Thread by @FourRedShoes

Ok, I have seen #LittleWomenMovie...
Are we ready?

https://twitter.com/sharminime/status/1212518371742253057

First, here's an article specifically about the hair.
Some highlights:

'Gerwig encouraged [hair dept] to envision the March sisters as early bohemians and provided photos from ... photographer Julia Margaret Cameron as inspiration.'

refinery29.com/en-us/2019/12/…

“Greta...suggested that this family and these girls and women were possibly the original hippies” “The hair was always meant to be a little less structured than you see in a lot of period movies. I find that more relatable than coiffures, which are so distinct and untouchable.”

I think that's enough to start with. First off, 'relatable'. Sigh. Long loose hair is such a modern signifier, and Aradóttir is entirely modern in thinking 'coiffures' - which in the 1860s is just doing your hair - is stiff, formal and yech.

Second, the women in Julia Margaret Cameron's photos had their hair down for artistic purposes. That's not how they lived.

Even the women of the Pre-Raphaelite group - more arguably the original hippies - didn't walk around with their hair lolloping about during the day. Jane Morris, the undisputed Romantic Hair Queen of the 19th century, contained her hair in everyday life.

The article is called 'The Real Reason Hairspray Was Banned On The Little Women Set': 'Staying true to the times, Aradóttir didn't even allow hairspray on set, since it hadn't yet been invented in the 1860s when the story takes place.'

'“Let [the hair] be flyaway, let it be loose!” was the directive Aradóttir told me she gave her team. “On Jo, there were always pieces falling down — she was too busy thinking about a lot of other things and not tucking her hair in.”'

Good to hear. However......

'Although the styles were meant to look effortless, they required tons of prep work. Ronan, Watson, Scanlen, and Pugh each wore three-quarter-length wigs or hairpieces, as none of them had the long, flowing hair that was typical of the period.'

'Each day, [the] team... would wash the wigs with Moroccanoil shampoo and condition them with Rahua hair masks to give them a healthy-looking sheen. To complete the looks, they used Rodin Olio Lusso luxury oil and Omorovieza moisture mist.'

Not very 1860s.

Looking at the period photographs, what's noticable is that the hair has not been treated with Rodin Olio Lusso luxury oil and Omorovieza moisture mist. It's harsh, frizzy, broken and not cut to let careful shorter tendrils of ostentatiously untucked hair fly out.

One of the details I love about Pre-Raphaelite paintings, especially Millais', is that you can see the grease and flatness of the unwashed hair that was really common. It's not flyaway; when washed with harsh soaps, it's frizzy.

The Violet's Message, 1854

No matter how 'Bohemian' one was, it was difficult and time-consuming to wash and dry the nineteenth century's long hair, especially in the middle of a New England winter. They didn't have a team of 15 stylists prepping it every day. They didn't use conditioner.

We continue: “I wanted each girl to echo the others,” Fríða Aradóttir, the head of the film’s hair department, told me over the phone. “I wanted them to have similar repeat hairdos. ...it’s suggested that they took care of each other and helped to do each other’s hair.”

It's a nice thought and fits well with the film's themes. What's lost, however, is any sense of age or continuity with the hairstyles. The disconnect from the period use of hair makes for a motley and erratic selection of hair choices.

Amy, the youngest, who could well have had her hair more out for longest, strangely gets around mostly in a braided updo. It detracts from the hard job of making Pugh transition from little girl to woman when her hair could have shown the change. But she starts womanly.

Her older sisters have the inevitable Half Up Hair for most of it. Meg and Jo go to a dance with Half Up Hair, when that would have been unthinkable even for Jo. The worst is when Meg gets married with her hair out, totally missing the significance of maturity and hair going up.

Because of the time merge effect, the differences between Long Romantical Hair and Totes Boring Up Hair on Meg and Jo helps mark which time we're in. I get that. I just wish it were consistent. Each girl has a random, non-period hairstyle at any one time.

Even poor Marmee, absolutely no question matronly and grown up, has her Signature Curled Side Flick accompanied by hair out, hair up, and some kind of ponytail completely at random and with no relationship to contextual situation. It's almost her modern hair.

And where are all the ringlets? Little Women is full of them curling their hair, with Jo's ill-fated tongs - shown being used to no effect on Meg's hair - and papers beloved of Amy to get her ringlets. If one did have hair 'out' in the 1850s-60s, it was dressed and curltastic

Now, I am not at all saying that all period films should strive for absolute accuracy on the hair and costumes. It's costume. It's different to history. But I'm bored of stylists not understanding what hair does in the past, and only seeing 'unrelatable coiffure'.

Then putting their own modern interpretation of cool, sexy and relatable over the top, which means loose hair. I want more thought about it, more understanding of the social and cultural significance of hair. It's about knowing the rules before they break them, the key difference

Some of my favourite costume films are ahistorical and inaccurate, but they're done by people who understand the source material, what they're doing, and why they're breaking with the past. When done well, it's spectacular. #LittleWomenMovie's was average; the hair worse.

You probably need a coffee by now, but I'll chuck in some bonus thoughts on the film and the costumes since I'm here.

Timothee Chalamet is a thin man. I found his oversized clothes in what looked like an effort to give him more physical presence distracting, especially in the Europe scenes. It looked like he was dressed up in his dad's suits.

It's possible to run in an ankle length 1860s dress without showing off your special purple running pantaloons to the knee. Skirts over trousers for the purposes of Being Shown to be Active really irk me (see also: live action Beauty and the Beast)

Jo's attic writing suit comprising nightie, flannel pants and an old theatrical jacket: frankly, I felt seen....

Professor Bhaer being a young, hot ?Frenchman (overheard in the cinema: 'he's so dreamy') totally undermines the point of the character, especially as Gerwig beautifully addresses the issue Alcott faced of being forced to marry Jo off. She wrote an anti-dreamy deliberately.

But did I actually like the film? you might be asking by now. Yeah, I did. I cried a bit. Beth was brilliant. I thought it was Emma Watson's best role. But I probably would have paid more attention if I wasn't mentally tucking Jo's hair behind her ears.

Here endeth the thread.

Side tweet: look at this great image from Sofia Coppola's The Beguiled (2017), also set during the American Civil War. A range of girls, all with period appropriate hair, ages easily told from said hair. Lovely. And also a feminist auteur work, like Gerwig's.

PS - if you want to know more about hair, try this:
bloomsbury.com/uk/hair-978085…

And I wrote a book on Regency dress recently which may be of interest @AustenDress

yalebooks.co.uk/display.asp?K=…