Emma Watsson: "If i had a nickel for every time I played a girl who's time at the ball gets ruined by a boy while she wears a dress that was blue in the book, I'd have two nickels, which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice"
It’s always annoyed me so much how Laurie ruins Meg’s evening when she could have had such a nice time. I know he’s sorry later but poor Meg is shamed for trying out the life she might have lived had her family not lost their money
I read the book back in 8th grade (it was a part of our school’s curriculum) and there it was written that these wealthy people made a doll out Meg just to play w/ her and they didn’t really respect her. So Laurie supposedly “helped” her realize this here idk that was in the book.
I really empathize with Meg at this part of the movie (and book). I have always been the kind of person to want the finer things in life. I want to please people and assure that they are pleased with me, and know how easy it can be to get swept up in a group of people that you admire and go along with their ways of life. Before I know it, I am trying to mold myself to become someone else’s image of who I should be. I think this is EXACTLY what Meg struggles with in this story. Whether she is in a situation like Sally Moffat’s ball or a shopping day-out with a wealthy friend, she doesn’t want to be viewed as a less-than, so she is willing to compromise to meet other’s expectations.
@@harrietpotter649 I mean, that's how many people are. While it is kind, it doesn't always nessesarily stem from kindness/being nice. It's more of an insecurity. You don't feel adequate enough and thus need reassurance from those around you. Which is mainly why we have 'people pleasers'.
The way he behaved was wrong, but in the book is pretty clear that this rich people were making a fool out of Meg and she wasn’t comfortable with how they dressed her, but played the part anyway because people talked badly about her clothes and her family the night before. So Laurie saw that and got upset. Doesn’t excuse the way he acted, but in no way he should have supported Meg pretending to be someone she isn’t.
Considering how the fellow is now Paul Atraedes...I officially want Emma Watson to play the princess Paul marries! (It'd have been cool to have her narrating Dune, like the old one!)
It's from the book. In this chapter, Meg does go by Daisy while pretending to be rich, and she does also name her daughter Daisy later in the novel. My interpretation of this was that Louisa May Alcott (author) was creating some symbolism. Her daughter's name is a reflection of when Meg felt the most rich. It isn't ostentatious dresses and fake names that makes Meg's life rich in the end, but having children that she loves with her whole heart. Therefore, her biggest rich is her daughter/children.
Ok I know I'm a year late to this conversation and no one cares, but as someone with the same name (Margaret, called Meg): Meg is short for Margaret, both in my case in in Meg March's case Daisy is also a diminutive of Margaret (as in several romantic languages, marguerite / variations thereof is the word for a daisy). This is sometimes cute (as I would feel for Daisy March), and sometimes pretentious (as I think is the case here, with all of these upper class young women signalling that they also speak French) We can plausibly assume that Meg's daughter is named Margaret, after Meg, but given a different diminutive, which was a pretty normal thing for parents back then to do (see all the Scottish families where four generations of men are called John, Jack, Jock, Johnny i.e. all called John but with different diminutives)
I always hate laurie for being so rude to Amy first humiliating her at a ball js bcs he's drunk and offended by the fact that Amy said, and Amy also likes him, I mean she could just dropped him off by then, she didn't deserve his apology, and now talking to Amy's sister, Meg, doesn't made him any better than js a douchbag who is js so proud of himself
@@harrietpotter649 yup! Their hair is always out, they never wear bonnets, their clothing isn't structured and they're clearly not wearing corsets. The fact that it won an Oscar for costume is a travesty 😭
@@sims2lovealot Isn't it maybe in keeping with the March family values that the girls don't wear corsets? I thought the Marches were morally opposed to corsets.
@@harrietpotter649 Gosh no! Back in the 1800s not wearing a corset wasn't an option. It's not a "women constricting device" as it's wrongly considered these days, but it was actually a necessary piece of clothing that helped with posture and kept the heavy weight of the dresses off women's backs. Women would never go without wearing one, it would be extremely uncomfortable and they would look ridiculous and be considered very inappropriate. Those movies were you see women fainting because of corsets are completely dramatised and wrong. Yes, they did sometimes cause women to faint, but that was because it wasn't done up properly or wasn't correctly sized for the woman. Think of it like a much better bra that was actually tailored personally to each woman - in fact, bras are actually a step backwards in that they often don't provide proper support and cause most women back and shoulder pain.
