Little Women - General Discussion

[attica]

14 hours ago, Diana Berry said:

Another surprise - had no idea 'Jo' was the offspring of Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman.

Sheesh. I once passed Hawke on the street, when he was pushing Maya in a stroller. I AM SO OLD.

[Mumbles]

Quote

Dad was probably out drinking away the rent money.

Or working long hours for a pittance. Things weren't great for workers back in the 1860s and I would imagine an immigrant one would be even more ripe for exploitation. 

[attica]

Or, you know, away at the war, which I understand was ongoing at the time.... :)

[Wonkabar5]

On 5/14/2018 at 1:47 PM, kassa said:

 I guess I'm used to the book and adaptations being great-big-curl-up-and-drop-into-a-shabbily-genteel-but-heartwarming-and-cosy-world, and this is a whirlwind of plot points.  

 

Yes, this is most definitely the least cozy of the adaptations, imo, with a scene

Spoiler

in next week's episode involving a Heidi Thomas invented dialogue/ discussion between Jo and her father.  Interesting, but might resemble something more out of Alcott's real life relationship with her father.  

 

This all being said,  I thought the scenes /discussions

Spoiler

involving Beth and her demise were very, very, good.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Wonkabar5

[chitowngirl]

On 5/14/2018 at 11:27 AM, Mumbles said:

Here's a blast from the past - anyone remember an NBC minseries starring Susan Dey as Jo? They tried to make a series out of it as well.

Oh yes! Meredith Baxter Birney was Meg, Anne Dusenbury was Amy, and Eve Plumb was Beth, and then a look alike cousin in the series.

[BooBear]

22 hours ago, msrachelj said:

i am the of the opposite opinion. i think she was terrible. her acting as far as speaking and her mannerisms. very jerky. then again, both of her parents are pretty b list though i'm sure she got the job because of connections. she actually ruined it for me. terrible actor. the other girls must be thinking how they could have done a better job as the lead if only they had powerful parents. 

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 also find the production choppy and unfocused. It doesn't seem like we are getting or going anywhere, just a bunch of scenes.  

Speaking of looks you know your old when the actor playing Laurie is a doppelgänger for Byron Thames 

[JudyObscure]

I've never understood the point of doing period dramas and then modernizing them.  I was around eleven when I first read, "Little Women," and the quaint language and unfamiliar rules of etiquette regarding gloves and running were all part of the joy of the book for me.  I was still young enough to play house with friends and we pretended to be the little women with all the old fashioned stylings we could muster. 

Add me to the "she was terrible," group and I actually like her parents.

[Nidratime]

Quote

Oh, forgot to include my dislike for the musical score.  Too choppy and not cohesive enough.  Seemed to take me "out of the moment" at times.

I am, by no means, an expert on music of the time, but I thought the music sounded out of place. That is, it sounded more southern, twangy, appalachian. Maybe the music of New England and the north were comparable at the time. But, I didn't expect the theme music they came up with.

[Nidratime]

I have seen all the movie versions and prefer the 1990's one because the previous ones cast actresses who were just too old for the roles (except for Margaret O'Brien). 

[Nidratime]

So, this was a U.K. production? I was wondering why all the actors playing the adult roles were British. Well, at least Marmee, Aunt March, and Mr. Laurence, thus far. 

[voiceover]

3 hours ago, Nidratime said:

So, this was a U.K. production? I was wondering why all the actors playing the adult roles were British. Well, at least Marmee, Aunt March, and Mr. Laurence, thus far. 

It was made especially for Boxing Day 2017.

[Wonkabar5]

 I found this on the pbs site:

Quote

With a production team from the UK and US, principal photography is set to begin in July and casting will be announced shortly.

Little Women is a Playground production for the BBC and MASTERPIECE on PBS. The producer is Susie Liggat. Executive producers are Colin Callender and Sophie Gardiner for Playground, Heidi Thomas, Rebecca Eaton for MASTERPIECE and Lucy Richer for the BBC.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/specialfeatures/little-women-comes-to-masterpiece/

[eel2178]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 2:47 PM, kassa said:

  I guess I'm used to the book and adaptations being great-big-curl-up-and-drop-into-a-shabbily-genteel-but-heartwarming-and-cosy-world, and this is a whirlwind of plot points.  

Was their father ever a pastor? I don't remember that from the book or any of the movies.

[eel2178]

13 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I've never understood the point of doing period dramas and then modernizing them. 

If 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.

[Anothermi]

40 minutes ago, eel2178 said:

Was their father ever a pastor? I don't remember that from the book or any of the movies.

I did a quick search for a plot summary and found this site.

Relevant points...

Quote

...Mr. March, the girls’ father, who is serving as a Union chaplain in the Civil War.

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.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Anothermi
corrected insert

[Wonkabar5]

22 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I did a quick search for a plot summary and found this site.

Relevant points...

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.

 

Right.

Due to physical restraints, I'm not going to be able to post until at least Tues, so I just want to get this out now.
 The correspondence between Alcott and her publisher bears out that LW was meant to be a nice (Victorian)  "girls' book" to help and instruct them.  And this is why I question

Spoiler

 

the interaction we will see Sunday between Jo and her father, based on the chapter, Literary Lessons.  Jo's  tone, especially.   "Like you did?"

Would Jo, (not Louisa) have said this and with that tone whilst "honoring her father?"

 

 

 I will be eager to read responses to this part of the saga next week.  It was a bit jarring for me when I first viewed it. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Wonkabar5

[voiceover]

On 5/16/2018 at 5:28 PM, eel2178 said:

Was their father ever a pastor? I don't remember that from the book or any of the movies.

Yes; it's mentioned in the book, the play, and at least 2 of the films.  He serves as an army chaplain, and later performs a marriage ceremony.

[Pallas]

Mr. March falls ill, and Marmee goes to Washington to care for him. Jo receives a surprise at Christmas. Laurie tries to tell Jo how he feels, and John Brooke proposes to Meg. Amy gets the chance to travel to Europe, and Jo moves to New York to pursue her writing, but Beth’s health is failing, and the family must face their most difficult challenge yet.

[CaliCheeseSucks]

I love this version's Laurie. It's hard for me to unsee Thurman's resemblance in her daughter - it's the eyes for me.

But I would have hoped that Armstrong's version had put to bed the idea of using one actress to play Amy as a child-to-adult. It's just not believable. 

[Eureka]

On 5/15/2018 at 12:09 AM, LittleIggy said:

Funny, I didn’t think she looked much like Uma.

There were definitely times when I saw it but if I didn’t know it was her daughter, I don’t think I would have guessed.

[Pentwater]

There doesn't seem to be much point in producing this version of "Little Women," unless the point is to introduce us to the GenX version of acting which is  terribly flat and thoughtless. There is no art here. I am very disappointed.

[Fireball]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 8:59 AM, attica said:

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.

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

[voiceover]

Well. *sniff*  There were tears involved, I'll admit.

Jonah's Laurie was still the best, which I write with a twinge, but there it is.  Maya had a look of Jo: the lanky awkwardness, the shambling walk.  But her performance felt one-note; without variation; which is some of what Laurie's half-Italian, passionate nature -- brought to vivid life by Hauer-King -- showed to disadvantage.  Jo was more than a brooder and a crank! but you wouldn't guess it here.

Hooray for Dylan Baker, whose Mr March was the most fully realized of all previous interpretations.  And it t'warn't close.  Such a beautiful scene between Marmee and Father, the night before Meg's wedding!  It was my favorite part of the second half.

Even more for my list of Book Moments:the Screen Debut --

1. Amy's foot-cast catastrophe (though it originally happened later in the novel);

2. "Land of the Leal" as the elder Marches' favorite hymn (gorgeously performed!);

3.  The "God Bless You, Good Queen Bess" number to cheer a recovering Beth;

4. Meg's non-jelling jelly from Hell;

5.  Amy & Jo paying the fateful afternoon of calls;

6. Laurie's "By Jupiter, twins!" exclamation over Demi & Daisy.

Even though I'm still pouting over the failure to cast David Oakes (Prince Ernst from Victoria) as Professor Bhaer, I did love Mark Stanley's admission that his book knowledge made him "learned, not wise."  There may have been a swoon involved at that.

[voiceover]

The worst part?  The Laurie/Amy romance.  *To-tal-ly* a rebound.  No other reason for this version of these two to get together.  And this from someone who (grudgingly) bought into previous versions of that relationship (book; 1994 film).  This Amy had no qualities to recommend her.  

Okay: blondness.

[Brookside]

What the hell is up with Jo's accent?  And Professor Bhaer is supposed to be twenty years older than her.  I made myself watch two minutes of tonight's episode (missed the first one) and it's an abomination.  (I do have to say that I tried to reread the book a few years ago and gagged,  I loved it so much as a child, but the writing is actually dreadful and so sentimental it's unbearable.)

[magdalene]

Lovely adaptation, I thought.  I knew everything that was going to happen but still cried.  It gave me so much feeling without being in the least maudlin and sentimental.  I thought Professor Bhaer was perfectly cast. The actor really had few scenes but you totally get why Jo married him.

Casting was perfect for everyone and the drama looked beautiful.

[MJ Frog]

As someone who never read the book, this was a lovely and moving introduction to the story. And I am fascinated by how much Maya's voice sounds like her mother's -- she sounds like her even more than she looks like her.

[Brn2bwild]

On 5/15/2018 at 2:04 AM, Cranberry said:

"Mellow out" sounds like a hippie saying, but it's actually late 1900s slang ("mellow" in this context meaning "ripen," or become softer and sweeter), so its use here is still anachronistic but isn't quite as bad as I thought!

(Although I just realized that while I was thinking of sometime between 1900-1909, often "1900s" means anything between 1900-1999, and "mellow out" may very well be from the '80s or something... in which case my defense of it is withdrawn.)

It reminds me of when I was reading a novel published in 1870, and the young upper-class character greeted his friend: "What's up?"

Really don't like this version's Amy.  I get that they don't want to replace Amy later in the series, but this one looks way too old to be acting the way she did.  She looks older than Beth!  It worked in the 1994 version because Kirsten Dunst actually was 12 or 13, and could effectively channel the brattiness of that age.  This Amy looks like she's 20 years old and just seems evil.

[voiceover]

1 hour ago, MJ Frog said:

As someone who never read the book, this was a lovely and moving introduction to the story.

Tomorrow I'm posting a rant in the appropriate thread, but meanwhile, wanted to tell you here: Read the book.  It's worth your time.  

Jonah!!  Thanks for growing your hair out for the heartbreak scene.  Who cares about Jo -- *I* was happy!

[kirinan]

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.

[JustDucky]

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 - but it was a fairly faithful retelling.

I thought Maya Hawke's acting improved as Jo aged.  Starting to wonder if her stilted delivery in part one was a directoral flub.

Mr. March was cast perfectly.

[SomeTameGazelle]

1 hour ago, JustDucky said:

I thought Maya Hawke's acting improved as Jo aged.  Starting to wonder if her stilted delivery in part one was a directoral flub.

Jo seemed too controlled to me throughout -- not at all prone to violent emotions. And there were too many times when I couldn't tell whether I was looking at Meg or Jo (even though I don't think they looked that much alike). 

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 but looking back at the book version it appears that they stripped a lot of the detail out -- I don't remember even seeing Meg tell Jo that she intended to tell John that she was too young.

I felt that the development of Professor Bhaer was given short shrift. A pity because I would have liked to see a version that doesn't try to make him clean-shaven but also conveys what Jo found appealing about him.

[kassa]

This is the first version where I thought Jo might have made a good choice with Bhaer.  As a child, of course, I was rooting for Laurie.  I haven't read the book in 30 years, but presume that the scene where Jo essentially tells her father he's a self-indulgent dreamer whose ideals have cost his family dearly was invented for the series?  

And now I'm googling pickled limes, because for the life of me, I can't figure out quite WHAT pickling will do to citrus... and I think I need to find out.

[SomeTameGazelle]

28 minutes ago, kassa said:

This is the first version where I thought Jo might have made a good choice with Bhaer.  As a child, of course, I was rooting for Laurie.  I haven't read the book in 30 years, but presume that the scene where Jo essentially tells her father he's a self-indulgent dreamer whose ideals have cost his family dearly was invented for the series?  

And now I'm googling pickled limes, because for the life of me, I can't figure out quite WHAT pickling will do to citrus... and I think I need to find out.

It's funny because this is the first time it occurred to me that Professor Bhaer was quite like Bronson Alcott (starting a progressive school (with a mixed-race pupil, although I don't think that was shown in this version), "Money doesn't stay in his pocket long enough to lay up any.").

Limes are apparently pickled in brine, not vinegar. I was surprised to see them depicted here as wedges since I had a vivid mental image of Amy having to throw the slices out of the window and in my head they were round.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asian_pickles

http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodfaq2.html#pickledlimes

[SusanSunflower]

Bhaer has always been controversial although this was the warmest, most touchy-feely Bhaer ever.  He also looks like he has never (or rarely) missed a meal, he's so laid-back, while my memory Bhaer was much more paternal, disappointingly so, as if Jo believed she needed a husband to keep her on the straight and narrow, a la Bronson Alcott.  

Yes, Jo's rebuke to her father seemed very Pride and Prejudice (though I don't remember Lizzie rebuking her even more deserving father) .  Yes also as someone mentioned to Aunt March as Lady Debourgh ... both scenes had an assertive pacing also at odds with the story (as I remember it, but I do remember all the sisters softer and generally "younger" (these sisters also looked botoxed to death) 

It was interesting having a fed-up-to-here Marmie and a cluelessly self-involved Jo (and the other sisters in turn, but that's traditional).  The sisters weren't meant to be paragons but they were supposed to have grown out of childish rivalries and feuds, in the face of real events and hardship, so that they were a bit quicker in the sensitivity and compassion departments, with emphasis on the toll that their bickering had on already stretched to breaking Marmie.  All the old folks, but particularly Emily Watson deeply conveyed accumulated hardships.  Aunt March never made much sense to me, was she changeable or games-playing?  

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)

Few scenes allowed more than 6 lines of dialogue (most only 3, a tv trope) with enough filler and meaningful pauses to fill a feather bed.  The palette and production values were over curated and the music (which I rather liked) had an Appalachian quality that seemed out of place. I had never I disliked Jo before, but oh my goodness, I disliked this imperious know-it-all one ... and such a minx (Stop telling Laurie "No" as you keep touching him tenderly ... maybe at 12 or 13 years, not at 16+.  Amy (who I always suspected would make Laurie unhappy rather quickly) came off as materialistic and calculating (not for the first time).   Personally, I hope DVD sales are dismal and this vanishes under the waves .... pretty as it is... it shouldn't become a widely accepted reading. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by SusanSunflower

[eel2178]

3 hours ago, kassa said:

And now I'm googling pickled limes, because for the life of me, I can't figure out quite WHAT pickling will do to citrus... and I think I need to find out.

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

[shipmate]

 I'll just say it, the Amy this version is a selfish little bitch.

[Thumper]

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.

[SusanSunflower]

Amy's the baby who grew up during hard times, struggling for the attention she craved but with less artistic talent than she hoped, but more the talent to be a pretty and pleasing companion leaving Aunt March unruffled.  She may not be the sharpest knife the drawer, but she does know how to wrest away her fair share of attention (rather than be neglected as some youngest kids are)   She has not only Jo, but long suffering Beth (whose illness and the attention is draws no one can resent).   Jo failed to please Aunt March (who may have been bored by Amy but who could take pride in having such a pretty and "artistic" companion.   and Laurie finally found a girl who said "yes" and (irrc) admired him (so much older) and needed his care and appreciated what he could give her. 

I always felt there was a bit of a dagger or hidden truthful insult to Laurie that Alcott had him married off to the baby sister who, now married, might well consider herself accomplished ... and Laurie would have his China doll wife to parade at public events.

I don't think "baby" Amy can be faulted too harshly for encouraging Laurie's company (pining over Jo) or accepting him (or Aunt March's decision to take her and not Jo). 

[voiceover]

Mark Stanley was cast, in part, because he is closer in age to Maya Hawke, which the producers felt would solve the "problem" ( their words) of the Jo/Professor Bhaer sl.

Imma take the rest to the book thread, where it belongs, but I will say here that Jo's attraction to the Professor was partly sexual -- she was away from home for the first time, and here was an educated, genial man who was obviously attracted to her.  It's possible that if Beth had lived, the marriage would never have happened -- even Alcott pointed out that by the time the Professor visited the Marches, a vulnerable Jo was open to his advances.

This version of Amy was not deserving of Laurie.  Book Amy definitely was. 

[voiceover]

One of the most egregious faults of this version is the disservice done to Amy March.   Series Amy is a spoiled, petulant, pretentious brat who never grew up, and snatched her sister's leftovers just because she could.

Book Amy, even at 12, learned from her mistakes.  And later it was more than just her lovely French and perfect looks, won her that coveted overseas trip with Aunt Carroll.  There's a chapter devoted to her behavior at the local charity art fair, where she makes the best of a horrid situation, and is even gracious to the bitter rival who put her there.  It gets noticed.

She tells Jo, "It may be your way to go through life, with your nose in the air and your elbows out, but it's not mine."  And since Jo was ruled by her passionate heart and her fiery temper, Amy's more reasoned disposition won the day.  Stuff like that is as true now as it was in Victorian times!  

Later on she turns down a much wealthier suitor in Fred Vaughn -- after swearing to Laurie she'd marry for money to help her family -- because by then, she'd fallen for Laurie (plus she never loved Fred), and was ashamed of her "mercenary ambition".

She gets The Boy, but abandons her artistic ambitions before then, when the sight of the European Masters makes her realize "talent isn't genius".

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.

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!

And after her dearest sister dies, Jo is as open and vulnerable as she's ever been.  She even admits that she might have accepted Laurie's proposal if he'd made a second attempt ("...not because I love him, but because I care more to *be* loved.").  But it's the Professor who proposes: the Right Man at the Right Time.  And marriage and motherhood don't stop her from fulfilling her dream of artistic success. 

I still love the book as much as I did as a child.  Jo was the heroine I put before me.  And I understand now, even better than I did then, that Alcott's theme is all about the importance of being a good person.   Looks and fame and wealth are fleeting.  Devotion to family, kindness, and generosity of spirit enrich your world.

 Marmee even declares she'd rather her four be "happy old maids" than unhappy wives -- a line that critics of Mrs March tend to overlook.

[voiceover]

3 hours ago, SusanSunflower said:

Laurie finally found a girl who said "yes" and (irrc) admired him (so much older) and needed his care and appreciated what he could give her. 

I always felt there was a bit of a dagger or hidden truthful insult to Laurie that Alcott had him married off to the baby sister who, now married, might well consider herself accomplished ... and Laurie would have his China doll wife to parade at public events.

Laurie was Jo's age, making him 3 years' senior to Amy.  Hardly "so much older".

And Amy was an accomplished, gracious young woman *before* their marriage.  This fact is glossed over by the rushed last 30 minutes of the series, which leaves out Amy's maturation process (plus the most important reason Aunt Carroll chose her for the trip), her relationship with Fred Vaughn, and her lecture to Laurie, which snapped him out of his post-Jo funk, and turned that relationship into more than a rebound. 

I hate this series for making me the Amy Defender, but you play the hand you're dealt.

[SusanSunflower]

Welcome Amy Defender!  She never made much an impression on me, but I don't think she's somehow a villain or "keeping Jo and Laurie apart" ... I thought Laurie was older and Amy was younger.  Most of the families I grew up around had very dominant eldest children who were often held responsible for younger siblings ... sometimes "idolized" but also resented as bossy and unfair.  Youngests were often considered "spoiled" when it was mostly parental fatigue that looked like indulgence.  Haven't read the book in many years so I'm not sure where the suggestion that Amy and Laurie were "lesser" ...  except that Jo might love Laurie but wanted in a life partner someone whose opinion she respected ... as well as trusted. Laurie in that sense loved her too much. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by SusanSunflower

[msrachelj]

On 5/21/2018 at 1:33 AM, MJ Frog said:

As someone who never read the book, this was a lovely and moving introduction to the story. And I am fascinated by how much Maya's voice sounds like her mother's -- she sounds like her even more than she looks like her.

i must be the only one who hated this. maya is a terrible actor in my opinion. she ruined it for me.

[Moxie Cat]

Anyone think the writer has seen the Megan Follows "Anne of Green Gables" one too many times? Two scenes seemed like direct (if possibly inadvertent) lifts....maybe just homages!

1. Jo reluctantly telling Laurie that she had sent a story into be published, and his immediate, loud proclamation to the passersby about it. Was this in the book? I couldn't help but remember "Anne Shirley, Avonlea's famous authoress!"

2. Jo, in response to the proposal, telling Laurie that she was "so desperately sorry." Exactly the same phrasing Anne uses to rebuff Gil.

These two scenes stood out to me so much, it makes me want to watch both back to back and compare other sequences.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Moxie Cat

[Wonkabar5]

13 minutes ago, Moxie Cat said:

Anyone think the writer has seen the Megan Follows "Anne of Green Gables" one too many times? Two scenes seemed like direct (if possibly inadvertent) lifts....maybe just homages!

1. Jo reluctantly telling Laurie that she had sent a story into be published, and his immediate, loud proclamation to the passersby about it. Was this in the book? I couldn't help but remember "Anne Shirley, Avonlea's famous authoress!"

2. Jo, in response to the proposal, telling Laurie that she was "so desperately sorry." Exactly the same phrasing Anne uses to rebuff Gil.

These two scenes stood out to me so much, it makes me want to watch both back to back and compare other sequences.

 

 YES, Yes Yes!!!!!     Gil even rang the bell on Anne's bike when he proclaimed it to any  passersby.  

Edited May 22, 2018 by Wonkabar5

[Moxie Cat]

1 minute ago, Wonkabar5 said:

I don't remember this exact wording ("famous authoress")  being in LW, but I could well be wrong

Sorry, i didn't mean it was the same wording there. I actually don't remember Laurie's exact line, only Gil's (I may have seen AoGG a couple of times ;) but it was along the same lines. "Concord's famous authoress!"

On the flip side, I would bet that Lucy Maud Montgomery was also a Little Women fan. It's like she thought, what if Jo was an orphan?

[Moxie Cat]

On May 21, 2018 at 1:33 AM, Brn2bwild said:

Really don't like this version's Amy.  I get that they don't want to replace Amy later in the series, but this one looks way too old to be acting the way

Totally agree. The book scene was completely ruined for me because it's one thing when a little girl has a tantrum and tosses a book into a fire. It's totally different when a teenager consciously does it (and a page at a time!) It just made Amy look like a bitchy mean girl.

In addition, one reason the two girls are asked to go to the theatre is because they are old enough to go and appreciate it. Amy is a little girl - that's another reason she wasn't invited. But if you have an Amy that looks as old as Jo and Meg, that logic doesn't quite work.

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. 

I cheered when Jo walloped her and wanted this Amy to drown. I am awful.

[SomeTameGazelle]

28 minutes ago, Moxie Cat said:

Anyone think the writer has seen the Megan Follows "Anne of Green Gables" one too many times? Two scenes seemed like direct (if possibly inadvertent) lifts....maybe just homages!

1. Jo reluctantly telling Laurie that she had sent a story into be published, and his immediate, loud proclamation to the passersby about it. Was this in the book? I couldn't help but remember "Anne Shirley, Avonlea's famous authoress!"

2. Jo, in response to the proposal, telling Laurie that she was "so desperately sorry." Exactly the same phrasing Anne uses to rebuff Gil.

These two scenes stood out to me so much, it makes me want to watch both back to back and compare other sequences.

I've been complaining about the 1985 Anne ripping off Little Women for years. These scenes are more like the June Allyson Little Women than L M Montgomery's book. 

[Moxie Cat]

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.

1 hour ago, SomeTameGazelle said:

I've been complaining about the 1985 Anne ripping off Little Women for years.

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.