Little Women - General Discussion

[SomeTameGazelle]

35 minutes ago, Moxie Cat said:

Just thought of another one: Laurie says "I've loved you since I've known you" (or similar). I was thinking when I watched it, why does that sound familiar? Does Christian Bale have the same dialogue? Nope - Gilbert says the same thing to Anne in that same proposal scene.

I've deleted LW off my DVR, but if I hadn't, I would definitely watch the proposal scenes from both shows back-to-back. I bet there are more similarities.

And now you make me curious to see if it was actually the Follows "Anne" that ripped off book dialogue! I still don't remember the "famous authoress" scene in the book, but it's been some years.

It's in chapter 14:

Quote

"Hurrah for Miss March, the celebrated American authoress!" cried Laurie

[Moxie Cat]

You have inspired me to pull out the book! And I stand corrected. Both the "I've loved you as long as I've known you" and "I'm so desperately sorry" lines are both from the book.

So clearly we can blame Kevin Sullivan! (Creator of the '80s Anne/Avonlea universe.)

[Moxie Cat]

So odd. It's like making a Dickens, Austen, or Bronte miniseries in the US today. Some dramatizations maybe shouldn't cross oceans.

I did like Emily Watson a ton, though.

[Sulador]

Haaaaated. But I've always found the book mawkish and saccharine. And to paraphrase dear Oscar, anyone who can watch the

Spoiler

death

of Beth March without laughing must have a heart of stone.

[backgroundnoise]

On 5/21/2018 at 9:21 PM, Thumper said:

Did anyone watch the PBS show about Louisa May Alcott's life?  Very interesting.

I thought it was a hoot!  Bit of a stab to the heart, though, hearing the author of my favorite childhood book say she didn't like writing childish pap (or however she put it).  Ouch!

Re the series, I thought it was ok.  I liked that they included some things not normally included in the movie versions, such as Jo and Beth's trip to the seashore.  I thought they didn't provide enough background as to how important Jo's writing was to her and, so, why it was so devastating when Amy destroyed it.  They didn't do any of the girls' acting out Jo's plays, or Pickwick Papers stuff.  That may have helped the audience understand more why Jo didn't want anything to change, such as Meg marrying, because they had their own special society.

Edited May 23, 2018 by backgroundnoise

[Wonkabar5]

Re: the PBS documentary of LM's life:

29 minutes ago, backgroundnoise said:

I thought it was a hoot!  Bit of a stab to the heart, though, hearing the author of my favorite childhood book say she didn't like writing childish pap (or however she put it).  Ouch!

 

Yeah,  "moral pap for the young" and all that.   That said, has anyone ever tried to read her adult novels, ie " A Long Fatal Love Chase?"  

[MissAlmond]

I have to confess I've come to  prefer and appreciate the 1949 version.  IMO June Allyson nails Jo and Elizabeth Taylor is perfection as Amy.   For the 90's, I really like Claire Danes and young Kristen Durst is wonderful.  But something about the rest of that version bugs me.  

[Constant Viewer]

On 5/22/2018 at 3:03 PM, Moxie Cat said:

i always have a hard time when the '94 version flips to Samantha Mathis, because Dunst is so good, but changing actresses is actually a good choice. It also enables the viewer to understand how Laurie sees her differently. 

So did I. Dunst's Amy had more personality while Mathis was a little too reserved

[BooBear]

On 5/21/2018 at 7:36 AM, kirinan said:

While this wasn't my favorite adaptation, I still enjoyed it. The casting was mostly true to what I've pictured for so many years after reading the book countless times. I thought Laurie, John, and Mr. and Mrs. March were the best-cast, but wasn't unhappy with anyone else. And while I knew I'd cry in Beth's final scene, what I didn't expect was that Marmee would be the one to set me off. Emily Watson just ripped my heart out in those scenes. All in all, it was a lovely bit of escapism the last two weekends into a world I've loved for decades.

I thought it improved on part two. I also though Maya Hawk improved in part two but she still was not worthy of Jo. This will be my definitive Laurie only because I thought the actor had more time to shine. I liked Mrs. March being more of a normal person and not so saintly. Perhaps this is the book but I still have trouble understanding why Jo falls for Professor Bhaer and is left cold by Laurie. I also agree that Laurie is so rebounding with Amy. Even worse I suspect that marrying a sister is a way to stay in Jo's life forever. I have always suspected that both endings probably were forced on Louisa May Alcott by a publisher or something.

[Pallas]

5 hours ago, BooBear said:

I have always suspected that both endings probably were forced on Louisa May Alcott by a publisher or something.

Not her publisher. Alcott would rather Jo have remained single, as she did. The Alcott quote and assertions in this brief piece are confirmed and enlarged upon elsewhere. 

[SusanSunflower]

I suspect that "go forth and multiply" made voluntary spinsterhood nothing to be smiled upon -- selfish and unnatural -- and quite suspect for a woman without means (although I'm certain there were cohabitating lesbian couple as there always have been) .... I always have been amused at how she constructed Bhaer to be man no one would be envious of Jo for marrying. 

[Souris]

My 12-year-old self was utterly heartbroken that Jo and Laurie didn't wind up together. I was SO mad at the book! I even felt that way in the Winona Ryder/Christian Bale movie. This is the first version where I was actually glad they didn't end up together -- because I hated this Jo. I just found her unpleasant and not very likable.

I didn't care for the first part of this adaptation very much, but I enjoyed it well enough by the end. It wasn't great, but it was pleasant enough.

I did think Angela Lansbury and Michael Gambon, especially, were pretty much wasted in their roles.

[howiveaddict]

On 5/21/2018 at 3:24 PM, eel2178 said:

My curiosity got the better of me, too. I bought half a dozen limes today, although I haven't salted them down yet.

All you need is a shot of tequila to go with them.

On 5/21/2018 at 9:21 PM, Thumper said:

I always thought Amy was the worst; selfish and self-centered.  I haven't see the other screen versions, although I saw a clip of Kate Hepburn(who I love and admire) and her Jo seemed VERY overly-dramatic.  I only remember the book, and it has been many years since I read it, so perhaps my memories are flawed.  I enjoyed this version, especially Jo,  Marmee, and Father.

Did anyone watch the PBS show about Louisa May Alcott's life?  Very interesting.

I really enjoyed this show. It was an episode of American  Masters if anyone wonders. It's available on Amazon to rent.  I enjoyed the relation ship with Louisa and her parents. The death of the Beth sister seemed awful.  Love that Louisa was friends with some of this country's greatest writers of the time.  I would love to go to Concord and see Orchard house, Emerson's home, Thoreau's woods.

[SusanSunflower]

I only saw part 2 but I also like Gambon's very quiet and elegant playing of the role ... the ballast was needed to offset the young'uns and it had actual "nuance" in his affectionate conversations with Laurie .

[Brn2bwild]

On 5/25/2018 at 7:34 PM, Constant Viewer said:

So did I. Dunst's Amy had more personality while Mathis was a little too reserved

At times I've wished that Kirsten Dunst as an adult (in the Bring It On era) could have been retroactively inserted into those later scenes through the magic of CGI... still, at least Mathis was much more likeable than this version of Amy.

[Constant Viewer]

1 minute ago, Brn2bwild said:

At times I've wished that Kirsten Dunst as an adult (in the Bring It On era) could have been retroactively inserted into those later scenes through the magic of CGI...

Me too!

[Red Bridey]

Random thoughts:  I enjoyed this adaptation and will admit to ugly crying during Beth's death, hey, I was a sentimental kid once.  I did miss some of my favorite lines, especially the Professor's "I haf nothing but love to give you, Josephine" (I may misremember the exact words) and the line from Beth about Jo as the strong seagull and her as the small sandpiper.  I did like most of the casting, though Beth's freckles really did not embody the frail, wasting, pale image of Beth I have had.  Loved seeing all the kittens around Beth, all the time.  I did find it understandable that the script didn't focus on The Pilgrims' Progess that Alcott did in the novel, but does anyone even know that tedious piece of morality play any more?  Loved Laurie's "Does Genius burn?", one of my favorite lines.  Loved the scene where the Professor scorns her pulp fiction stories and tosses them into the fire, even though it didn't show Jo wandering around the "bad parts" of town digging up crimes and scandal as source material for her stories, and the resulting sleeplessness and cynicism that was ruining her fine mind.  The Professor brings her back from the corrupt and encouraged her to only write her best.  I'm sure I have more to say, but I must stop now!

[Pepper Mostly]

I struggled through this but I am hating it. The acting is horrible. Amy is the worst of all! Amy was bratty but this actress is playing her like she's Sarah Michelle Gellar in Cruel Intentions. And I really wish that they'd done a better dye job--Amy shouldn't have black roots. Everyone is wooden and amateurish. I'm so disappointed! This is probably my favorite book and I have read it about a hundred times. Its been butchered. We see none of Meg's sweetness, she's saccharine and vapid. Jo's character development seems to be that she sits with her legs apart and wishes she was a boy. We never see her resourcefulness and sense of humor. Beth is a cipher. She's the glue that holds them all together! Amy--we see none of her pride or her ladylike ways. Laurie is Hugh Grant in a rom com. Marmee is grim and humorless, she's supposed to be warm and motherly. Yech. 

[nx74defiant]

Quote

And I really wish that they'd done a better dye job--Amy shouldn't have black roots.

How hard is it to find a natural blonde? Or keep the roots touched up?

I also felt the actress seemed to old to be acting the way she did, it comes off much different if it was a child.

At the party did they ever mention that Jo was standing against the wall to hide the repairs to her dress?

[nx74defiant]

In this half I had the problem that the actress who played Amy didn't seem any more mature when she meets Laurie again. She is acting like the same bratty little girl. It didn't feel like she had grown up at all. 

[nx74defiant]

Winona Ryder was much to pretty as Jo. Everyone in the theater laughed at the "one true beauty" line when I saw it.

This new Jo had an awkward quality I liked.

[limecoke]

Quote

Perhaps this is the book but I still have trouble understanding why Jo falls for Professor Bhaer and is left cold by Laurie

I always thought it was because Jo found the professor more intellectually stimulating while Laurie was just a pal.  While I didn’t care for this Jo, she was better than the actress playing Amy.

This adaptation wasn’t great but, to me, it was far better than the Sarandan movie.  I guess it’s a matter of taste.  Same with Anne of Green Gables.  I thought the Megan Followes adaptation was definitive while the PBS version and “Anne With An E” were abominations.  Mileage may vary.

[Pepper Mostly]

On 5/26/2018 at 10:34 PM, howiveaddict said:

 

  Love that Louisa was friends with some of this country's greatest writers of the time.  I would love to go to Concord and see Orchard house, Emerson's home, Thoreau's woods.

I've visited Orchard House and it is a MUST for any Alcott fan. The guides are adorable old ladies who are also Alcott fans and say things like  "this is Beth's melodeon" and "this is the parlor where Meg married John Brooke". Its awesome. Louisa never wanted to marry but its reported that she was hopelessly in love with Thoreau. The character of Dan in Little Men and Jo's Boys is inspired by him. 

I'm going to give up forever on any adaptation of Little Women being acceptable to me. Maybe the Brits will do one some day. I thought the acting in this one was just awful. One note and dull as dishwater. Where was Jo's exuberance? Amy's refinement and pretty manners? Meg's sweetness? Marmee's warmth? Where is everyone's humor? The only scene that came close was Beth's Christmas surprise.  

[princelina]

On 5/27/2018 at 5:23 PM, nx74defiant said:

Winona Ryder was much to pretty as Jo. Everyone in the theater laughed at the "one true beauty" line when I saw it.

This new Jo had an awkward quality I liked.

The Winona Ryder was my least favorite- she was too pretty and petite to be Jo - while Clare Danes was too big and healthy looking to be Beth!  I always think they should switch roles!

[SusanSunflower]

I wonder how many readers of Little Women have had an evolving relationship to the book/characters/stories/lessons as I did.  I first read the book young (maybe too young) and, as a child, enjoyed the story of the sisters' hijinks and learning experiences during hard times and then dad comes home, Meg dies and everyone gets married .... happily ever after ... (certainly subtleties are lost on the elementary school readers) .   Read again in middle school, againn, it's rather P&P (with everyone again getting married off eventually) but Laurie and Meg ending up together do bother more.  I remember re-reading as a young woman (after my first boyfriend, a sensitive soul) and understanding why Jo and Laurie would have been a bad match and the risk Mr. Bhaer took to be honest with Jo and the caring and love that showed.  I imagine as a married woman, mother and then grandmother, again, the story changes dramatically even as the text is unaltered.   One can see the sisters as peers or foolish young girls maturing into readiness for life's challenges.  I didn't care much for Little Women in elementary school, but came to respect it a great deal as I got older.  As a child I preferred Little Men, Jo's Boys and Eight Cousins (more activity and adventure).  

Reminds me a bit of David Copperfield which I read avidly first in high school without a tear; only to re-read it 10 years later with many tears and much Kleenex ... only to find the next time I read it , that I cried at different parts.  

I think it's an important book (even if Alcott and her dad were renegades) in illustrating "The American Character" in ways often overlooked or unsung ... endurance, thrift, tolerance, charity, etc.  PBS "The Great Read" again declared "The Great Gatsby" the great American novel with (too) many young people seeing Gatsby as heroic (maker of his own destiny), rather than conscienceless fraud, the good-looking blond/blue goyim to be the face of Wolfsheim's con game ... who would try to rewrite history by fraud if necessary (unable to the last to see that Daisy would quite willingy  sneak out the back door with her loathsome husband).  It's a brilliant book, but I'd be reluctant to name it my favorite ... there's such a darkness to it. 

Edited May 30, 2018 by SusanSunflower

[dargosmydaddy]

5 hours ago, SusanSunflower said:

Meg dies and everyone gets married .... happily ever after ... (certainly subtleties are lost on the elementary school readers) .   Read again in middle school, againn, it's rather P&P (with everyone again getting married off eventually) but Laurie and Meg ending up together

I'm amused that Meg is being inserted in the place of every sister other than Jo...

I, too, read Little Women at multiple ages, including very young. I remember really liking Amy the first time because she was closest to my age and liked to draw. Hated her the next time, when I adored Jo.

Edited May 29, 2018 by dargosmydaddy

[SusanSunflower]

stoopid, stoopd me ... enjoy

Edited June 3, 2018 by SusanSunflower

[Pentwater]

Was this supposed to be "Little Women" or a Vogue shoot? So. Much. Posing. So. Much. Hair.  It might have been better to go with the fashions of the day, the foodie food, the scenery shots and just bag the story line. 

[J-Man]

On 5/16/2018 at 5:42 PM, eel2178 said:

f they're going to modernize it then Mr. March should be serving in the army in Iraq after having lost his money in the 2008 real estate bubble. The Hummels should be illegal immigrants who are being provided sanctuary, and Beth should die after contracting AIDS.

And of course Jo would be looking into the procedure for transitioning to male. 

[Pine]

Is this the same one I watched a year ago?  I keep seeing it is the 2018 version.  

[Pallas]

Quote

Is this the same one I watched a year ago?  I keep seeing it is the 2018 version. 

It was broadcast on BBC-One in the U.K. as a Christmas Special at the end of 2017, and on PBS in the U.S. in May 2018. 

[dargosmydaddy]

I just finished watching the third hour last night (I watched on the PBS website, where it was broken down into three episodes), and I have to say I found it enjoyable. It had its issues (Amy!), but was still fun to watch. I really liked the way Jo and Laurie were portrayed, and I found the Laurie actor completely adorable even if his crying scene did make me laugh. The last hour was a bit relentlessly sad and seemed kind of rushed, but I'm still glad I watched overall. And this was the first thing I ever saw him in where I didn't actively hate Dylan Baker. I think the facial hair helped detract from the creepiness of his face.

On 5/28/2018 at 10:36 AM, Pepper Mostly said:

Maybe the Brits will do one some day.

Wasn't this a British production? (Or at least a split BBC/ PBS one?) I know the writer (Heidi Thomas from Call the Midwife) is British, as well as some of the actors.

[Pepper Mostly]

Was it?  Oh well. Huge disappointment all around. 

[meep.meep]

On 5/16/2018 at 5:50 PM, Anothermi said:

The part that I remember most strongly from reading the book rarely shows up in the movies. It's the constant references to John Bunyan’s seventeenth-century work The Pilgrim’s Progress, an allegorical novel about leading a Christian life.  I've never read that book despite the constant references, but I know about it because of Little Women. Their father guided them, via his letters, through urging them to model their lives on its lessons.

They actually showed Marmee giving each of them a copy on Christmas morning - putting it under their pillows, but then it was dropped dead.

I looked up the actresses and the one playing Amy is actually older than the one playing Jo.  

[Roseanna]

On ‎14‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 5:59 PM, attica said:

I am just getting to the point where I can own my own rage, so this section was a reminder me how 'good' women aren't supposed to be angry, ever. Or at least appear to be angry.  I understand Marmee's struggle, but I disagree that rage isn't ours to have. Jo didn't 'lose her temper' over the loss of her book, she was quite rightly enraged by Amy's cruelty. I mean, if she were Zen, she should abandon her attachment to material things, but this wasn't a 'thing' so much as the product of her art and industriousness. And Amy took dead aim at it.

On the upside, there wasn't a bonnet in the group I wasn't coveting. Such lovely needlework on the hats and coat-sleeves!

 

On ‎15‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 3:22 AM, voiceover said:

That's applying 21st century reasoning to the 19th century.  There's a lot women weren't supposed to do in public then, and publicly losing one's temper: right up there.  

But Marmee didn't tell Jo she was wrong to be angry.  No one did.  Jo actually *struck* her youngest sister in the first flush of temper, and wasn't chastised for it. But she cautioned her daughter about not letting "the sun go down on [her] anger" (frankly, still good advice).  This is a warning Jo doesn't heed, and her sulking nearly costs Amy her life.  It meant a great deal to Jo to find out that the mother she'd thought was perfect, shared one of her "worst" qualities.  

(I put "worst" in quotes, since obviously, easily expressed anger may be considered a virtue these days.)

  Reveal hidden contents

Years later, Jo's openly opinionated ways cost her the chance of a lifetime.  Fair?  Not at all.  A product of the times?  Absolutely.

I disagree about the reason for Jo's (imho, righteous) anger: she expresses to Beth, quite eloquently, about what it takes to be a writer, and what is taken from you when the work is destroyed.  What's wrong with having a fit over the loss of her book?  

Of course, I also long to comfort her with the reminder that first drafts are always shit, and the second time around would assuredly be an improvement.

There are two different things to get angry at injustice that is done againts you (or somebody else, for that matter) and continue to hate the offender, even revenge.

That said, Mrs Marsh's conception of apology and forgiveness seems very childish. What Amy did wasn't such a thing that happens every day and where "I am sorry" is enough to make things okay again. Amy did monstrous injustice to Joe and it was vain to expect that once she said "I am sorry", Jo was at once ready to forgive her. When Jo didn't, Amy's reaction showed that she wasn't really sorry but only said so because her mother had told her to do it.

I think that Mrs Marsh should have taught Amy that she mustn't give up but stay with Jo and listen with empathy when she tells what her manuscript meant to her and how much Amy hurt her. In this case there is no way Amy can compensate Jo's loss, but she must have found some way to show that she truly repents.    

[Roseanna]

On ‎21‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 6:54 PM, SomeTameGazelle said:

I was surprised by how much Aunt March putting Meg's back up and driving her to accept John Brooke's proposal reminded me of Pride and Prejudice's Elizabeth Bennet and Lady Catherine de Bourgh

Outwardly, but Elizabeth was an adult who knew beforehand that she had begun to love Darcy and when she opposed Lady Catherine, she thought that she had with her behavior lost Darcy for good. Meg was a teenager who, it was presented, didn't know her mind or, I would rather think, wanted to oppose her domineering aunt. How could she know she loved him? He hadn't even courted her! Probably she liked him, but that's not reason to marry, as Jo knew.    

Although Mrs Marsh wasn't Mrs Bennet who desperately wanted to marry off her daughters, preferably to welthy men, I don't like her and her husband's attitude: "we like John Brooke and he is good man and we have given him permission and although Meg doesn't love him yet, she will love him before long". 

As Meg was so young that her parents wanted her to wait three years before marriage, I don't like that John Brooke proposed (and her parents let him propose) Meg before he went to war where he could be killed or maimed. He should have let her to be free and meet other men - and then she would have known for sure whether she really loved him in such a way that she wanted to marry him. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎21‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 8:52 PM, SusanSunflower said:

I do remember all the sisters softer and generally "younger" (these sisters also looked botoxed to death) 

All, but especially Amy, looked simply too old. I can't understand why they let Amy have her hair to be scattered at home which made so old that it was improbable that she still went to school. And at school she was simply too tall in front of the teacher. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎21‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 8:52 PM, SusanSunflower said:

I was disturbed by the almost unrecognizable gloominess.  Before antibiotics (and vaccines), childhood disease-related heart disease was pretty common, usually scarlet fever/rheumatic heart disease related which left the heart damaged (as well as scarred and prone to reinfection).  People lived with infirmity and death (particularly child mortality and premature deaths of many types, including wounds and broken bones that that wouldn't heal)

I couldn't believe in my eyes: after Beth got scarlet fever from the poor family, only Amy was sent away whereas both Meg and Jo stayed and Jo even laid in the same bed as Beth. How could any respectful doctor have allowed that?

In a way, it was good that death was dealt also in youth novels as natural. 

[dargosmydaddy]

14 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I couldn't believe in my eyes: after Beth got scarlet fever from the poor family, only Amy was sent away whereas both Meg and Jo stayed and Jo even laid in the same bed as Beth. How could any respectful doctor have allowed that?

I think that goes back to the fact that Amy was a "child" (which is easy to forget in this version, but I think she was only 12 or 13 at that point in the book), and also the coddled youngest, whereas Meg and Jo, even though they were only in their late teens, had taken on adult roles and were allowed to make their own decisions, particularly in the absence of Marmee. They considered it their responsibility to nurse Beth. 

[Constant Viewer]

4 hours ago, dargosmydaddy said:

19 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I couldn't believe in my eyes: after Beth got scarlet fever from the poor family, only Amy was sent away whereas both Meg and Jo stayed and Jo even laid in the same bed as Beth. How could any respectful doctor have allowed that?

I think that goes back to the fact that Amy was a "child" (which is easy to forget in this version, but I think she was only 12 or 13 at that point in the book), and also the coddled youngest, whereas Meg and Jo, even though they were only in their late teens, had taken on adult roles and were allowed to make their own decisions, particularly in the absence of Marmee. They considered it their responsibility to nurse Beth. 

I think Jo and Meg stayed because they had already had scarlet fever so could not get it twice.

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, dargosmydaddy said:

I think that goes back to the fact that Amy was a "child" (which is easy to forget in this version, but I think she was only 12 or 13 at that point in the book), and also the coddled youngest, whereas Meg and Jo, even though they were only in their late teens, had taken on adult roles and were allowed to make their own decisions, particularly in the absence of Marmee. They considered it their responsibility to nurse Beth. 

Laying with the same bed, being afraid of her death and making promises to God is hardly nursing.

I guess the show concentrated on what it was thought to be most sentimental. I thought it was unrational.    

[dargosmydaddy]

18 hours ago, Constant Viewer said:

I think Jo and Meg stayed because they had already had scarlet fever so could not get it twice.

Yes, you're right. It's been forever since I read the book. Might have been nice if they had mentioned it on the show.

[SusanSunflower]

Scarlet fever often followed measles preceded or accompanied by a strep throat which was (as far as I know, for that reason) considered dangerous. ... known complication of measles, feared complication of strep throat (which could be "seen" as white/yellow bumps on the very sore throat / pharynx) It was less scary, and not rare.  It tended to recur iirc (if you still had your tonsils) so it was a nuisance .  I had my tonsils removed at the remarkable age of 4 (at that time) because of endless earaches, but it was a much bigger deal and $$$ and fear of hemorrhage was considerable. My father objected. 

Germ theory wasn't very advanced back in civil war days but even when I was kid, when my neighbor D got scarlet fever, she was quarantined to a bedroom and the lights were kept off or low while her mom, dad and two siblings lived in the other one bedroom and living room (tiny house).  Short of hospitalization (with its own issues wrt infectious disease)  there was only so much "isolation" that could be done in the home and it was a genuine hardship even in the 1950's. There was a yellow Department of Health Quarantine notice on the front door and it was a big deal when (maybe 2 weeks later) we were allowed to peek in and then briefly visit.  This would have been maybe 1958 ... I think it was largely a matter of very bad luck (or repeated infection) if you ended up with rheumatic fever and heart damage. 

MERCK: " In the United States, a child who has a streptococcal throat infection but is not treated has only a less than 1 to 3% chance of developing rheumatic fever. However, about half of the children who have had rheumatic fever develop it again afteranother streptococcal throat infection if that infection is not treated."

Lots of kids were sick often, doctors were costly and catching illness from siblings was simply a fact of life ... now we have antibiotic resistance strains but more antibiotics and diagnostic tests to determine if infection and/or damage has occurred ....sigh 

[t7686]

I thought this got much better by Part 2. Still thought, this adaptation lacked... warmth. For the first time I didn't love Jo (her thinking Beth loved Laurie when Beth was really upset because she was dying and Jo being completely tone deaf towards it? Ugh!)  and Amy, while I never really liked her, came off badly here. There was no character development and since the actress looked so old, instead of being a bratty kid, she just seemed somewhat pathologically mean. I will say I loved this version of Meg. She was so fun and interesting.  Susan Sarandon did a better Marmee but I did like how the parents had more to do. That scene where Emily Watson finds out Beth is dying was heartbreaking. That said, that scene also pissed me off. Poor Beth, even her mother didn't expect or want anything more for her? Ouch. 

[Roseanna]

23 hours ago, t7686 said:

I thought this got much better by Part 2. Still thought, this adaptation lacked... warmth. For the first time I didn't love Jo (her thinking Beth loved Laurie when Beth was really upset because she was dying and Jo being completely tone deaf towards it? Ugh!)  and Amy, while I never really liked her, came off badly here. There was no character development and since the actress looked so old, instead of being a bratty kid, she just seemed somewhat pathologically mean. 

Lack of character development was connected with too short time. Laurie proposed Jo less than a half hour before he proposed Amy.

The audience must been given time to anticipate what happens, hope for the happy end and fear that if woudn't happen. Of course most of us know it but one can't get real satisfaction without it.     

[Roseanna]

23 hours ago, t7686 said:

Poor Beth, even her mother didn't expect or want anything more for her? Ouch. 

Beth had poor health, so she wouldn't have managed anything else than staying at home. Which wasn't unnatural or rare in those days.

In the novel Beth is presented a model of virtue because she didn't want anything at all to herself and suffered in silence. Jo wanted to learn from her.  

[Roseanna]

On ‎22‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 9:43 AM, voiceover said:

Alcott describes Jo's study of the Prof, as the young writer struggles to define his obvious appeal.  After all, he was neither handsome nor rich nor clever.   But she nails it in the comparison of the German to a glowing hearth: people were naturally drawn to him.  Sex appeal for both sexes!

I don't think that Professor Bhaer had sex appeal but a good heart. 

[voiceover]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

I don't think that Professor Bhaer had sex appeal but a good heart. 

I think he had both.  And lots of people in Little Women could be described has having "good hearts".  People didn't flock to them, like they did to the Professor.

I referenced how Alcott described him in the book.  Jo was trying to define his charisma, and I just put it into modern vernacular.  "Sex appeal" isn't confined to the local firehouse pinup calendar.  Doesn't necessarily lead to actual sex -- though obviously it did for Jo.

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, voiceover said:

I think he had both.  And lots of people in Little Women could be described has having "good hearts".  People didn't flock to them, like they did to the Professor.

I referenced how Alcott described him in the book.  Jo was trying to define his charisma, and I just put it into modern vernacular.  "Sex appeal" isn't confined to the local firehouse pinup calendar.  Doesn't necessarily lead to actual sex -- though obviously it did for Jo.

I guess we have different concepts of sex appeal.

Most of all, I doubt that children flocked to Professor Bhaer bacause he had sex appeal. To me, it seemed that it was because Professor played with them as if he was a child too.

And that was perhaps the secret of his success: he treated all people as equal with himself but at the same time he treated everybody in the individual way they needed. He discussed about philosophy with Jo's father, but showed his good hert to her mother.

Only Jo was an exception. In New York he didn't treat her as an equal friend but rather like a father towards his daughter whom he could reprimand for doing something wrong (writing "immoral" stories). Jo's role with Bhaer was the very opposite what her role was with Laurie whom she used to reprimand. 

Luckily, Beth's death made Jo mature, before Bhaer proposed her.

[Roseanna]

On ‎22‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 9:43 AM, voiceover said:

Jo doesn't get The Boy (which chapped my ass at the age of 10), but by the third book (Jo's Boys) is a highly successful popular author of children's books (not unlike her creator), and so enjoys the greatest professional success of them all.  Thus is her 15-year-old's ambition realized. 

As far as her "settling" for the Professor (who was a character Alcott invented for the Good Wives sequel to prank her fanbase): that was another move, annoyed 10-year-old Me.  But Adult Me, upon the reread, got it.

 

On ‎29‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 9:11 PM, SusanSunflower said:

I wonder how many readers of Little Women have had an evolving relationship to the book/characters/stories/lessons as I did.  I first read the book young (maybe too young) and, as a child, enjoyed the story of the sisters' hijinks and learning experiences during hard times and then dad comes home, Meg dies and everyone gets married .... happily ever after ... (certainly subtleties are lost on the elementary school readers) .   Read again in middle school, againn, it's rather P&P (with everyone again getting married off eventually) but Laurie and Meg ending up together do bother more.  I remember re-reading as a young woman (after my first boyfriend, a sensitive soul) and understanding why Jo and Laurie would have been a bad match and the risk Mr. Bhaer took to be honest with Jo and the caring and love that showed.  I imagine as a married woman, mother and then grandmother, again, the story changes dramatically even as the text is unaltered.   

I think it's interesting that Alcott dared to challenge young readers by not letting Jo accept Teddy's proposal because, as Mrs Marsh said, they were too much similar. One can also add: too immature.

Also in Rose in Bloom, Alcott let the charming but immature Charlie die and his brother Mac to get Rose to love him. In Old-fashioned girl Polly waits for  Tom to redeem himself working in the West.

One can say that Alcott was realistic that immature charmful youths doesn't make good husbands. But she was also didactic which seems old-fashioned now.