Little Women (2019)

[Blergh]

4 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I had wanted to see it, and I am glad I did- but I agree with you. It was SLOW, I was watching virtually with a friend, and she said she was bored so we just chatted. I didn’t buy the Laurie/Jo friendship but I did buy Amy not wanting to play second fiddle to Jo.

”Women, they have minds, and they have souls, as well as just hearts. And they’ve got ambition, and they’ve got talent, as well as just beauty. I’m so sick of people saying that love is all a woman is fit for......... but I’m just so lonely.”

I was feeling that this week, partly the pandemic, partly someone I love is very sick, so yeah.

 

One thing I DID like was that Amy's interest in Laurie wasn't dismissed as a mindless gold digger but that she actually voiced aloud to this suitor about how she believed she owed it to her family to be able to help support them. Not just a 'I'm now rich-look at ME'  deal! However,  there were few options available for women to be able to support one's family at that time- and that love wasn't something that a woman could afford to be brainless about since there were more consequences with less ability to 'bounce back' for women who had had their love interests crash and burn than for men who had had the same.

[Scarlett45]

1 minute ago, Blergh said:

One thing I DID like was that Amy's interest in Laurie wasn't dismissed as a mindless gold digger but that she actually voiced aloud to this suitor about how she believed she owed it to her family to be able to help support them. Not just a 'I'm now rich-look at ME'  deal! However,  there were few options available for women to be able to support one's family at that time- and that love wasn't something that a woman could afford to be brainless about since there were more consequences with less ability to 'bounce back' for women who had had their love interests crash and burn than for men who had had the same.

What gets me about the take on this is that the male peers of the March sisters knew and understood this as well. So I wonder why the male characters always act so pouty about "marrying for love" when they are the ones with the money, power, legal personhood etc. If they NEVER wanted to get married and just have a kept woman for their emotional/sexual needs they could do that- women did NOT have that option. They knew the consequences for women if they didn't marry well or married the wrong man.

[Blergh]

6 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

What gets me about the take on this is that the male peers of the March sisters knew and understood this as well. So I wonder why the male characters always act so pouty about "marrying for love" when they are the ones with the money, power, legal personhood etc. If they NEVER wanted to get married and just have a kept woman for their emotional/sexual needs they could do that- women did NOT have that option. They knew the consequences for women if they didn't marry well or married the wrong man.

As Evelyn Nesbitt Thaw (the Girl on the Velvet Swing) would prove when her husband Harry shot and killed her former . .patron Stanford White in Madison Square Garden in 1906 . This resulted in all classes of US Americans learning via the sensational trial of the seamy underworld of men's clubs and 'private rooms' where ilk like Mr. White paid struggling women like Miss Nesbitt to do their bidding to entertain them. Up to that point, this had only been whispered about in cigar filled rooms in stag situations (with only the wealthiest and most destitute circles having knowledge about with the middle classes and outwardly religious folks being largely ignorant of).  Yes, this startling turn of events happened a few decades after Miss Alcott's time but this 'secret world' had been ongoing for quite sometime-even before Miss Alcott's era.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Blergh

[paramitch]

As a fan of the book from childhood, I finally saw this, and had mixed reactions. I think overall it's a decent, and even brave, adaptation. I'm just not sure it's a successful one.

I really, really disliked the Mixmaster editing approach to the storyline. I understand that Gerwig was probably seeking for a new window into the story -- and I would've liked it if it had just been more of a "bookend" approach (Jo in New York at both ends), but the way it was presented I felt vastly weakened the material.

First off, the continuity was terrible. If I hadn't read LITTLE WOMEN a zillion times as a kid, I never would have known which was past, present, midpoint, later, etc. They always all looked the same across what, 10-12 years? Gah.

But my main issue was the fast-tracking and "clumping" of character and plot. Instead of the progression of the story in which we can see how the March girls (and Marmee, and Laurie) evolve in a natural and collective sense, instead each character felt rushed, like, "Oh well let's get their basic narrative out of the way."

Like, here, we see each girl's main plot points across all of LITTLE WOMEN and they're almost laughably presented, they're clumped together so damn fast:

BETH: Plays Mr. Laurence's piano | Makes slippers as a gift | gets piano | reveals Scarlet Fever | gets sick and nearly dies | manages end stages of illness | dies

MEG: The pretty one who hates their poverty | Has the one embarrassing ball | surreptitiously flirts with Brooke | hates poverty but loves Brooke

etc.

So there's no chance to enjoy the story progression organically. It's almost clinical. Beth is shy, then sick, then dying, then dead. 

Meg and Beth each get, what, 7-8 minutes in progression, then boom, story done. And then the rest is just Amy versus Jo, and for me, it's flawed due to production decisions.

It just felt false to me. True, Amy and Jo are similar people (and FWIW I always liked Amy in the book, although I never forgive her burning Jo's book), but ultimately they are also very different. And casting Pugh as Amy really didn't work for me, especially across such huge age gaps. Florence Pugh looks 5 years older than all the other sisters anyway, so her playing a child for me was laughable, not to mention (as others noted) she makes no effort to change her performance, as far as I can see, from child to woman. She makes no effort to lighten or heighten her voice and sounds like she smokes three packs a day even when playing "twelve," and even when presented as an older teen/adult with the other girls, she easily looks like the oldest in the group.

I prefer the linear story and feel like it's more effective -- and moving. And I really like Beth and Meg's stories played out right alongside Jo and Amy's -- each sister has a different thread, and it contributes in a meaningful way.

On 4/11/2020 at 6:09 PM, MerBearHou said:

I hated the non-linear aspect of following the book and felt it completely wiped out watching the story grow and attachments formed (both by the characters and by the viewer).  I know the book and the prior movies, but I tried to see this movie through the eyes of someone who wasn’t familiar — I don’t know how anyone would buy the love between Jo/Laurie, Amy/Laurie, Jo/the Professor and the sadness of Beth’s illness and death fell just totally flat for me.  Like elicited zero sadness.

This was my main takeaway as well. 

On 6/2/2020 at 10:30 AM, Conotocarious said:

I didn’t feel Florence Pugh was a believable 12 year old at all. I’ve never met a twelve year old girl who sounded like she’d been smoking two packs a day for ten years,

I didn't think Pugh was a believable 18 year-old. Much less 12.

On 8/2/2020 at 12:15 AM, Amethyst said:

On the flip side, I really liked what they did with Beth.  There was a real effort to illustrate her and give her some strength and desire of her own.  You could see how she and Mr. Laurence bonded.  And although she's clearly sensitive, you don't get the vibe that Beth is a total pushover compared to her sisters.  Claire Danes' version looked like she would blow away, and I say that as someone who loved that film.

To me the compressed storylines didn't work at all. Beth's just felt like a really fast Beth Commercial, then "Okay, we're done with Beth!" then BOOM, onward. I did love the inclusion of more Mr. Laurence's friendship with her here, but I hated the pacing.

On 2/5/2021 at 4:25 AM, Scarlett45 said:

”Women, they have minds, and they have souls, as well as just hearts. And they’ve got ambition, and they’ve got talent, as well as just beauty. I’m so sick of people saying that love is all a woman is fit for......... but I’m just so lonely.”

I was feeling that this week, partly the pandemic, partly someone I love is very sick, so yeah.

This speech and moment from Jo I thought was an incredible addition, and a really genuinely moving moment. (Also, I hope you're okay and that your loved one has recovered.)

Last but not least -- one thing I DID love? Gerwig's handling of Jo and Mr. Bhaer, who is one of my all-time most hated fictional characters. I cannot stand that he moralizes all over Jo right when she is actually getting accolades and MONEY for her writing, right when she is enjoying her independence. And I always hated that THAT was who she fell for in the book -- I hated it so much. For some moralizing paternalistic ass. The only Bhaer I've ever tolerated was Gabriel Byrne's because hey, it's Gabriel Byrne, but otherwise, AGHGHGH.

So the "gotcha" ending that Bhaer was a fictional construct was amazing, and I loved that the movie ended with Jo holding on dearly to her one true love -- her book, and by proxy, her writing.

Edited February 24, 2021 by paramitch

[Scarlett45]

24 minutes ago, paramitch said:

This speech and moment from Jo I thought was an incredible addition, and a really genuinely moving moment. (Also, I hope you're okay and that your loved one has recovered.)

Last but not least -- one thing I DID love? Gerwig's handling of Jo and Mr. Bhaer, who is one of my all-time most hated fictional characters. I cannot stand that he moralizes all over Jo right when she is actually getting accolades and MONEY for her writing, right when she is enjoying her independence. And I always hated that THAT was who she fell for in the book -- I hated it so much. For some moralizing paternalistic ass. The only Bhaer I've ever tolerated was Gabriel Byrne's because hey, it's Gabriel Byrne, but otherwise, AGHGHGH.

So the "gotcha" ending that Bhaer was a fictional construct was amazing, and I loved that the movie ended with Jo holding on dearly to her one true love -- her book, and by proxy, her writing.

You’re very sweet to me thank you, but no my loved one isn’t going to recover. 
 

(Bolding mine) YES I did love that part. 
 

Again I have loved Sairose Ronan’s acting since she was a child. She could act her way out of a brown paper bag, and the source material itself was great. I just think the director was trying to try something new and edgy and failed miserably. I found the YouTube video about the costume design more engaging!

[Humbugged]

On 2/24/2021 at 9:01 PM, paramitch said:

 

It just felt false to me. True, Amy and Jo are similar people (and FWIW I always liked Amy in the book, although I never forgive her burning Jo's book), but ultimately they are also very different. And casting Pugh as Amy really didn't work for me, especially across such huge age gaps. Florence Pugh looks 5 years older than all the other sisters anyway, so her playing a child for me was laughable, not to mention (as others noted) she makes no effort to change her performance, as far as I can see, from child to woman. She makes no effort to lighten or heighten her voice and sounds like she smokes three packs a day even when playing "twelve," and even when presented as an older teen/adult with the other girls, she easily looks like the oldest in the group.

 

I didn't think Pugh was a believable 18 year-old. Much less 12.

Pugh had as disease (tracheomalacia - that leaves the cartilage blocked forcing her trachia to stay open open ) that makes her sound like that that she had when she was little so 12 year old Flo sounded just like that as you notice in her youtube singing at that age

14

17

 

All 4 of her and all  her sibs sing,they dance ,they act ( her oldest sib is a theatre actor ,her brother was in GOT  and played Bocelli ,and the youngest is off to theatre school )

 

And half of that is your own bias as she is 2 years younger that SR and 6 years of a gap between her and the now nearly EW who is  just about to turn 32 . So you think she is 37 then

 

And how is she going to change her medical condition ?

[paramitch]

On 2/6/2022 at 12:08 PM, Humbugged said:

Pugh had as disease (tracheomalacia - that leaves the cartilage blocked forcing her trachia to stay open open ) that makes her sound like that that she had when she was little so 12 year old Flo sounded just like that as you notice in her youtube singing at that age

14

17

 

All 4 of her and all  her sibs sing,they dance ,they act ( her oldest sib is a theatre actor ,her brother was in GOT  and played Bocelli ,and the youngest is off to theatre school )

 

And half of that is your own bias as she is 2 years younger that SR and 6 years of a gap between her and the now nearly EW who is  just about to turn 32 . So you think she is 37 then

 

And how is she going to change her medical condition ?

I was simply commenting on her performance, which for me was not convincing as a grown actress trying to play twelve.

And you're right, they are absolutely my biases and opinions. That's what we're here to do -- exchange opinions.

I am of course very sorry to hear about Pugh's medical issues, and wish her health and happiness and continued recovery.

You're obviously a huge fan of hers, and more power to you. As for me, I've seen her do really good work in other roles, I just found her unconvincing and flat here. Luckily, this is a place designed for me to express that (as respectfully as I can).

Cheers.

[Darian]

I read Little Women for the first time just after my beloved eldest sister was diagnosed with a disease we know would (and did) significantly shorten her life, though she lived to be older than Beth. She was my lifelong best friend, and I remember her trying to gently prepare me for Beth's death without giving it away (my family did not want a repeat of me locked in the bathroom sobbing for hours after Charlotte's Web). I watched the movie today, and lately I've been grieving and missing my sister even more. I can't ever take any book, tv show, or movie where anyone loses a sister, but I've never not completely lost it when Beth dies until this movie. 

I don't know what it was, but I didn't consistently connect with the movie, though I do like some of Gerwig's choices (her talent, imo, is undeniable) and the ending gave it a twist I loved. I tend to be a hardass when people use non-linear storytelling unless there's reason and it works, and here, I feel there were hits and misses. I liked the novel writing and selling as a frame, but certain time-jump juxtapositions diluted rather than enhanced the emotional impact. Overall, I'm glad I watched and Pugh was good enough as adult Amy that I can forgive that she looked like an adult the whole time. I've been to Orchard House, have read a lot of other works by Alcott and books that have some of her letters and journals, so seeing Jo and Louisa blur a bit was kind of nice. 

Very late to the thread, didn't take enough time to "like" posts but I enjoyed the movie all the more for the commentary here. 

Edited March 31, 2022 by Darian

[Bastet]

I finally watched this, and it is by far my favorite film adaptation of the novel.

I read the book a very long time ago, and didn't care for it -- I only liked Jo of the sisters, and when she married that asshat professor I threw the book down in disgust that she got such a shitty ending.

I love Katharine Hepburn, so watched that film long ago, and loved her performance, but didn't like the movie as a whole.  When this film came out, what I read about it led me to believe I might like it, so I figured I'd watch some day.  In the interim, I tried the June Allyson film (could not get through it) and watched the '90s film (loved all the performances and thought the movie was okay).

This one, I finally like.  Hepburn will always be my favorite Jo (it's a role she was born to play), but Saoirse Ronan is fabulous.  In how she's written, and how she's performed by Florence Pugh, Amy finally has dimensions.  No one is ever going to make me believe Amy and Laurie love each other, but at least in this one I totally get Amy (and if it was simply that she knew she needed to marry for money, so she'd rather be stuck with Laurie than the other guy, that would have made sense; it's saying they really did fall in love that no one has ever pulled off).  Beth is still underdeveloped, but Meg has some depth.

The switching between times didn't confuse me at all, even as someone who barely remembers the book.

And, of course, letting Jo stay unmarried shoots it to the top of my list.  Jo didn't actually marry that guy, that's something the idiot male publisher demanded the fictional version of her do.  Since women have to marry in real life for economic reasons, Jo says, fine, I'll sell the character into marriage, but only for more money and the copyright.  Why did it take so long for someone to come up with this, especially knowing that Alcott had, in fact, been forced to marry Jo off in order to get the book published??  (I've seen it described countless times as ambiguous, but to me there's no question what we're seeing after the publisher makes his demand is what Jo wrote in response, not what actually had happened.)

Greta Gerwig did a great job with this, in writing, directing, and casting.

[Sarah 103]

@Bastet Katherine Hepburn is the best and possibly only good thing about the 1930s version. The 1994 version is the first decent movie version. The 2019 version is the first version where it actually made sense why Amy and Laurie ended up together. It felt like a real plausible relationship as opposed to something that happens because the plot demands it. 

The 2019 version is far and away my favorite version of Little Women. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Bastet said:

This one, I finally like.  Hepburn will always be my favorite Jo (it's a role she was born to play), but Saoirse Ronan is fabulous.  In how she's written, and how she's performed by Florence Pugh, Amy finally has dimensions.  No one is ever going to make me believe Amy and Laurie love each other, but at least in this one I totally get Amy (and if it was simply that she knew she needed to marry for money, so she'd rather be stuck with Laurie than the other guy, that would have made sense; it's saying they really did fall in love that no one has ever pulled off).  Beth is still underdeveloped, but Meg has some depth.

Bolded for emphasis and truth.

I read the book a LONG time ago, and Amy March was a difficult character to sympathize with until this adaptation. Bratty, selfish Amy who burned her sister's manuscript out of petulance and then didn't really apologize for it, but this is where I graduated to finally understanding that Amy really is stuck between family expectations and what she wants for herself. Jo, because she's the oldest and because she has some talent for writing, can probably get away with not marrying at all and she'd still be fine, support herself even if she has to make compromises, as Alcott herself did. Amy can't and, worse, she knows she can't. Maybe she really did love Laurie for all those years, but she's still the one who ends up settling, because I think Laurie would have married any of the March girls as long as it meant he could be part of their family. I don't mean to diss Jo in the slightest, but Amy's the one who actually grows beyond what she is in the book, and it's awesome.

[Sarah 103]

@Cobalt StargazerI agree with you about Laurie and the March sisters. What he wants more than anything is be part of their family and marrying into it is the best way to accomplish his dream/goal. If he couldn't marry Jo, then marrying Amy was just as good. 

I actually thinks that's another strong point of this version. It shows such a clear difference between his house/family and theirs. It makes it seem as though the March house is the fun one and of course someone/anyone would want to be part of that family given the choice.