Little Women - General Discussion

[dargosmydaddy]

12 hours ago, Roseanna said:

but immature Charlie die and his brother Mac to get Rose to love him.

They were cousins (Charlie and Mac).

I wish PBS/ BBC/ whoever would do an Eight Cousins/ Rose in Bloom adaptation, but I suppose modern audiences would find the cousin romances to be squicky.

[Roseanna]

11 hours ago, dargosmydaddy said:

They were cousins (Charlie and Mac).

I wish PBS/ BBC/ whoever would do an Eight Cousins/ Rose in Bloom adaptation, but I suppose modern audiences would find the cousin romances to be squicky.

Sorry, I forgot that although all the boys were Rose's cousin, some of them were brothers and some cousins.

Acutually, marrying a cousin was long forbidden, although the church and later the king could give an exception leave.

[statsgirl]

On 5/14/2018 at 11:41 PM, JTM said:

Updating language (mellow out) is weird. Far better to let the book be what it is -- and to let the subtext be reflected so that the characters feel real, as the new Anne did.

I understand the argument for updating the language, to make it more accessible to modern audiences.  But it's a period piece, with period mores and actions.  If you update to modern language, there is the expectation that the behaviour will be modern too in spite of the costumes (see posts on this thread wondering why the characters would behave the way they do). I think a production should either be period, with language and behaviour, or updated to modern times in all senses.

On 5/20/2018 at 10:59 PM, Fireball said:

I never liked Amy. I thought she was a brat.

I always thought Amy was selfish and shallow. She was fast forward material to me, even in the book.

Which makes it strange to learn that Alcott based her on a beloved younger sister.

[Pallas]

57 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

Which makes it strange to learn that Alcott based her on a beloved younger sister.

Perhaps her editor mused, as did Giles on Buffy: "I believe the subtext here is rapidly becoming text..."

[SomeTameGazelle]

14 hours ago, statsgirl said:

 

I always thought Amy was selfish and shallow. She was fast forward material to me, even in the book.

Which makes it strange to learn that Alcott based her on a beloved younger sister.

It doesn't strike me as particularly strange either that Alcott wrote a flawed character who shows growth or that she could love an adult sister who could be an annoying brat when she was much younger. I don't know how much of Amy's annoying behaviour was taken from May's life and how much was exaggerated to make her a foil for Jo, but I appreciate the fact that Amy has a distinct character and improves over time.

Edited June 22, 2018 by SomeTameGazelle
Trimmed quote to relevant portion

[Zella]

On 6/21/2018 at 2:06 AM, Roseanna said:

Sorry, I forgot that although all the boys were Rose's cousin, some of them were brothers and some cousins.

Acutually, marrying a cousin was long forbidden, although the church and later the king could give an exception leave.

It really depends on where you were regarding cousins. ;) I've found more of it in my family tree in the 1800s than strictly makes me comfortable, but it didn't seem to ick them out. Probably because it was a rural area and it was slim pickens, marriage-wise. 

I was also recently reading about a Civil War-era Virginian woman from a respected, prominent family. (Her brother was a Confederate general and her husband was a Confederate naval officer.) Her parents were first cousins and her husband was her own first cousin, and nobody seemed to bat an eye. It cracked me up because the book I was reading mentioned that her husband and her brother were really close friends without further comment, and I was thinking, "Um, yeah, not surprising since they were first cousins and probably all grew up with each other." 

And it's not even limited to the past! Nearly half of all American states still allow first cousin marriages, and it is preferred in several cultures around the world, especially in the Middle East. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Zella

[Ceindreadh]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

It really depends on where you were regarding cousins. ;) I've found more of it in my family tree in the 1800s than strictly makes me comfortable, but it didn't seem to ick them out. Probably because it was a rural area and it was slim pickens, marriage-wise. 

I was also recently reading about a Civil War-era Virginian woman from a respected, prominent family. (Her brother was a Confederate general and her husband was a Confederate naval officer.) Her parents were first cousins and her husband was her own first cousin, and nobody seemed to bat an eye. It cracked me up because the book I was reading mentioned that her husband and her brother were really close friends without further comment, and I was thinking, "Um, yeah, not surprising since they were first cousins and probably all grew up with each other." 

And it's not even limited to the past! Nearly half of all American states still allow first cousin marriages, and it is preferred in several cultures around the world, especially in the Middle East. 

There's a few instances in my family tree a few generations back.  Partly because of being members of a minority religion in their country, and also many of them would have been of courting age in or around the Great War, which would have limited the dating pool even more.  

(makes it rather annoying when you're trying to draw up a family tree and have to unite as well as divide branches)

[Zella]

18 minutes ago, Ceindreadh said:

There's a few instances in my family tree a few generations back.  Partly because of being members of a minority religion in their country, and also many of them would have been of courting age in or around the Great War, which would have limited the dating pool even more.  

(makes it rather annoying when you're trying to draw up a family tree and have to unite as well as divide branches)

Yep! I felt so judged by Ancestry.com when I was trying to add the cousin marriages in my family tree. It kept resisting me, and I finally had to just add them manually. 

[voiceover]

On 6/19/2018 at 10:54 PM, Roseanna said:

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.

 

Yes we do.  The thought of it being present in Little Women appears to squick you out.  You're not alone in that opinion.

It squicks me out that you wrote this bit about children, sex appeal, and the Professor.  You seem to be suggesting that I'm using the term to define 100% of why anyone would like him.

I wasn't.

And one may be appealing on many levels, for many reasons: one having to do with sexual appeal, one being able to relate to children in a way they find appealing.  One being able to talk to a member of the opposite sex like an equal.

[Roseanna]

11 hours ago, voiceover said:

Yes we do.  The thought of it being present in Little Women appears to squick you out.  You're not alone in that opinion.

It squicks me out that you wrote this bit about children, sex appeal, and the Professor.  You seem to be suggesting that I'm using the term to define 100% of why anyone would like him.

I wasn't.

And one may be appealing on many levels, for many reasons: one having to do with sexual appeal, one being able to relate to children in a way they find appealing.  One being able to talk to a member of the opposite sex like an equal.

Of course a person can be appealing in many levels. Can you please tell the scenes where you see Bhaer's sex appeal. Of course it couldn't be presented as directly as today, but to a reader it's clear that Vronsky and Henry Crawford had sex appeal whereas Levin and Edmund Bertram hadn't.

As I see it, in New York Bhaer's attitude to Jo seems to be fatherly: he is a teacher and she is a pupil. When Bhaer comes to visit her family, they are more equal as Jo has matured after Beth's death, but what she searches, and finds, in him is most of all a friend, although a different friend than Laurie who was always a boy to Jo.   

I just read a study about the new ideals of the bourgeois family in the 19th century. The age difference between spouses was big as a man must first learn his job and earn enough money to support his family. Therefore, a wife looked upwards towards her husband and felt gratitude towards him whereas the crux of the matter to a husband was responsibility. Of course Jo also earned money and Laurie is taught by Amy.

The ideal motives to marry weren't sex appeal nor mercennary but "sympathy between souls". In addition, the wife should be such that, although the servant took care of the manual child care, she could taught her children to become good citizens. In Bhaer and Jo's case, they did that together also in their school.

[Wonkabar5]

Oy vey! This isn't under the category of previous adaptations, but of a future one- but I'll still place it here.  Meh.

 https://variety.com/2018/film/news/little-women-meryl-streep-emma-stone-saoirse-ronan-greta-gerwig-1202646423/#article-comments

[SomeTameGazelle]

1 hour ago, Wonkabar5 said:

Oy vey! This isn't under the category of previous adaptations, but of a future one- but I'll still place it here.  Meh.

 https://variety.com/2018/film/news/little-women-meryl-streep-emma-stone-saoirse-ronan-greta-gerwig-1202646423/#article-comments

Since the only thing the article tells us about is star power, it is difficult to feel as if it will be interesting in any way.

That reminds me, when I was looking for reviews of the TV series recently I came across a trailer for a modernized version that has actually already been made. The only star name I recognize is Lea Thompson as Marmee. One of the things that intrigued me about the trailer was that it showed the Bhaer character more prominently than Laurie.

[Wonkabar5]

This new adaptation of LW should be released around Christmas holiday season 2019, and now according to LA. Times, Streep will be playing Aunt March, not Marmee,  as was previously reported.     The focus seems to be....

Quote

 

But the acerbic aunt may also be the meatier part in Gerwig’s movie. Though Aunt March hasn’t enjoyed nearly as much screen time as Marmie in most previous film and television adaptations of “Little Women,” Swicord says Gerwig’s screenplay focuses more on the sisters’ young adult lives after they leave the family home.

“It’s really taking a look at what it is for a young woman to enter the adult world,” Swicord says, adding that Gerwig’s screenplay jumps back and forth in time, focusing more on themes than narrative.

“It’s very adult and interesting and thoughtful … and, of course, given the material, it’s always going to be romantic,” Swicord says. 

 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-little-women-meryl-streep-greta-gerwig-20180703-story.html

[seacliffsal]

Finally watched this on my DVR and just have to say-if the intent of this series was to make me hate Jo and Amy, then mission accomplished!

[jah1986]

I finally saw this via PBS Passport and enjoyed the first episode.  At first I was distracted trying to figure out which girl was which. To me, Jo and Beth looked so much alike I didn't know who was who until I realized Beth has the freckles.  I enjoy Michael Gambon in just about everything so that was a treat as was seeing Angela Lansbury again.

I had no idea the actress playing Jo is the daughter of Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke, she's okay.

Looking forward to the remaining episodes.

[SusanSunflower]

my local #2 PBS station (I have two, #1 more flush with funds and showing things in first run) is showing this and I must say I am enjoying it better a second time after the "shock" of various things has worn off.  I still don't understand where this Jo sprung from, but that's true of most of the characters (who are hard to distinguish from some sort of paperdoll/stereotype -- the pretty one, the curmudgeon with a heart of gold, etc.) which is a weakness, because -- even if it's not mandatory that Jo be your favorite  -- you should like her (and all of them).  Amy similarly keeps reminding me of the irredeemably nasty-girl on Little House (and I never watched Little House) ... her ending up with Laurie becomes a horror, not a matter of settling well. 

 

Anyway, it's better than I remember, if overly dark (in a shallow way) ... I'm not sure why it's not as good as they wanted it to be. Emily Watson and the father and Gambon and even John seem to be flesh and blood.  I felt Lansbury (who I love) was wasted behind all that make-up and sangfroid (the giving of the pearl necklace and other moments lacked punch emotional depth) 

Edited September 12, 2018 by SusanSunflower

[BonnieD]

Quote

There were a few things I wish they'd included, like the Pickwick Club - a jolly scene that shored up the relationship between Laurie and the other March sisters 

This was what I disliked about the first installment, no time to see the development of the friendship between girls and Laurie. It was just sort of foisted upon us as a fact.  I did think the show got better in the latter half. And I liked this Bauer better than Gabriel Byrne. He seemed like a good match for Jo, less patronizing and paternal and annoying (minus the bit about pulp fiction being horrible pap that will destroy civilization as we know it. I write romance novels so when intellectuals sneer it hits too close to home)

I just returned from a trip to New England which included touring Orchard House, the Alcott's family dwelling for a couple of years, just down the road from the family's best friend and benefactor Emerson. Until then I hadn't been aware there was yet another version of Little Women. This one did not really move me. I almost turned off after the "mellow out" anachronism, and didn't care for Hawk's characterization of Jo at all. But I watched it all so i guess I must have liked it well enough.

Next up, I understand a release of Little Women set in modern times is about to be foisted upon us. WHY????

[AAEBoiler]

On 5/16/2018 at 5:37 AM, BooBear said:

She was terrible. I caught the end and thought... I bet that actress is connected and then went back and watched on demand and saw Hawk and I knew it. She also has a nose just like her mom. Worse than the acting is that she is just flat up not attractive.

I actually think that she was perfect for the role of Jo and that she did a great job. Yes, she's not "model gorgeous" but she's very attractive in an gawky kind of way and she just lights up when she smiles. I would've been besotted with her too had I been Laurie.