To Be HA, or not to be (HA), is that the question?

There's a new film version of Little Women. It was one of the most favored books in our house, growing up. My sister and I practically passed it back and forth; it's a wonder we didn't read it to bits.

I haven't read it in years (my sister has our childhood copy), but it exercised a great influence on me...though to this day I still can't like The Pickwick Papers or Paradise Lost.

The new movie has a spectacularly good cast. I don't know about the script, but there are lots of indicators to say that it's going to be a worthy film.

I haven't seen it, and don't think I'm going to go.

The reason will sound snarky, self-righteous, snobbish...pick your own label. But here it is: the costuming, make-up and hair are not HA (historically accurate). I am not claiming to be an expert on the (American) Civil War period costuming, but I have a better than average knowledge of the styles of the time.

All artistic endeavors have a budget limit, and it's fun to play a bit with costuming; I get that, I used to be an actor, and I dabbled in costuming as well.

This production, however--judging from the stills I've seen--has the look of a 1950s prom. Garish colors were very correct for the era (not that the March sisters could afford such things, normally, even for a dance), but the hair--down, for [adults] women? No. Not unless you're a crowned princess (or a prostitute). And the drape of polyester is apparent on screen or stage--yes, that really is snobbish of me, as natural fabrics, sadly, are far more expensive.

It's the reason that, as much as I love the films of old Hollywood, I avoid literary adaptations from that time like the plague. 1920s costumed as 1950s;  1830s and 1840s designs for productions supposed to be set in the Regency--and other changes--leave me annoyed, not enchanted.

These kinds of productions, especially in film, yank me right out of the world that is supposed to be holding me in.

I see blue eye shadow on a Regency heroine and think, "What? NO--not even on Lydia!" Unless, of course, the story has been transported to the 1970s. Then it fits.

Shakespeare didn't care, anachronism suited him and his audience. And I have liked many a theatre production transported to a more modern stage, so long as the director doesn't try to claim that it's still set in the original time period.

The Fantastic Beasts films put the muggles/no-maj characters in correct look of the period; the magical folk seem, mostly, to dress about 10 years into the future. It's a way to set them apart visually, and it works.

I probably should go to see the movie, of course. It's no bad thing, reining in snobbishness. You do miss out if you give in to it.