Is it Accurate? Little Women (2019)
The 2019 adaptation of the classic novel, Little Women, was a sell-out when it arrived on our screens. Praised for its brilliant direction from Greta Gerwig and its impressive cast, Little Women inspired many peoples style and outfits, with the film's costume designer Jacqueline Durran receiving the 2020 Academy Award for her work on the film. Yes, the costumes were pretty and very -aesthetic- but were they historically accurate? Let’s take a look.
It is important to preface when critiquing a film's costume choices that the mistakes do not solely lay at the feet of the costume designer, it is a group effort involving director, producers and hair and makeup teams.
Soairse Ronan as Jo March Wilson Webb/CTMG
In the opening scene, we are introduced to Jo March, played by Saoirse Ronan, as she meets with a book publisher. At this point, we are seeing the “present-day” Jo, in the late 1860s. The late 1860s were a time of crinolines and large, voluminous skirts, so it is somewhat confusing that Jo looks more like she's in 1910? There is zero volume in her skirt, it resembles more of an Edwardian walking skirt. When she leaves the publishers office and runs down the street hoisting up her skirt we see that Jo is wearing long, trouser, bloomer-like things underneath. While bloomers were around in the 1860s, they were not overly common and certainly did not look like Jo’s. Sticking with Jo, let's discuss her look when she first meets Laurie at the ball in a flashback to the earlier 1860s. It is evident from the dresses that both Jo and Meg are wearing that they are not rich, they are not wearing lavish silks and their dresses do look outdated, but they still do not look right for that period. The other ladies at the ball are wearing stunning 1860s evening gowns, with large crinoline skirts and off-the-shoulder details, and while the March’s can not afford such elaborate dresses, they would have made a bit more of an effort so as to not stand out like a sore thumb. It doesn’t look like Jo is wearing any kind of structure underneath her dress. Although Jo, out of all the sisters, is the most historically inaccurate in terms of costume, I can understand why the artistic liberties were taken.
Saoirse Ronan as Jo March Wilson Webb/CTMG
The film puts emphasis in showing that Jo has very little connection to femininity, she is unique and she is feisty, and one way to show this is by making her look so visibly different to her siblings and other characters in the film. This is also seen when she sometimes chooses to wear a waistcoat. I think it looks great, I personally love a waistcoat, but not in this context. No lady in the 1860s would have been wearing a waistcoat. It is almost forgivable….almost, but not quite.
The March Family, Little Women 2019 Wilson Webb/CTMG
One of my greatest pet peeves when it comes to historical inaccuracies in film and television is hair. Hair is so vital in helping to place the story in a certain period of history, helping bring the costumes and characters to life. To put it frankly, whoever did the hair design for this film clearly did no research, and if they did, they chose to ignore it. It is just so infuriating! The film is called Little Women, not little children! In the flashback scenes the March siblings aren’t 5 years old, their hair should not be down. Regardless of your age or your status in the 1860s, if you were out in public, and even inside the home, your hair was up, so why the March sisters so often have their hair down is beyond me. Oh, and Meg having a side parting is just bizarre, throughout history women have generally worn their hair with a middle parting. The side parting is a newer phenomenon. Sticking with this theme, I have one word: Bonnets. Where on earth are they? It’s the 1860s, women wore bonnets. In Paris, when we first meet Aunt March, she is wearing a bonnet, the only one in the whole film! Perhaps the direction of this was to show how old fashioned Aunt March is and that she is so different from the March sisters and Marmee?
Florence Pugh as Amy March Wilson Webb/CTMG
Amy is one of my favourite characters in Little Women and generally her costumes in the “present-day” when she is in Paris, are great. She can afford to wear more expensive fabrics and keep more or less up to date with the silhouettes of the time. One could argue that she should be wearing more 1870s silhouettes, with an emerging bustle, but as there is no specific date attributed to the “present-day” and none of the extras are wearing that style, I think she is pretty fashionable. In all these “present-day” scenes it is clear she is wearing a crinoline, thank god someone is, and the silhouette is pretty accurate and so is her hair. While her “present-day” may be good, her flashbacks are less so.
The March sisters Wilson Webb/CTMG
Amy is the youngest sister and coming from a not so wealthy family, her clothes would have all been hand-me-downs from her sisters. She would not have been fashionable and her clothes would be battered and worn, but for some reason, Amy is the most fashionable of all the sisters at this time. Her skirts have fullness, she wears patterns like plaid which were common of the time, and her bodices are all distinctly 1860s.
The March sisters Wilson Webb/CTMG
At the end of the day, the March family are not wealthy, but they also aren’t so staggeringly poor that they have nothing - they have a housemaid! Much like in my critique of Pride and Prejudice (2005), liberties were clearly taken to make the March family seem poorer than they actually are. Maybe this is to make us sympathise with the characters more, but I think it just makes it more confusing where there is such a mish-mash of styles and expense between the characters. One major complaint of the film as a whole was that it was difficult to keep up with what was a flashback and what was not. Personally, I did not find this an issue, although I see why some may have struggled. I believe they could have utilised costume more to aid this, making clear differences between the March sisters younger and older wardrobes. While this was clear with Amy, for Meg, Jo and Beth it was very hard to see that they had aged.
Closing scene of Little Women (2019) Wilson Webb/CTMG
I want to end by looking at the closing scene of the film. Jo has published her book and set up a school, Meg is happily raising her family and Amy and Laurie have had a baby, it is a very lovely and happy ending. And I’m about to ruin it. What is Jo wearing? Like seriously, what is she wearing! That shirt and dress combo look like it came straight out of a 2020 fashion catalogue! By this point in the film, we should be well into the early 1870s. We should be seeing bustles and high necks. We get the tiniest, minuscule hope with Amy who has a slight hint of where a bustle may have once been, but I mean, I’m really picking at straws here. Meg has no structure to her skirts, are we surprised? No.
So, to summarise is Little Women an excellent film with great directing that deserved awards? Yes. Did it, however, deserve an Academy Award for its costumes? No. The costumes are all over the place and are frankly confusing to the plot and timeline of the film. I have no issues with artistic liberties being taken with costumes, but they should be done appropriately and add to the plot otherwise they just simply do not work. The wonderfully talented Micarah Tewers made a great video on this topic (with bonus bonnet making tutorial!), and I highly suggest you give it a watch. She is far more concise than me!
