue understanding the timeline. I think the color grading
was enough for that, but it's kind of just my
expectation with any movie that takes place over an expanse of time. If we have a period
movie set in the 2010s, you're not gonna have the
characters in the 2019 scene wearing fashion trends of 2011. You know, same kind of deal here. And you can argue, oh,
Meg doesn't have money and she can't afford to
keep up with the trends, but I'm going to tell you you're wrong. While, she doesn't have a lot of money, she does show interest in fashion. Meg, at least in the 1994 version, talked about how she
would sew her own dresses, - [Older Woman] But you
had it made up so plain. - Well, I do my own sewing. - [Older Woman] Mrs. Finster's- - So it wouldn't actually
be too costly for Meg to alter each dress to match
the trending silhouette, especially because Isaac Singer really made some improvements in the sewing machine industry. There is further evidence
that Meg keeps up with fashion because we can see her wearing
a skirt with geometric trim. Skirts with bold geometric trims were in style in the early 1860s. For Beth, I don't have much to say, she's dressed very modestly. There's nothing particularly
interesting about her clothes. They're quite consistently plain, but it makes sense for her. She's a no-frills kind of character and arguably the character that represents the idea of home the most. Acting as a catalyst for Jo to
start writing "Little Women". So the last thing I want
to say in this video is that historical accuracy
is not the be all end all. Like I know I just went on
this total rant, but it's not. Would it be nice if Gerwig had even a slight
appreciation for bonnets? Well, yes. But honestly I just wish that the two "Little
Women" costume designs could just merge together, because I liked the historical accuracy of the 90s version, but I also liked the idea of tailoring each character's clothing
to reflect that character. Even though I was talking
smack about the color palettes, I actually wouldn't be bothered if that was the only creative liberty, but the silhouettes, the
incorrect undergarments and the hair were pushing it way too much, to the point that it
didn't even make sense for the character to look like that. Overall, I love this movie. It's just something to think about. Let me know what your thoughts
are on "Little Women", the 90s version versus the 2019 version. And also let me know what March sister you think you connect with the most. For me, I am 95% Amy. I'll see you all next time and I hope you have a lovely
rest of your holiday season. Wait, wait, before we go, can we just appreciate
Laurie's skating outfit for just a second? I'm pretty sure that his skating outfit is based on a Jackson
Hanes skating uniform, which would make a pretty
inaccurate for a normal person. Most Victorians just wear
regular clothes to ice skate, but it's honestly a look. And since Laurie's got the
money to make a custom suit, why not? I just wanted to point this outfit out because I'm not as well
versed in men's wear. So I don't really want to
talk about Laurie too much, but this is one of my favorite
outfits in the entire movie. And I just wanted to bring
attention to it very quickly. Now you can go. (gentle piano music)
