the costumes of Little Women (2019) do not live up.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ธ.ค. 2020
- PODCAST
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/3wvGhhd...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
for extra content every Wednesday 😈
Interviews:
‘Little Women’ costume designer Jacqueline Durran talks about dressing the March sisters
www.dailydot.com/upstream/lit...
The Costumes in Little Women Came Straight Out of Real Paintings
www.instyle.com/fashion/littl...
Designing ‘Women’ lets Jacqueline Durran get a little freer with Victorian costumes
www.latimes.com/entertainment...
Old Look, New Reality The Movie: "Little Women"
www.latimes.com/archives/la-x...
How 'Little Women' Costume Designer Created Character-Defining Looks for Each Sister
www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...
How Greta Gerwig Built Her ‘Little Women’
www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/mo...
Readings:
Traders or Traitors: Northern Cotton Trading During the Civil War by David G. Surdam
Social Media:
IG: / gremlita
TIKTOK: / gremlita
LETTERBOXD: boxd.it/7YgX
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. All the videos, songs, images, and graphics used in the video belong to their respective owners and this channel does not claim any right over them. - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
No one:
Me knowing nothing about period clothing: You are so right, yes 🙌 👁👄👁
Same lol
Literally me im so facinated by her knowledge
me is the 3.1kst person to like your comment
meeeee😭n I watch so many of these
I only know men's style but now i know whole how to flex on some ladies 😉
i think it’s such a missed opportunity to not have jo change from borrowing boys’ clothes when she’s younger, to adapting her masculine style into acceptable womenswear when she’s trying to establish herself as a writer. that would be such a great visual representation of her making compromises as an adult in order to achieve her dreams
yeah that would be cool! as well as all of them implementing small personal touches (ribbons in their own colors, handkerchiefs, the way they style something...) which could be an affordable and socially acceptable way to show their individuality... and Jo could have something of Laurie's as a sort of keepsake that she would still wear into adulthood
YES, THIS.
yeah, in the book Mr.March says that he misses the tomboy but if he is getting a strong lady instead, he would be comforted. Jo despite her rebellious nature, "learnt to carry herself with ease, if not grace" .
I would have even been satisfied if they introduced adult Jo wearing Bloomers which were a city rage in the 1850’s and re-emerged in the 1880’s & 90’s (for bicycle riding). It could have been a way to show her feminist rebellious style while still being feminine and somewhat acceptable in a city setting. But the straight mens attire (along with the travesty of hair in the whole movie) killed me. The Meg ball scene was also terrible since her dress was more conservative than was the norm - yet we are to believe she was looking so promiscuous that she was made fun of at the ball??
Agree! That bowler style hat in particular was ridiculous! 🤨
It really is a shame that the costumes in the 2019 version were such a miss since you could tell they wanted to tell a story with their wardrobe but didn’t really make sense collectively
Yeah! I live the visual storytelling but it just wasn't right.
They must have a through research while presenting a historical based movie or a story of past era.
The costume choice that bothered me wasn't necessarily the clothes. It was how they let Emma Watson's hair all the way down, with no curls while Florence Pugh looked prim in comparison. These hair and styling choices made Emma Watson look younger and more immature than Florence Pugh when Emma is supposed to be Meg, the oldest March sister. Something about this makes me think the director (or even producers) didn't have faith in Meg's literary characterization. I think if the creative team styled Emma's look to be more Victorian accurate, it would have made Meg's arc in the story more visually impactful.
in light of this video and also your comment, i agree, and it reminds me of how in the books, it's explicitly stated that Amy is a darling of Meg's (while Jo is Beth's closest confidante). i thought of this because giving Emma Watson a more appropriate and prim hairstyle along with Florence Pugh could visually inform us of that relationship, while Saorise Ronan and Eliza Scanlen can keep their slightly looser hair. it also works to show how Meg and Amy are the sisters who are more focused on being ladylike and proper and fitting into society (though in different ways), while Jo and Beth didn't think much of what other people thought and did as they pleased (and again, in different ways; Jo being a tomboy and Beth having crippling shyness). i did find it a bit distracting that Emma Watson had her hair down -- even without much knowledge of the ways of the time -- since it made her look younger despite playing the oldest sister.
Let me guess, its because Watson wanted it?
@@deprimada3560 that's more likely the case, honestly. Ever since she started championing feminism, she's been trying to insert her own ideas into every character she plays, which isn't a good idea when you are trying to depict a certain time in history that doesn't abide by today's feminism...
That hair choice genuinely angered me, lol. ESPECIALLY THE WEDDING LIKE DAMN! The side pony was also a “wtf” moment, lmao.
@@AeridisArt Yeah, as a former actor you are supposed to do whatever the director wants hands down (unless it literally goes against your morals) The EGO. The NERVE. 😩 I’m a feminist too, but that was NOT WHAT WAS GOING ON THEN. It’s a PERIOD PIECE, not a one woman show about her feelings on modern feminism. Lol. I guess we really don’t know for sure if she had anything to do with it, it may not have even been her choice but if so...NO. Lmao. Directors direct, actors act. Periodt.
AMEN SISTER
Omg hi micarah 😳. I absolutely loved your vid on this movie so it means a lot to get this notif! 💖
Omg literally hiiiii
this is one of the best crossovers in the history of crossovers
omg fancy seeing you here
@@claraB1016 literally 😂
I wouldn't hate Little Womens costuming so much it if didn't win a Oscar. Especially when Rocketman came out that same year.
rocketman was so robbed at the oscars in general omg
god rocketman was just robbed so bad, im still furious at it
@@casir.7407 @cgm ITS WAS its almost 2021 and I am still mad
I was personally rooting for JOJO Rabbit
Rocketman is amazing. I'm still mad about it being robbed.
Are the costumes of Little Women 2019 the worst? No, not really. Some of them are pretty nice. But did they deserve to win that Oscar? HELLS NO!
RIGHT??? I would've loved if the film had won say best adapted script or cinematography or even music (things I think it does deserve) but the irishman and rocketman are better costume-wise in my opinion
i loved the movie but really? an oscar for costumes?
really???? i loved it so much it was my favorite movie for a while
rocket man definitely deserved the oscars costume in my opinion, i mean the costumes for that were amazing
My main issue is that they really needed two actresses to play Amy, as good as Florence is she doesnt come off as very young especially with her husky voice, part of Amy's arc is that she grows up a lot and that got lost
I agree! It made it much harder to excuse Amy’s behavior as childish because she was portrayed by a grown woman and it made Amy come off as more malicious than bratty when she burned the book
That was cringe really.
it does still show alot of character growth though in my opinion, more so than the earlier version of the movie anyway
@@nathalie3601 i disagree. kirsten dunst was a brilliant young amy, and the older actress really depicted how much amy had grown both physically and personally.
this is kind of misogynistic. i grew up looking a lot like florence pugh as a child, and i believed her completely.
Micarah screaming in agreement somewhere far away
Especially about the bonnets
I’M RIGHT HERE AND YES I AM THIS WAS BEAUTIFUL
@@MicarahTewers 🥺
Micarah Tewers also did a really good rant video about this!
Was looking for this comment!
yeaa, totally agree!
i agree
BONNETS
So good it made me not want to see the movie. Those mitmatched patterns in lilac and lime green for Meg... Those goddamned UGG boots in one of the girls... Not happening.
Having adult Florence Pugh playing child Amy was so awkward and weird looking to me especially when she was next to actual little kids.
OMG yess!!! dramaturgically that was the biggest mistake of the movie. I get that Florence is an exceptional actress but a 23-year-old can't play a believable 10-12-year-old, no matter how good they are.
(Also sidenote: I think Timmy Chally should have had some facial hair (preferably moustache) in the later playing scenes because he looks 16 through the whole movie)
It was a bit of a stretch,and made her acting look too try hard
@@--s-0-
I'm 23 years old but people think I would be 13-16 years old.
It is actually possible but the voice of the actress (a very beautiful voice) is to deep and she doesnt look younger than 16 even with all the make up or childish behavior.
I really agree with this. Florence Pugh has the presence and deep voice of a much older woman which made things she did as a child (especially burning Jo's book) seem like really different behaviours than they would have from a young girl and they didn't fit the character as she is in the book. She gave a powerful performance as adult Amy but they should have had her played by a child in the younger scenes, as they did in the 1994 version with Kirsten Dunst.
I get why people say this but growing up with the 94 version there just isn’t a way to switch actresses and make it work
There was no Meg, that was Emma being Emma 😂
I totally felt that, too.
As always
*Sigh* I wasn't a fan of Emma's portrayal as Meg. All I saw was Hermione... unfortunately. And the costumes were bad.
@@judychen4976 yeah she can NOT do an American accent lol
@@judychen4976 Similar to how when I watch Hermione, all I see is Emma haha
as soon as I saw the lose hair in the trailer, i was like NOooooo. I mean, in the book, they fuss so much about hair, the curls. They have limited dresses, Jo has a burnt ball gown, Meg a dowdy white tartalan, and Amy has to wear hand-me-downs from her cousin. Meg doesnt have any other dress for party occassion since she isnt out, and coz of poverty. and Jo takes special care with her dress when visiting the newspaper office, wearing a bonnet and all, she does NOT lift her skirt above her knee to run. that is highly inappropriate behaviour at the time. Giving these costumes an Oscar is sending off bad signals to other designers as well.
Even nowadays, 2022, I'd be embarrassed to lift a skirt above my knee.
I’ve honestly loved the 1994 costumes. They feel lived in and thoughtful.
I agree! Seeing the two side by side just empasizes how good the 94 ones are!
The 1994 version is better than the new one imo
@@alinakhasanova5360 100% with you there!
Yes they definitely captured the time period better.
I agree. The individual costumes never stood out to me but as a collective film, it has always been one of my favourite era costumed pieces. They are so cohesive and I personally appreciate that they took so much inspiration from the time period and the novel itself.
this video feels like a Christmas gift🥰🥰
Indeed, it's a Christmas gift that keeps on giving! 🎁😍
Aww!
Ll
@@bellabyers2929 505035fp
@@bellabyers2929 fr
I did the "Little Women" musical in college. (I was Amy.) Our costumer always explained all of her decisions and the history behind them. Jo was always in women's clothes, all the female cast members wore corsets and lightweight hoops beneath our costumes. I've done multiple musicals in corsets that stayed on the whole duration of the show. As someone who works professionally in TV/film and stage, I know that TV/film days tend to be much longer and remaining in a corset for up to eight hours or longer can be a lot. But if I can sing and dance under hot stage lights for almost three hours straight in a corset in "Les Miserables," then the film cast can spend their time on set in a corset, too.
Especially since they're actually being paid.
I’m in little women the musical right now and I’m playing Beth :) The theatre is letting all of the actors and actresses work with the costumer and I can’t wait! I love everything that goes into theatre and I can’t wait to learn more about costuming!
Good for you, i guess.
Literally this.
little women (2019) will always have a special place in my heart, especially because it was the last movie i saw in theaters before the world fell apart! and i'm a jo sun, amy moon and rising
The 2020 adaptation of Emma was the last movie I saw in theaters before the world locked down and it also has a special feeling of a last I didn't know was a last!
@@lauragill2296 i watched that last week! i bet it was so beautiful on the big screen 🥺
Me too! Last movie I saw before pandemic
Same here! I saw it a couple of weeks before going into lockdown.
it's the last movie i saw in theaters too !
I think the main issue with 2019 little women was how all of those historical innacuracies just took you out of the movie, don't get me wrong i liked the non-linear storytelling and the focus that was put on all the sisters on individuals rather than just Jo but it just didn't feel like a period piece at all. On top of the costumes being innacurate for the time period, Laura Dern's hair color was completely out of place as well and the thing that bugged me the most was the fact that Florence Pugh played both young Amy and older Amy, i mean as much as i liked her older portrayal, Amy is supposed to be 10 or 11 and Florence looks like a full grown adult trying to play a child, i just don't understand why they didn't just pick an age appropriate actress to play young Amy because that was ridiculous. The 1994 version may not be everyone's favorite but at least it was completely immersive. Gerwig's version was great but i wonder why she bothered making it a period piece at all if she was not going to play the game at all. Also Emma Watson was a bad choice for Meg.
I loved how bad Emma Watson was at masking the British accent and imitating an American one. Always love it when the supposed family members in movies speak in completely different accents 😂
I agree with everything you mentioned tbh. The accents were pretty bad too aside from Florence's.
Emma Watson is rly ‘ go girl give us nothing ‘ i cnt believe she was casted
i love florence pugh as an actor, she's absolutely wonderful, but wow she was such a miscast. it was so hard for me to sympathize with young amy throwing tantrums over minor things because all i saw was a grown woman throwing tantrums. emma watson's accent was so terrible too.
The mentality that if you make a period drama you should make it completely historically accurate seems creatively stifling and unproductive. We have THREE historically-accurate renditions of Little Women, why is it a negative that Gerwig decided to adapt it in a creatively liberal way? It was never meant to be watched as a documentary for history buffs, it's a loose reimagining of four sisters and the author who wrote the book.
If gerwig wanted to make a modern adaptation why didn't she just make a modern adaptation?
good👏🏼point👏🏼
literally
good jesus christ this is the worst take i've ever read.
@@sam-sv2hl I think it makes sense. A lot of pl want to make adaptations of works set in 19th century but they nitpick what they find sexy enough to fit their aesthetic and remove all the time-accurate stuff they don't like. If you make a fictional fantasy 19th century as in d.greyman for example, then I think it's fine to not be historically accurate but if it's supposed to be realism i don't think it's a good thing to remove all the "unsexy" stuff. I found little women 2019 way too glamorized for my own taste.
Not to mention, a modern adaptation was literally released the year before this one.
More than the clothes, my biggest issue was having Florence Pugh, an adult woman in her 20's, play young Amy, a literal child in elementary school!
Middle school actually
I think Amy is 12 in the book and Beth is 13. Jo is 15 and Meg is 16
@@idek7438 In the movie Amy is 13 years old.
They were all significantly older than their characters
i didn’t read the books so i just assumed Amy was older than Beth since Florence Pugh looked much more older than the actress who played Beth
I personally think historically accurate costumes are vital as a part of story telling in period pieces & not only just there for the sake of being historically accurate. Yes, there's artistic freedom. But in order to bend the rule, we have to learn about it first which most of these Hollywood's film directors certainly never pay a heed to.
After watching the video and reading multiple comments and opinions I've come to the conclusion that less historically accurate costumes for the sake of artistic freedom are something that can be a well done choice but they have to make sense for the character and story line: Jo borrowing Laurie's clothes and wearing them around her sisters and maybe around sometimes in a playful way? Seems pretty in character and a well done choice. A bad choice was making Meg do things that would have been inappropriate of her (ex: wearing her hair down all the time) when her character cares so much about her reputation
i had a lot of problems with the 2019 adaption. from having jo have blonde hair and being super feminine looking, casting a 23 year old as a 12 year old, the time switches, and the costumes. I think the 1994 movie paid more attention to the details from the book, and the 2019 version was trying to make it bold and different from the rest, which didn’t end up working in their favor
Amy was 12
I think it’s weird that Louisa May Alcott is talking about how bad corsets are and even call them torturous, when in this period corsets were not made to restrict the body, but to help with posture, provide a smooth figure for the dress to lay on, and distribute the weight of skirt layers. Wearing many skirt layers and a hoop skirt without wearing a corset, that sounds more torturous than with one. Because without a corset, the many skirt waistbands would be pulling down on your hips, which would be so painful.
corsets are not that uncomfortable! i can move around very well in a corset, so i can’t understand why people think they are so awful.
100%! When I was young and dumb I tried to get away with not wearing a corset with a historical adequate costume with several skirts and a hoop skirt. My hips and sides were bruised for days because of the weight of it all. Never again! Corsets all the way!
The Alcotts (and the Marches) were against corsets, but I believe they were against tightlacing. According to the article “Cultural Rhetoric of Women’s Corsets” by Wendy Dasler Johnson, even anti-corset activists would wear corsets for portraits and special events. Johnson quotes a historian who says “there were corsets and there were corsets;” some amount of corsetry was necessary for respectability and to show class status. Anti-corset campaigns were definitely popular in the Alcotts’ circle. The Transcendentalists generally were anti-corset, although I think that was more about rejecting societal norms and embracing nature and intellectualism. By the time Louisa May Alcott was writing Little Women and other books, corsets were also thought to be bad for women’s health, displacing organs, etc. I don’t have details on this, but I think that many modern people recognize the anti-corset propaganda and at least some elements of the dress reform movement were based in misogynistic views of women and the idea that women who cared about fashion were frivolous and silly.
@@sarahkathleenkantor4383 Yea I'm assuming something got lost in translation
I think the complaints about corsets historically are like our complaints about wearing bras now. Bras are not really that uncomfortable unless they are ill fitted but ahhh they are so nice to take off at the end of the day.
Another problem I had with 2019 little women was that their behavior was too modern. Jo and laurie hugging and touching openly, in one scene jo literally removed her gown in front of laurie. I mean, I'm all for breaking barriers but this just didn't make sense.
I don't think it's out of scope for them. Laurie was also part of their theater which was also insanely intimate. While it is inappropriate for the time period, it makes sense for the characters.
@@stefanmakara373 no, it's in the scene where meg hurts her leg and laurie escorts them home. Its literally after their first meeting, they don't even know each other at that point.
Okay finally someone else who agrees that Christian Bale’s Laurie is so creepy. Like the confession scene makes me so uncomfortable.
only in a few scenes 😁, on the positive side, he looks his age in the grown up scenes. But this scene is uncomfortable in any version, brings up some traumatic memories 😅
i will not stand for christian bale laurie slander😠
he has my heart 🥰
He freaked me tf out and I'm glad I'm not the only one
@Riley Wilson he's actually pretty good in the first half, but in the second he's so terrifying - and it's not just the confession scene, does anyone remember that scene in Paris when he's virtually threatening Amy? Like when he's all "I'm going to marry one of you Marches sooner or later"? His eyes are fixed on her (not in a romantic way, but in a creepy way) and she honestly looks kind of scared, and I WAS TOO. Like ... idk why he goes all territorial toxic man of steel, it isn't even book accurate so I have no idea why they felt the need to do it. Book Laurie can be immature and selfish, but he's not actually scary.
I loved Bale as Laurie. But I’m old. I’m 33 and grew up with the original Little Women film so I’ll bias 😩
While I love this movie to bits, th costumes weren't too good. The way they look is fine, especially Amy's dresses and Meg's pink dress, but historically, it and the hairstyles were abysmal.
@@brennerc180 And Meg’s boho wedding hair
@@brennerc180 And the obvious dark roots to her blonde hair, jewelry, and velvet accents lol
How about Amy wearing actual Uggs in that one winter scene? There is no possible narrative or artistic justification for that.
@@moonlily1 In some video I heard, someone stayed that Gerwig modernized the girls a bit because they were radicals, and ahead of their time. I get that that's creative liberty and I love Gerwig, but geez; it's quite unlikely to dress long before your time, don't you think?
@@genevieveowusu885 Being politically radical doesn't necessarily mean dressing in an eccentric way, but it depends on what form one's radicalism takes. The Alcott's 'radical' philosophy was embracing modesty and simplicity in a time that reveled in frivolity, so one might be able to defend rejecting corsets or dressing Jo in masculine type clothing (though Alcott herself did not engage in any sartorial gender bending as evidenced by existing photographs), but not in dressing the characters above their financial station, in impractical clothes and excess accessories, and definitely not in clothing and hairstyles that flat out didn't exist yet. Also it is important, as discussed in the video, to consider character motives. Meg's motives are to establish herself as a socially respectable lady and land herself a husband, Jo's is to be taken seriously as a writer, Amy's are to move up the social ladder, and Beth's are to simply get along in life and avoid drawing attention to herself, and all of these goals would be thwarted if the March sisters dress in a way that marks them as weird, sloppy, or slutty, which is what many of these clothing and styling choices would have done. Only prostitutes didn't pin their hair, and not a single one of the little women would have wanted to be mistaken for a whore.
hair styling and headwear is make or break for me when it comes to period films honestly and the recent film just really got at that costuming pet peeve
this is exactly me when it comes to Tudor-era period films. i recognize that sometimes costuming doesn't have to be 100% accurate, and some filmmakers/showrunners are able to adapt period costumes in a way that's still interesting, but GOD the amount of Tudor-era (or eras close to it) where women just have their hair loose and flowing drive me nuts. where are the modest gable hoods that cover up all of the woman's hair, the French hoods that shows the ✨scandalous✨ strip of the hairline?? it's like a whole thing during the Tudor times when Anne Boleyn (yes, her) returned to the English court after growing up in France, she brought with her that sexy sexy French hood to the English court still with the pious Spanish gable hood that Catherine of Aragon wore. can you imagine the amount of visual storytelling that can be done with period-appropriate headwear? i wouldn't even made the occasional free-flowing hair if it's meant to show a woman with a loose spirit (be it in a sexy way or an innocent way). it also incenses me when filmmakers/showrunners blithely give their women 21st century hairstyles, maybe with the occasional half-hearted braid or bun, because it low-key perpetuates the general misconception that the culture (and the religious practices behind it) of covering up a woman's hair (outside of nuns) is *strictly* Eastern/Middle Eastern/non-Western. Westerners and Christians had a whole thing about hair coverings on women too and people need to stop being cowards and actually incorporate that into their costuming more.
100% agreed!! 👏 That and the makeup choices for 'historical' content 😖 The weird part is often the designers & makeup/hair artists involved do seem to know better, but they frequently just don't seem to have enough voice in the production choices...? Frustrating. Wonder what the experience is like for the artists themselves!
I prefer the 90's one in pretty much all ways but man i have had people COME for me because of this and be all "your wrong cause the 2019 one won awards and the 90's one didn't" and I'm like....boss baby won awards too i don't think you can judge quality by awards
I prefer the 2019 but goddamn people got let others gave opinions sometimes. The Oscar's are bogus anyway.
With this comment 100 percent. Oscars are not what the general public thinks it is. It's political campaigning facilitated by the entertainment industry elite. All the award shows by and large, operate this way. The entertainment industry is nepotistic and wealthy and any award won by a project usually is more of a reflection of who paid the academy the most during the campaigning and what political landscape is best to support so as to not taint the image of agents, producers, directors and the people of the industry at large. In short, just because a film and it's contributors get an award doesn't mean that the film is good.
So my pick is they didn’t delete my favorite scenes so my favorite will be 2019 till the day I die
On the corset issue: While it is a tempting conclusion, it is risky to presume that the opinions of a character in a work of fiction are congruent to the author's opinions. I learned this the hard way when the first paper I wrote for my literature degree got me a horrible grade solely because of this mistake, when I did the same to Robert Frost.
reminds me of the outcry about the movie mignonnes (cute girls) saying it sexualized girls when the literal point of the movie was that it critiqued the sexualization of young girls prevalent in society. Depiction doesn’t equal endorsement. Imagine someone suggesting Stephen King is pro murders because he writes about it 😄
Oh yes, I was just trying to give Greta and Jacqueline the benefit of the doubt by proposing reasons as to why they might have decided against corsets (by analyzing louisa’s life) instead of just casting aside corsets in a “modern feminist” way. But who knows lol
@@melz6625 cuties is absolutely disgusting though
@@melz6625 they could have covered that topic WITHOUT sexualizing 11 year old children, since they are actors who exist in real life...
@@melz6625 except with cuties they actually specialized literal children in the process. She had good intentions but it was disgusting. It would be like if they actually murdered people to make Stephen King movies.
I always feel like the odd one out, because I prefer the 90's version better in basically every way.
I appreciate what Gerwig was doing with the non-linear story, but I actually felt it undermined the emotions of several scenes. Particularly things like Laurie's confession to Jo, given that we'd already seen him in Paris with Amy by that point. I think it worked pretty well with Beth's death, but I cry in both versions, so it didn't do MORE for me than the original scene layout. With regards to costuming, I didn't notice everything at the time, but when I did notice things being off it always took me out of the story. Especially Jo running through the streets of NY with her skirts pulled up, showing off her trousers. Just, something I may have imagined her doing at home, with her sisters and Laurie in the countryside, but not publicly, like that. She was never THAT eccentric.
You aren’t alone. The new version was beyond disappointing.
I think the non-linearity only works for the audience that has read the book or seen earlier versions. I hadn't and I didn't understand most of what was going on. In the end all I remember is that it was way too long and the only thing that happened was women talking about marriage and women getting married.
@@Musicelle1 I've watched the 1994 version many times (bit of a Christmas tradition) and have read the book, and honestly even I was confused. Especially as they looked the same throughout the film, my brain had moments of "wait when is this?" at the start of scene switches; I cottoned on after a few seconds, but it still took me out of the moment. Really diminished the impact of some scenes... I didn't even cry at Beth's death, whereas the 1994 version has me in tears every time.
@@theshamrockdolls9909 it’s just so beautifully done, isn’t it? Powerful filmmaking that can affect with every rewatch! It’s a dream of mine to make films like that one day. As it is I’m glad to have such a good film to watch every Christmas!
If the costumes were more accurate the nonlinear narrative would have probably worked better. The silhouettes are completely different so it would have provided good contrast. I know some people who hadn’t heard of the story before were a bit confused about the all the time jumps
you should do a video on Anne with an E🤩🤩
yes please
Yes!
PLEASE
Please!!!
yes!
I feel like the BBC version from 2017 was forgotten too quickly due to the movie coming out so soon after :( it’s a shame because I really love the BBC adaption, especially the costumes!
Agreed! It's my favourite of the recent adaptations and doesn't complete forget Beth as a character like the 2019 version
Yes! It had some faults, particularly how it handled Amy. But overall it was hands down a better adaptation that really captured the trauma Jo felt as the sisterhood changed as they grew up and at losing Beth. Really the only thing positive for me about Gertwig's version is grown up Amy, which is the best of any of them, but otherwise it disappointed so much.
The 90’s version is just leaps and tails better to me but maybe that’s because I grew up with it. The BBC version is actually pretty good too! Would love to see you review that!
Agreed, I really enjoy the costumes and actor performances (especially Beth who was an absolute non-entity in the 2019 version) and the only slightly corset negative thing was Meg's gasp as she had a corset tightened unexpectedly when she's dressed up for the party.
I love the modern version if only for the character work and arcs. It all feels much more organic and realistic the way the characters progress and interact with each other
There's a BBC version??
The 1994 version will always be my favorite, especially Winona Ryder as jo
If you enjoyed this video and want more, Micarah Tewers made a simmilar one and its incredible... she tore Meg's costumes to pieces 😅😂 ... also ... BONNETS!!!
Yeah, some of the points felt almost ripped from Micarah 's video and worded slightly differently. I wish she'd given a little nod to micarah
@@katejohnson3473 yeah I agree that some of the points were similar but Mina gave sources for almost everything she said (clearly went to uni and has the source citation drill down lol) and her video’s better researched in general. No shade to Micarah, she’s a comedic legend and both videos are super interesting!
Little Women 1994 is a masterpiece. From the costuming, to the score, to the cast, to the sets. Just a beautiful work of art.
If I were Jacqueline, I would've drawn influence from the Pre Raphaelites, which were the Hippie equivalents in the 1860s. They preferred Artistic Dress to mainstream fashion, which was loosely inspired by Medieval fashion. The hair was also center parted with loose waves. The pre Raphaelites weren't a hidden secret, Greta and Jacqueline.
“Aren’t I allowed to not do things I don’t like?”...
Oh?! Like not casting POC in your films🤔???👀
gerwig is a really good director but she also has the weirdest most ridiculous takes... of course she can do whatever the heck she wants. shes the director. but that doesnt mean that what she does is beyond criticism or anything else than a whim.
Okay but to play devil’s advocate she has done literally 2 films, one is a period piece and the other is semi biographical
Dalacia go OFF!
Susana Lopez she’s directed 3 movies. It’s not much of a difference I’m just a nerd. Even so, it’s not like people of color don’t exist. They can still be in movies.
@@otterzrkuhl yeah hopefully she becomes more aware of this because the criticism is very valid
I feel like the styling is the biggest issue with the costumes in the movie. If the hair, hats, undergarments, shoes, and other details had been more accurate I think the costumes wouldn’t have been as glaringly inaccurate.
I absolutely loved Amy's character and costumes and connected to her the most ever since I read the book. I was so shocked to learn that she is considered the least likeable character of the books.. I mean what? why?! to me, her character and growth is the most commendable and in a way made me grow too from a bratty sheltered girl to a mature and good-natured one lol
well, I read the books as a teenager and Amy was my least favourite. I related more to Jo, having a temper of my own and with a literary spin. yes, Amy was spoiled and selfish in the first book and I was scandalized when she got married to Laurie right after Beth died. As an adult, now I understand Amy better and able to sympethise.
Amy is my favourite too!
Yeah tbh I think the hate she gets is so unnecessary and way too exaggerated. She was not a bad person at all, I think the only bad thing she really did was burning Jo’s book; but she apologized and became a better person and matured just like all the other sisters. She’s just hated because of that one mistake and because she ended getting married to Laurie, it’s so ridiculous.
@@keysmash6739 100% agreed
Amy was my favourite of the sisters and I'd actually get into fights with people who hate her for stupid reasons haha (every reason is a stupid reason).
This was an amazing movie narratively but not so good in terms of costumes to i’m confused why it won an award for costumes and not something else...
Because they needed to give it something✨ since it was getting snubbed everywhere else and they didn’t want to seem sexist✨ so let’s give the women the costume award that will do it!
@@susanalopez5052 omg i hate society
I don't see why it should have recieved any awards at all. There was nothing there I hadn't seen in 10 movies before. A bunch of great movies came out in 2019 (Jojo Rabbit being a personal favourite) and Little Women was just so bland in comparison.
@@Musicelle1 so true, it wasnt as good as i expected it to be
@@susanalopez5052 💯
I have read the book countless times and i have to say, it feels like the 1994 writers/directors actually read Alcott's book while the 2019 ones did not.
Wow we are so different on this for me it‘s the exact opposite
1:37 I didn't expect that here, thank you for the serotonin
Ahah yes
I love the 1994 version. Gerwig’s just cannot compare (for me, at least). And Laurie was *not* a creep in the 90s version! The tension in the proposal scene was made that way to show how off the mark Laurie was with understanding Jo’s feelings. The scene was supposed to show how immature he still was, but how Jo was growing and becoming more in tune with her feelings.
Exactly.
Thank you!!
It's perfect
I’m a guy with three older sisters and grew up watching the Winona Ryder version, child crushing on child Amy (my equivalent in the sibling pecking order, and roughly my age at the time I was seeing it-don’t judge!) and I will hear no criticisms of that film!
I enjoyed the non-linear concept for LW19, and am a huge fan of Saoirse (marry me!)…but it felt like College students playing dress up clothes, rather than a real world. The injecting of modern ideologies into a film like this is really tiresome to me. Also, Emma Watson can’t act, I guess.
True, he wasn't a creep. The clip they select here make him look worse than he is. Jo isn't scared of him touching her, she just doesn't want him to admit to romantic feelings because she can't reciprocate. That's why she says no. Come to think of it, I actually think it was Christian Bale's best scene acting-wise.
I honestly never paid attention to the clothes when I watched the movie but when I actually focused, I realized they're kind of a hot mess lmao. But I still enjoyed the movie and sort of mad at my friend who thinks the somewhat poor costuming means the movie is also poorly done
I think that like creative liberties were taken and that’s good but I think that it has to be within reason and some of the liberties just made no sense
@@tessiegesch8677 agreed! Costuming doesn't always have to mean accurate. I believe you can make liberties for the sake of aesthetic but you can't totally throw out the rule book either lol. No matter what, the girls never looked poor to me and if they were gonna change so much trends of the period, I would've rather they changed the period of the movie altogether.
I personally can’t watch it because the poor costuming takes me out of the story so much. It’s probably not a problem for most of their intended audience though, so they just didn’t care.
in the book, the way the sisters accept or refuse social norms regarding clothing is part of their character. As a kid, Amy had to wear hand-me-downs of her cousin, which were good but tasteless, and it hurt her pride a lot. Amy is very peculiar about every details, and lectures Jo about it, coz she never bothers about them. She always ruins and soils her clothes. Meg loves pretty stuff, but is miserable when she cant have them. The episode about 25 dollar silk is entirely about that. Only Beth doesnt bother about clothes. But all of them try to adjust what they have, within their limited budget. It shows a lot about their character, taking that away is taking away important characteristics from them... which would lead to the movie not being poorly done.
@@spoopy2504 the UGG boots aren’t actually in the movie, the picture with the UGG boots it’s just a set photo while they were walking on the snow so the feet of the actresses wouldn’t freeze, in the movie you only see a shot from the waist show so the boots are not visible
I’m definitely a 1994 Little Women’s fan! The remake was ok
I’ve seen both movies. And the 1994 version is my favourite.
The 1994 film is a much more faithful adaptation of the novel, where the 2019 remake was more "inspired" by the novel as well as Louisa May Alcott's personal letters and other works. "The remake was ok" is exactly how I feel about it too lol
I agree
Yeah, honestly I couldn't stand the new one at all. But I'm a biased 90s girl at heart all the way 🖤
yes love Winona Ryder
The 2017 version starring Maya Hawke is my favourite after the 94 version.
She should have just set it in modern times or the 90s so she could just choose the aesthetic she liked . I agree with all your points. I’m such a jo
She could have set it in the 1950s. It would have still been very believable for Meg and Amy to want to marry and Jo to be a writer, and she could have chosen fashions that suited her likings better.
maybe Im blind, but I would never recognize any pre-Raphaelite influence in her hair or her 2010 side-ponytail ..
yeah... i understand the wish to make both amy and meg to be influenced by art movements... but if at the same time the idea was to dress them to look like A Girl Like You™, how many girls know about preraphaelite and impressionist art movements and how it influences fashion?? a very strange choice from ms durran, tbh
Because the influence for Meg's hair is 70's hippies and prom-style side tail.
@@isam1542 ok but why?? from all the sisters, why should meg be influenced by 70s styles? if she should be influenced by any style at all, why not by the 1930s, or 1940s? why not more elegant or professional silhouettes, while maintaining an eye for practicality? why the loose-fitting, informal, playful 1970s when that is not her character at all?????
i jus feel like costumes aren't as expensive as it was back then. like Gone with the Wind. Scarlett Ohara wardrobe was flamboyant. you can tell it costed a lot to make.
It makes sense that the costuming budget is lower for this movie if it really was since the girls aren't supposed to be extravagant. You can definitely do more with a higher budget but expensive doesn't automatically make for good costuming. You can still do great costuming with a low budget, there's movies that even thrift their clothes and you wouldn't question it.
Yeah this doesn't make any sense, the costumes don't need to be expensive for this film, nor does something being expensive warrant good costuming
Teenage Scarlett was American aristocracy, back from when America had an aristocracy. Her dresses get poor when she gets poor, modest when she marries a modest man, and rich again when she marries a filthy rich man. And yet, ALL her dresses correspond to the correct timeline. Gone with the Wind is an example of costume design well done. You can nearly guess the time of each of her mourning scenes by the silhouette of her mourning dresses (which is different in all three).
Neat detail: book Scarlett married in her mother's dress. The costume designer made the dress to fit the actress who played Scarlett's mother and then had it re-fitted it for Vivien Leigh. That's why that dress looks huge on her... in the twenty seconds or so it appears in the movie.
Winona and Christina bale and Susan Sarandon as Marmee were everything. I’m sorry but the 2019 version will never live up to the 1994 version. It was so still and perfect. 2019 felt rushed and corny
Yes, it was trying to be more woke but it just lost my emotional investment instead. You could tell the sisters were picked because the actors are popular at the moment... why else get Irish, English, and Australian? It didn't feel right, they didn't embody their characters like the 1994 version.
This video feels like a Christmas present. Thank you thank you :D Personally, I way prefer the. 1994 adaptation. By far. the 2019 version felt sloppy in many ways to me, including casting, oddly. But I love that you liked it :)
same i love the 1994 version, it has more christmas vibes and i like the actors more
SAME
Period piece films are primed for great storytelling through costumes, so it’s a shame that 2019 costumes didn’t land.
I’ve yet to see the 2019 version. I loved the 1994 film and felt the casting choices were so perfect. Iconic. Also casting Beth with the serial killer daughter from a show (name I won’t mention to avoid spoilers) seemed more like type cast image rehab than choosing the best actress for the role. You cannot tell me anyone is better than the Claire Danes, Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst cast. I forget who played Meg, but she was perfect for that role and definitely seemed like the perfect older sister. I’m highly biased, though I’ll give 2019 a try. Just had to share my beef.
I would really recommend it. Pretty much every actor other than Emma Watson knocks it out of the park, especially Florence Pugh, Saorse Roman and Timothee Chalamet
Trini Alvarado. ;) and ditto everything you said lol
I agree with everything you said about the 1994 version.I hated the 2019 version but I would recommend giving it a try. I went into it thinking it would be the bees knees and I was disappointed. But if you don't have such high expectations, maybe it won't be so bad. I truly don't know but you'll have to find out for yourself.
@@user-xb5bz4fu9o Watson was great
The casting of the serial killer daughter was also not well done. In the book, this girl is incredibly beautiful, and I think Eliza Scanlon is pretty plain looking, with a bit of a big face (she's also younger in the book but it makes sense that they would age her up a little for tv/film). She's cute, and she's a great actress, so I feel do bad for saying this, but that was pretty clumsy casting.
Personally, I’m alright with inaccuracies as long as they don’t muddle the storytelling. What bothers me so much about the costumes LW19 is that it makes the narrative harder to follow. The strange hairstyling and anachronistic silhouettes actually make it harder to understand each character’s personality and growth rather than help. 🤷♂️
The 2019 version was great, but I grew up with the 94 one, and watch it every christmas and no other will ever replace it for me 🥰
I know right! I’ve seen the movie with my mom. I’ve loved the movie ever since.
I just saw Micarah video like one hour ago and I'm going to watch yours anyway lol
Hahaha same, l watched Little Women 1994 today, then l watched Micarah’s video(for the 100th time) like 1 hour ago and then l discovered that Mina also posted video about Little Women. I got so exited and started watching right away.
1994 has been my all time favorite movie since I was like, 5 years old. So it’s the only adaptation that even exists in my books lmao
I still to this day don't get the casting in the 2019 version, lol. The costumes were sloppy too.
Right? Even in the eyes of a person with minimal historical fashion knowledge (like me), the costumes including the hair styling generally looked sloppy and all over the place.
Why the cast? I understand costumes, but most of them were great actors?
@@randompersononthenet I think the casting was mostly good, my main problems were:
- Young(10-12-year-old) Amy played by 23-year-old Florence Pugh (I get that she is amazing but seriously wtf?)
- Casting Emma Watson just because she is Emma Watson (meaning she was Hermione and now she pulls in the viewers) while she can't speak any accent beside her original British and it sounds so awful in the movie how she struggles with the American one (and also fun fact: she is AGAINST corsets -> against historical accuracy, so wildly, and that definitely added to the whole corset (and hoop skirt) issue of the film)
- Timothee Chalamet - I just don't get it, I think many actors could have played the role better but I'm probably biased on this point because I have an extreme dislike towards him.
- Also Louis Garrel - I adore him I think he is an awesome actor I just don't understand why would you cast a french actor in a german role (tho I think for most Hollywood directors all Europe is the same)
@@randompersononthenet I like all the actors but almost all of them were miscast in this case imo.
@@--s-0- I think Timothee was one of the few I liked in his role. I honestly love all the actors and actresses in this, love Emma, Love Saoirse, love Florence (been following her since I first saw her in Lady Macbeth), love Eliza (she was amazing in Sharp Objects), love Louis in everything. Here though? None fit, except Laura (not perfect but she was ok), Meryl, Timothee, the professor and a few other secondary characters. I didn't even like Saoirse as Jo, sorry, didn't think it fit and I've seen her in everything since she was a child. I could explain in detail like you did, but I'm awfully lazy to do so in a YT comment sooorryyy. 😭
How have I never realized Beth was wearing Jo's red dress in the Christmas scene?? I already noticed Meg's dress going to Amy, but...I somehow never noticed the red one going to Beth...
While your research on the economics of cotton during the civil war is relevant and true, the March family is of course based on Louisa May Alcott's family, which lead a vegan lifestyle (really ahead of the curve!) Alcott's father didn't allow the family to wear wool and they struggled in cold weather. As far as I know, Durran doesn't express knowledge of this, though it would have been useful information. It's unlikely she knew this though, since she attributes her fabric choice to cost.
Meg's dress in at the Moffat's in 2019 was... a disaster. In 1994, the dress Meg borrows is refined and sophisticated, and even sexy for the time period. It legitimately tempts Meg to indulge in her love of luxury and beauty. It's tempting for her to embrace materialism, a temptation that she has to overcome! In 2019 her dress looks like a tacky cupcake, and is more conservative than some of the other girls at the ball. Meg even laughs at herself. If Meg knows how silly the whole situation is, why is it a relevant storyline?
I feel like I could accept everything if the hair was better. Meg's loose hair at her wedding had me 💀💀💀💀
I love how you still tried to give Gerwig and Durran the benefit of the doubt. You're too nice haha
This was so interesting! I love the compare/contrast with the 1994 and 2019 versions of Little Women.
I was “background” in a movie where Colleen Atwood (team 90s!) was the costume designer, and she was METICULOUS about everything. We were supposed to be in the late 1940s to early 1950s, and everyone had accurate undergarments. There wasn’t a debate about wearing items like waist cinchers and bra inserts (to get the pointed bust line and more hourglass shape)
I’m not surprised that she included such details as holes in fabric to show wear and tear on the dresses in Little Women.
She was also very personable, and I had a great experience working with her (however briefly) on set.
The possibility of the Alcotts being anti-corset is very intriguing. So many medical claims were bogus back then, of course (thanks, humoral medicine), so even if the Alcotts relied on any, it doesn't really debunk our educated opinion that corsets weren't bad for women's health unless tight-laced. But as a relic of counter-culture, it's fascinating.
We might also have to separate between corsets for grown women (which I agree, weren't detrimental), and corsets for growing girls. As quoted, LMA seemed to be particularly against the latter, and they _would_ restrict movement at bit in outdoors rough play and games for children. I mean, I wish corsets were common today (I love what they do to smoothen surfaces, for example), but I wouldn't want kids to use them.
Hey Mina! Great video as always! Can you do a video analysing the fashion in Emma 2020? It was a brilliant adaptation and the dresses were beautiful so I was wondering how accurate they are. Oh, and merry Xmas!
I know you’re after a video, but.... Emma’s costuming was perfect. Literally perfect. They even made copies of extant garments of the time. Everyone was wearing period appropriate underpinnings (and bonnets!). It was perfect.
The recent Emma is as good in costuming as Clueless was for its time period. I wouldn’t change a thing (except for maybe making the side curls slightly more accurate, but I understand why they were some the way they were).
They're actually pretty accurate and very pretty ones too! Karolina Zebrowska have a video discussing Emma 2020's costume if you're interested.
Thanks for the info guys! I'm a new fashion nerd so I didn't know
Honestly I’ll never forgive them putting Emma Watson in Ugg’s in the 1860’s lmao. Like??? Who thought of that????
It's a serious case of "they didn't even try". Tell what you want about palettes, and "this suits the character better", point is they were like kids: I don't like bonnets, so no bonnets. I don't like hoop skirts, so no hoop skirts. I don't want to work, so UGG boots.
@@isam1542 the ugg boots were just in a set photo? i think they were shooting above the waist in that scene so they didn't show. so idk why that would be a problem
Movies and shows do this all the time, if an actress will only be seen in a scene from the waist up they wear comfier shoes if they want. There's Gossip Girl set photos of Leighton Meester wearing uggs and flip flops but when they show her full length in the scene she is wearing heels like her character would.
Actors wear Ugg’s all the time due to cold shooting environments!! It’s nothing to do with the costume designer picking it lmao
@@upaveeamarasinghe8977 omg thank you I feel so delusional in these comment sections when people think those uggs were in the movie 😂
Team 90s. The 1994 version's costumes were spot on and the 2019 costumes were a fail.
PLEASE do a review of the movie Emma based on the Jane Austen book. Im super curious to see how accurate the outfits are. Love your vids btw :)
If you mean the 2020 version, from what I’ve learned/researched/etc. they are extremely accurate. I looovveee that version.
@@feliciarussell2684 yes i meant the 2020 version :) i didnt realise there was an older version of the film. A comparison of the accuracy of the outfits from both films would be super cool too!
There are several out there, for example this one: th-cam.com/video/KAo8ehvkom4/w-d-xo.html
You're the first person I've seen who's talked about stylization, which is nice, since I just assumed that was the main idea behind the costumes.
Short answer: yes, yes they are :(
I hated the time jumping. It kept me from creating genuine connections with the characters. I cried when 1994 Beth you-know-whated. I didn’t even flinched when 2019 Beth did. Because I felt nothing for her or her connection with the family. I watched the 2019 and then 1994 back to back when this happened. 2019 was soooo lacking
I felt the same about Beth. I just didn't care in the 2019 movie. Which is sad. 😔
i actually really liked the time jumps. it wasn't always perfectly executed but i felt like it worked well for the most part, and at least it was an attempt to do smth structurally interesting with a (lovely but) very overdone narrative?
@@cgm530 I agree, it felt like people went into the 2019 version expecting the 1994 except with new actors when that wasn't the intention at all. The time jump was the only thing that kept the newer version from becoming cliched and overwrought like the previous ones.
The 2017 version actually let's you get to know Beth and keeps her present until the end and I think it's truly the second best version of the story.
I didn't like the time jumps but I could see why she did it and it did bring a fresh take to the film. I wish she had figured out a way to keep the emotional impact that the 1994 version did. I cry every time I watch Beth die even though I know it's going to happen. I didn't feel anything for Beth or really any of the characters in the 2019 version. The time jumping thing could have worked but it seemed like she used it purely for innovations sake and less for how it added to the story. That's what made it ridiculous and unnecessary to me.
The cast and acting was soooooo much better in the 1994 version. Example, Beth being gifted the piano!!!! Claire Danes killed it!!!! 👑🙏
Merry Christmas Everyone!!!🎄
I'm someone who's grown up watching the 1994 version, but I'd been reading and rereading the books for even longer.
There's only one point I'd like to make, which is that little women did not need a "feminist" make over. The books may have treated jo as the main character, but there is enough attention given to each sister and why they think the way they do and make the choices they make. The 1994 version didn't have enough dialogue establishing this, but it's definitely implied, which I feel is more than enough
I find the 2019 version unneeded, especially because it was advertised as a more feminist version. The original book was extremely progressive for it's time, and taking the story that's a period story and editing it to suit the neoliberal feminist ideals of this time, is something I find extremely distasteful. The fact that they put jo in a suit is more than enough evidence. Of course it's just once, but we have to keep in mind that the entire effort that went into the 2019 movie was to make it more feminist.
But there are many kinds of feminism, some of which grossly miss the mark. They went for the mainstream neoliberal feminism, which is the worst
It was perfect as it was, and the 90s version stays true to the story Alcott was trying to tell.
I think the subtly of the 90s version is why it's so beautiful. (I'm grew up watching LW 94 too) Personally, I believe the appeal to the younger generation is to be more in your face with literally... everything. Lol The scenes in LW 19 were so loud, jumping back and forth, and I didn't connect with ANY of the characters.
Plus, we just had way better cinema in the 80s and 90s. 😉
I actually feel like 94 has more “neolib girl power feminism” moments (Marmie’s scene that plays in this video comes to mind). 2019 feels more nuanced, showing how the different girls grow up to be women in different ways. Sure, Jo wears a suit, but that is not the only thing we see! Jo’s attic moment, Meg’s speech about her dreams being different, & Amy’s speech to Laurie are nuanced and actually stay way closer to the book dialogue, ironically enough. It’s pretty reductive to say that Gerwig started out with the goal of making a ‘feminist movie’ and sublimated everything to that.
@@juliamar2372 I 100% agree. I really do not understand how, for one, people can complain about Gred making a "feminist" movie as if it is bad, when in fact the BOOK ITSELF WAS WORK WITH FEMINIST VALUES. Secondly, saying that 1994 movie was subtle... um, Jo literally has a monologue about equality, which, while I love Winona, wasn't at all nuanced.
And thirdly, there is nothing wrong with work not being subtle. There is no NEED to secretly weave in feminism into the movie. It is a story of 4 girls in a time where their rights were severely restricted. Of course they are going to have thoughts about that, and their place in society, whether it is accepting it (Meg) adjusting to it and trying to use whatever of it you can to your favor (Amy) or seeing ahead of it (Jo).
There was no effort to make it more feminist. The book was already feminist. The fact is that we are given way more nuance to it in 2019th version than in the 1994 version, as well as that the characters are respected more.
@@stefanmakara373 okay, let's agree to disagree then (✿^‿^)
They have to stop hiring Emma Watson for this type of movies
i love how u include tons of historical context when u talk about fashion trends thru timelines
Merry Christmas Mina and everyone! Spending Xmas alone and this is the best surprise, you're so talented!!
i literally just watched it yesterday and was hoping you would do a video on this I just love learning more about costume design, especially if its of a movie that I love and admire and you always do it so well!❤️
i cant stop watching ur videos! theyre all so audibly pleasing and informative! this feels like a Christmas miracle
“In a 2019 scene wearing fashion of 2011”
Imagine a movie “set” in 2019 of a girl who wears cookie monster and galaxy print pants and hipster lenses
There's no way they'd go out in a New England winter without headgear lol. I'll always love the 94 version, because the house reminds me so much of the one I grew up in. It's a very cozy movie.
I thought the costumes in the 1933 and 49 versions were good too (I love the big patch on the back of Jo's party dress in 49).
The amount of research you put into these videos is just so amazing.
The level of research in your videos is top notch! So informative, I love it. Thank you very much for your hard work
As an italian girl I laughed so much when i heard your pronunciation of Garibaldi!! Great content as always!!
Your videos are so well-made, researched, and honestly so beautiful. You inspire me so much to make better videos. Thank you for this Christmas gift 🥺❤️
i just gotta say how much i appreciate you doing all this research and quoting actual papers on certain matters
I just LOVE the way you analyse things 😭😭
I just question what it was about the story that resonated with her. If there were aspects to the time period she didn’t like I think a heavy lean into the anachronistic aspect with more exaggerated modernized versions of dress would’ve been less messy than what they did. Like just fully embrace it, not just sort of suggest it. If she just didn’t like the time period but loved the story she could’ve modernized it in an interesting way the way they’ve done with other adaptations. Set it in a more modern time with modern equivalents.
I’m sorry but the MCR caught me off gaurd
Ikr that was the last thing I was expecting
Omg I was hoping for you to review Little Women! Love you!
dang your research is so extensive (i'm in love
I have been waiting for this since 2019
These videos are always so informative 🥰
I've been binge watching your videos and I have to say I love how in-depth you go into the history and characterizations of the costumes. When I watched all these movies you analyzed, which most are favorites that I've watched multiple times, I don't think much about it but you really shine a whole new light with your intellectual and social commentary that blows my mind!
I love your attention to detail and how you always make sure things are accurate wether that be an interview or something historical. I can always count on you having the facts no matter what!
Hannah is part of the family. She is not a paid maid. At least that is what I remember from the book. She stayed with the family after they lost their wealth.
Yeah I don't think they could afford to pay her anymore
Every one of your videos are so well put together and informational. Love your channel so much!
i love the research you do your videos are always so good and thoughtful
I can't agree with the choices made to represent the individual personalities and storylines of the sisters in the 2019 film. Especially with regards to Meg, her costuming was so bizarre for a reserved, mature yet romantic young woman, it really didn't tell you anything about her.